i wasn't referring to labels in general, i was talking about a very specific one.
i consider myself to be non-religious (even agnosticism doesn't seem to fit my beliefs entirely) but i don't care if you call me religious or atheist or whatever you want with regard to my beliefs, because ultimately they are my beliefs and you can't take them away with a simple label.
Give us some examples of atheist dogma that get preached.
i agree with you, but all that doesn't imply that atheism isn't religious
as someone who is non-religious, i neither accept the belief of a deity nor do i reject it... i simply don't have enough knowledge and experience to believe either way
if you believe that god doesn't exist, that is still a belief based on faith because you obviously can't prove that none exist
For claim number 2 (God does not exist)... atheists can hold either position
that's not how atheism is defined or characterized... can you point out an atheist who (second point 2) disbelieves/rejects the claim that (first point 2) god does not exist?
for a supposedly simple logic problem, you still managed to cock it up... keep trying though:)
belief is faith based; theists have faith in god the same way as motorists have faith that other motorists travelling in the opposite direction will be on the other side of the road
belief is not fact to anyone
you're simply confused about the definition of such words
non-believer isn't the same as non-religious, which is a non-biased belief that neither accepts nor rejects the belief of a deity... that is why i consider myself to be non-religious
atheists like to argue why god doesn't exist, which is just as biased as any other belief
if an atheist were non-religious they wouldn't believe or argue either way (god or no god)
if atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is the most popular hobby in the world
a very popular argument from atheists, but they aren't analogous. atheism is not characterized by a lack of belief in god but an active belief in there being no god. perhaps this isn't what you personally believe, but i'm not calling you an atheist.
non-religious is a non-biased belief that neither believes in a deity nor rejects the belief of a deity... that is why i consider myself to be non-religious
atheists like to argue why god doesn't exist, which is just as biased as any other belief
if you were non-religious you wouldn't believe either way (god or no god)
apolitical: "Having no interest in or association with politics." atheist: Having no interest in or association with theism, right?
i don't think so
atheists are usually very interested in preaching their very biased beliefs (against the existence of god) and associating with other atheists.
a similar comparison with politics might be those who are interested in and associate with proving that current political systems are flawed, but "atheist" isn't comparable to "apolitical"
From wikipedia, apolitical is defined as:
"Politically neutral; without political attitudes, content, or bias"
The definition of atheism on Wikipedia is a little broader, but from the lead:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
In the middle somewhere it mentions "absence of belief that any deities exist", but that necessarily also requires belief that no deity exists, because atheism is by definition biased towards no deity (unlike apolitical which is defined by a lack of bias). If atheism was about absence of belief in deities but also absence of rejection of deities, then it would be less biased and closer to what I personally believe.
as do those who seek to persecute those who don't collect stamps, put stamp collecting into the pledge of allegiance, and integrate stamp collecting into their biology textbooks
very true, and i'm not arguing a case for stamp collecting... i personally avoid stamps almost altogether (except in lively discussions like this)
by definition we tend to only associate religion with spiritual beliefs
i also think you're confusing religious belief with faith... you have faith that the moon is still there. faith has a much broader scope than religion.
people only drive at great speed on one side of the road based on faith that people going in the opposite direction will be on the other side of the road or that they will have enough time to avoid someone driving on the wrong side... otherwise everyone would avoid driving due to unacceptable risk of injury or death.
this type of faith is similar to faith in a religious spiritual belief, and just as faith in the competence of other road users can be shattered, certain life changing events (such as car accidents even) can affect spiritual faith too.
there are lots of beliefs that could be considered religious (being shared by many), but we tend to limit the scope of the definition of the word religion to issues of spirituality. issues of faith are much broader though.
atheism is a dogma related to spirituality (choosing to believe there is no god is as much a spiritual choice as choosing to believe in one) and the beliefs of atheism are often preached, particularly in discussions like this. what makes atheism more than just faith is its social aspect.
Why are religious people so adamant that non-religious people are also religious people?
i'm not religious, and not because i'm "atheist" or agnostic or whatever, but because i don't subscribe to any dogma shared by others. this doesn't mean others don't share all or some of my beliefs, but i don't associate myself with them or refer to the same documented beliefs (i'm not aware of anywhere that my particular beliefs are documented). if you are really non-religious, you wouldn't have a problem with anyone (religious or otherwise) labeling you religious. why does it matter to you? people can believe what they want about you; their beliefs don't make it so.
the problem with russel's teapot is that is was clearly devised by philosophy to justify an opposing position to things like religion, but in reality which is a more unfalsifiable claim? that there is a god or that there isn't? who should make that judgement? obviously if atheists make the decision then theists will bear the burden of proof, but if theists make the decision then the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove there is no god.
i think it would seem fair that the burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to do the convincing, which means that atheists should be out there trying to discover proof that there is no god and that theists should be out there trying to find evidence that god exists.
that there doesn't seem to be much of that going on by either camp indicates that ultimately both realize that their beliefs are simply based on faith and that's all that is required, which is perfectly fine. if you can convince someone to share your beliefs based solely on faith, then that person is probably like minded to begin with.
Believe what you want, but don't be surprised if someone wants to argue when you proclaim your beliefs on the internet.
for sure, and it has been an interesting discussion
the problem is that our limited understanding of the universe also limits our capacity to collect, interpret and present evidence
even in court cases, sometimes a defendant is found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", and then many years later with new technology (such as DNA fingerprinting) they are exonerated. just because there is no evidence for something now doesn't mean there will never be any or that such evidence doesn't exist.
i'm not arguing for a moment that god definitely exists, because i simply don't know (i'm a bit skeptical but open to reason and possibility). atheists don't know either because if they did they would be the first to preach the evidence.
as i said in my op, "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence"... if you can't provide evidence of their being no god, then your argument is as flawed as those who can't provide any evidence that there is.
religion also doesn't really seem to be about truth... it is about faith, and i find it interesting to see just how fanatical some atheists are about pushing their supposed agenda for truth, yet they are as fanatical about a belief that can't be proven as the religions they despise.
This is the deepest religious question you will ever be asked.
maybe it was the deepest question you could ever be asked, but for me not really... you have spouted a lot of typical atheist dogma and i've heard much of it in some form or another before
unlikely possibilities may be dismissed unless there is strong evidence to support them
once upon a time when it was generally accepted that the world was flat and there was no evidence to the contrary, anyone who claimed otherwise was deemed a heretic
how about...
unlikely possibilities may be dismissed by the masses until there is strong evidence to support them
You don't have to prove something to believe in it, which is why Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity (etc); Atheists believe in the absence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof of their opponents (Christians etc) that there is a god. Atheism is no worse than Christianity though, because Christians believe in the existence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof from their opponents (Atheists) that there is no god. I don't necessarily think faith and proof are given equal weight, even by religions; lack of proof by the opponent is merely used as an argument to justify lack of faith in the opponent's beliefs. However, each party necessarily has faith in their own beliefs without requiring proof, otherwise nobody would believe in anything because currently neither belief can be proven.
You may have been sarcastic in your reply, but there is nothing wrong with a belief in unicorns or any other magical creature, because really they aren't any more incredible than any other supposedly more credible belief, because ultimately all beliefs are unproven; otherwise they would be facts.
someone should stick the 7 minute clip at the start of a pirated copy of the latest hollywood flick and then spread that throughout the torrent world... that would help with marketing for the indie film and really piss the mpaa off... two birds, one stone:)
atheists are religious too; they prescribe to the dogma that there is no god, but it's not like they have any more proof of their beliefs than those that believe god exists. they often argue that a lack of undeniable proof in god proves there isn't one (an argument from ignorance), neglecting that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
i don't prescribe to any religious doctrine (such as a bible or physics textbook, both usually containing questionable prophecies and hypotheses) so i don't associate with atheism... i have my own beliefs that i'm not aware are shared by others in any sort of organizational sense. my beliefs include bits of various religions that make sense to me (Jesus may indeed have been a real man that existed around 2000 years ago), as well as practical science that can be demonstrated by experiment, and a belief that because there is so much about the universe that we are yet to discover let alone understand that it is foolish to disregard 'fringe' phenomenon like magic, ghosts and fortune telling (i'll admit i'm a little bit skeptical about ghosts for example but only because of a lack of personal exposure but i'm still open to possibilities).
i think choosing to believe in god or that there is no god is fine... problems arise when like minded folks get together and form gangs (organized religions) and try to convince or coerce others of their beliefs. sharing beliefs is a good thing, but when people get together certain negative aspects of human nature (such as greed and tyranny) can be amplified and other individuals can be taken of. while i don't see any benefit (or point) in banning organised religion, i thing we should be a bit careful about how it can be misused.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course people care when others label them.
i wasn't referring to labels in general, i was talking about a very specific one.
i consider myself to be non-religious (even agnosticism doesn't seem to fit my beliefs entirely) but i don't care if you call me religious or atheist or whatever you want with regard to my beliefs, because ultimately they are my beliefs and you can't take them away with a simple label.
Give us some examples of atheist dogma that get preached.
how about that god supposedly doesn't exist?
i agree with you, but all that doesn't imply that atheism isn't religious
as someone who is non-religious, i neither accept the belief of a deity nor do i reject it... i simply don't have enough knowledge and experience to believe either way
if you believe that god doesn't exist, that is still a belief based on faith because you obviously can't prove that none exist
For claim number 2 (God does not exist)... atheists can hold either position
that's not how atheism is defined or characterized... can you point out an atheist who (second point 2) disbelieves/rejects the claim that (first point 2) god does not exist?
for a supposedly simple logic problem, you still managed to cock it up... keep trying though :)
it was a play on words in response to a similar comment
You cannot "lack belief that there is no god" without believing in god
that's probably why i was talking about Christians and Catholics at the time :)
a fact can be proven
belief is faith based; theists have faith in god the same way as motorists have faith that other motorists travelling in the opposite direction will be on the other side of the road
belief is not fact to anyone
you're simply confused about the definition of such words
or the snow storm channel :)
non-believer isn't the same as non-religious, which is a non-biased belief that neither accepts nor rejects the belief of a deity... that is why i consider myself to be non-religious
atheists like to argue why god doesn't exist, which is just as biased as any other belief
if an atheist were non-religious they wouldn't believe or argue either way (god or no god)
if atheism is a religion, then NOT collecting stamps is the most popular hobby in the world
a very popular argument from atheists, but they aren't analogous. atheism is not characterized by a lack of belief in god but an active belief in there being no god. perhaps this isn't what you personally believe, but i'm not calling you an atheist.
non-religious is a non-biased belief that neither believes in a deity nor rejects the belief of a deity... that is why i consider myself to be non-religious
atheists like to argue why god doesn't exist, which is just as biased as any other belief
if you were non-religious you wouldn't believe either way (god or no god)
its fun to discuss though :)
apolitical: "Having no interest in or association with politics." atheist: Having no interest in or association with theism, right?
i don't think so
atheists are usually very interested in preaching their very biased beliefs (against the existence of god) and associating with other atheists.
a similar comparison with politics might be those who are interested in and associate with proving that current political systems are flawed, but "atheist" isn't comparable to "apolitical"
From wikipedia, apolitical is defined as:
"Politically neutral; without political attitudes, content, or bias"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apolitical
The definition of atheism on Wikipedia is a little broader, but from the lead:
"Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
In the middle somewhere it mentions "absence of belief that any deities exist", but that necessarily also requires belief that no deity exists, because atheism is by definition biased towards no deity (unlike apolitical which is defined by a lack of bias). If atheism was about absence of belief in deities but also absence of rejection of deities, then it would be less biased and closer to what I personally believe.
as do those who seek to persecute those who don't collect stamps, put stamp collecting into the pledge of allegiance, and integrate stamp collecting into their biology textbooks
very true, and i'm not arguing a case for stamp collecting... i personally avoid stamps almost altogether (except in lively discussions like this)
The burden of proof always lies with the person who makes the claim that something exists.
actually the burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to make a convincing argument
Makes me wonder what your reply might have been if I had said...
Goliath (Hollywood) is simply worried that David (indie) may create an RPG.
by definition we tend to only associate religion with spiritual beliefs
i also think you're confusing religious belief with faith... you have faith that the moon is still there. faith has a much broader scope than religion.
people only drive at great speed on one side of the road based on faith that people going in the opposite direction will be on the other side of the road or that they will have enough time to avoid someone driving on the wrong side... otherwise everyone would avoid driving due to unacceptable risk of injury or death.
this type of faith is similar to faith in a religious spiritual belief, and just as faith in the competence of other road users can be shattered, certain life changing events (such as car accidents even) can affect spiritual faith too.
there are lots of beliefs that could be considered religious (being shared by many), but we tend to limit the scope of the definition of the word religion to issues of spirituality. issues of faith are much broader though.
atheism is a dogma related to spirituality (choosing to believe there is no god is as much a spiritual choice as choosing to believe in one) and the beliefs of atheism are often preached, particularly in discussions like this. what makes atheism more than just faith is its social aspect.
Why are religious people so adamant that non-religious people are also religious people?
i'm not religious, and not because i'm "atheist" or agnostic or whatever, but because i don't subscribe to any dogma shared by others. this doesn't mean others don't share all or some of my beliefs, but i don't associate myself with them or refer to the same documented beliefs (i'm not aware of anywhere that my particular beliefs are documented). if you are really non-religious, you wouldn't have a problem with anyone (religious or otherwise) labeling you religious. why does it matter to you? people can believe what they want about you; their beliefs don't make it so.
the problem with russel's teapot is that is was clearly devised by philosophy to justify an opposing position to things like religion, but in reality which is a more unfalsifiable claim? that there is a god or that there isn't? who should make that judgement? obviously if atheists make the decision then theists will bear the burden of proof, but if theists make the decision then the burden of proof is on the atheists to prove there is no god.
i think it would seem fair that the burden of proof lies with whoever is trying to do the convincing, which means that atheists should be out there trying to discover proof that there is no god and that theists should be out there trying to find evidence that god exists.
that there doesn't seem to be much of that going on by either camp indicates that ultimately both realize that their beliefs are simply based on faith and that's all that is required, which is perfectly fine. if you can convince someone to share your beliefs based solely on faith, then that person is probably like minded to begin with.
Believe what you want, but don't be surprised if someone wants to argue when you proclaim your beliefs on the internet.
for sure, and it has been an interesting discussion
the problem is that our limited understanding of the universe also limits our capacity to collect, interpret and present evidence
even in court cases, sometimes a defendant is found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt", and then many years later with new technology (such as DNA fingerprinting) they are exonerated. just because there is no evidence for something now doesn't mean there will never be any or that such evidence doesn't exist.
i'm not arguing for a moment that god definitely exists, because i simply don't know (i'm a bit skeptical but open to reason and possibility). atheists don't know either because if they did they would be the first to preach the evidence.
as i said in my op, "absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence"... if you can't provide evidence of their being no god, then your argument is as flawed as those who can't provide any evidence that there is.
religion also doesn't really seem to be about truth... it is about faith, and i find it interesting to see just how fanatical some atheists are about pushing their supposed agenda for truth, yet they are as fanatical about a belief that can't be proven as the religions they despise.
This is the deepest religious question you will ever be asked.
maybe it was the deepest question you could ever be asked, but for me not really... you have spouted a lot of typical atheist dogma and i've heard much of it in some form or another before
unlikely possibilities may be dismissed unless there is strong evidence to support them
once upon a time when it was generally accepted that the world was flat and there was no evidence to the contrary, anyone who claimed otherwise was deemed a heretic
how about...
unlikely possibilities may be dismissed by the masses until there is strong evidence to support them
ftfy
I agree atheism can signify a quantity or quality of religion similar to the way black is considered a color...
no, actually i'm pretty sure atheism signifies a belief in there being no god
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
it has as much to do with other religions (or aspects of them) as other religions have to do with atheism
I don't think a lot of atheists positively assert that there is no god or higher power. They merely lack belief in god/higher power.
The same could be said of Christians and Catholics... they don't all positively assert that there is a god, but they lack belief that there is none.
If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and not stamp collecting is a hobby
or maybe your analogies aren't analogous
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3690931&cid=43563755
You don't have to prove something to believe in it, which is why Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity (etc); Atheists believe in the absence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof of their opponents (Christians etc) that there is a god. Atheism is no worse than Christianity though, because Christians believe in the existence of god without proof, but in any argument they require proof from their opponents (Atheists) that there is no god. I don't necessarily think faith and proof are given equal weight, even by religions; lack of proof by the opponent is merely used as an argument to justify lack of faith in the opponent's beliefs. However, each party necessarily has faith in their own beliefs without requiring proof, otherwise nobody would believe in anything because currently neither belief can be proven.
You may have been sarcastic in your reply, but there is nothing wrong with a belief in unicorns or any other magical creature, because really they aren't any more incredible than any other supposedly more credible belief, because ultimately all beliefs are unproven; otherwise they would be facts.
And people who don't collect stamps have a hobby
maybe not, but people who don't collect stamps but instead direct their efforts into deriding those that do collect stamps clearly have a hobby :)
someone should stick the 7 minute clip at the start of a pirated copy of the latest hollywood flick and then spread that throughout the torrent world... that would help with marketing for the indie film and really piss the mpaa off... two birds, one stone :)
Goliath (Hollywood) is simply worried that David (indie) may create a slingshot.
the problem with psychologists is that it isn't in their interest for everyone to be happy (even if deliriously so)
they would rather ban marijuana outright and have everyone on antidepressants instead
atheists are religious too; they prescribe to the dogma that there is no god, but it's not like they have any more proof of their beliefs than those that believe god exists. they often argue that a lack of undeniable proof in god proves there isn't one (an argument from ignorance), neglecting that absence of evidence is not necessarily evidence of absence.
i don't prescribe to any religious doctrine (such as a bible or physics textbook, both usually containing questionable prophecies and hypotheses) so i don't associate with atheism... i have my own beliefs that i'm not aware are shared by others in any sort of organizational sense. my beliefs include bits of various religions that make sense to me (Jesus may indeed have been a real man that existed around 2000 years ago), as well as practical science that can be demonstrated by experiment, and a belief that because there is so much about the universe that we are yet to discover let alone understand that it is foolish to disregard 'fringe' phenomenon like magic, ghosts and fortune telling (i'll admit i'm a little bit skeptical about ghosts for example but only because of a lack of personal exposure but i'm still open to possibilities).
i think choosing to believe in god or that there is no god is fine... problems arise when like minded folks get together and form gangs (organized religions) and try to convince or coerce others of their beliefs. sharing beliefs is a good thing, but when people get together certain negative aspects of human nature (such as greed and tyranny) can be amplified and other individuals can be taken of. while i don't see any benefit (or point) in banning organised religion, i thing we should be a bit careful about how it can be misused.