The group mentality here is that Religion has done nothing good for the world while causing great ills and that Science does the exact opposite. Both claims are demonstrably false, but it's pointless to try and point out the good that religion has done. The ills of science are a little more accepted, but only slightly so.
Religion have historically constrained the best of human nature while canonizing the worst. They most often trade on authoritarianism, ignorance and conformity. They have long acted as a retardant of human progress, and are collectively the greatest threat to global stability that we see. Science is what drug us out of the muck and mire that religions have tried to bury us in. I'll take an honest search for knowledge over childish dogma every time.
Let me be clear: I take no issue with mocking the cult's wacky beliefs. What I take issue with is the misinformation in the summary that paints a much larger group as being completely irrational and that much of the "conversation" here is general religion-bashing; due in part to the atheist zealots who are even more vigilant of possible soapboxes than their religious counterparts, and due in part to the misleading headline. If you equate the belief in a supreme being with the belief that USB is the devil's connection then you are as much a zealot as those in the cult, and the fact that the reader is led to believe that this measure is backed by all Christians in Brazil shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity.
The core Christian beliefs are no less irrational and wacky than this particular tidbit. It's no more irrational than magic sky fathers, burning bushes, impossible arks, talking snakes, rib created humans, nonexistent floods, healing disease with prayer, imagining that you are immune to snake venom, that fish guts can drive away demons, that there are magical invisible monsters and heroes vying for your soul, that believing the wring things lands you in a pit of fire or even the whole stupid idea that you must achieve forgiveness for nonexistent sins through the mutilation and killing of people and animals. And you think that a silly trident belief is somehow more wacky than this crap?
Feel free to abuse the moderation system and mark this Troll as well so that the Two Minutes Hate may continue uninterrupted.
You think that THIS is hate?! Why don't you go do a google image search on "sectarian violence," if you have the stomach for it. That's hate, and most of it is bred in that fucked up institution we collectively call religion.
Umm, maybe.. I don't know what the question is... also I am not the same "you", i am another "you" unmocked, so far.
Alas, the uncertainty inherent in arguing with AC.
In the same way being a jerk and saying "im joking" makes it all better. What is true in your mind is not a global truth, what others think is also true(at least to them). It seems to me you use definitions to hold things in certain places, so that they cannot be more or less than what you have defined. I find this limiting. It is possible that a whole bunch of small parts make up a whole, each defined by the other all to create a single - or more likely a tangle. So is it possible it could be that atheism is a part of "that" - for without atheism, would "that" still be "that", or would it be "this".
I use definitions for clarity. If you do not have a clear definition of a concept, then how can you possibly communicate about it? And if two people are arguing about a concept for which they hold two differing definitions, then they aren't communicating about that concept at all.
Well at least its a possibility. Is this how you "practise" your religion. If so I'm glad to have helped:) I guess that you enjoy this as much as I do, but for different reasons.
I suppose in part it is. But I do enjoy it, especially with a glass of good red wine.
I agree, that does not seem the illusion you are under. But that is the great thing about illusions, if you knew you were under the effects of one, it would cease to be an illusion. I found myself under the illusion the other day that no one had thought of making hot chip nachos, but a little searching and alas, i was not unique in this regard. The trick is never to stay under the same illusion for too long.
I agree. I was under the illusion of theism myself for quite a while, and it is refreshing to be out from under that illusion.
Strong disagreement here. I was a missionary for two years, and I could count the number of people I met who actually believed (their faith) what their church said was correct (their religion). Even the number of people who have read the book(s) they consider scripture is pretty small, not to mention all the official declarations and positions churches take.
Being heterodox is not the same thing as being without a religion. And being ignorant of your particular church's dogma and scripture is also not the same as being without religion.
Here's the kicker. If atheism is going to be meaningful then it must necessarily have some central defining opinion. If atheism lacks a central defining opinion, then it cannot be an "-ism." You, along with your Internet buddies, have made atheism into a meaningless term.
Rendering it completely meaningless is a noble goal, as that will happen when theism is finally regulated to the dustbin of mythology. I would be perfectly happy knowing that my grandchildren won't have any reason to think about atheism at all.
A discussion is the sharing and supporting of differing opinions on an issue. With regard to theism, the opinions of the theist are often well known (i.e., "God exists" is a true proposition, etc.). What are the opinions of the atheist?
It depends on the individual. Some don't have an opinion(my kids for all the years until they became aware of the god concept). Some find theism to be benign. Some, like myself, find it to be a toxic and puerile concept. You answer could range from "I don't know if a god exists" to "I believe that this certain set of gods don't exist" to "I believe that no god exists."
Have you not read any of my posts? The thing I am doing when I mock you and poke fun at you? That's not atheism. That's anti-theism. If I have a religion, it is a form of secular humanism. My atheism informs my disgust of theism, but it is not the same thing. It's my anti-theism and general asshole tendencies which lead me to have fun attacking theists. I'm under no illusion that speaking to theists in such a forum does anything at all to dent their delusions.
Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.
I would agree if religion were just silliness. It isn't. It is horribly damaging. The key teaching of religions is that believing in things that are provably false is a virtue. They call it faith. What's worse is that the more absurd a thing that you can believe in the more virtuous you are. A person who believes that the earth is literally about 7,000 years old has much stronger faith than a person who equivocates and says that Genesis is metaphorical. Faith is the one basic teaching that is at the root of so much suffering. It leads directly to fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam is the Taliban, and the intensely repressive regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Fundamentalist Judaism believes that despite being largely absent for a thousand or so years they have a right given them by some sky guy to possess to the exclusion of all others a bit of real estate at the East end of the Mediterranean Sea. Christian fundamentalists lead America into unwinnable wars that sap our spirits and drain our treasury. Fundamentalist personality cult is the twisted crap that has lead to decades of starvation and tyranny in North Korea.
Please teach your children this: if you have seen it proven then believe it until you see it dis-proven. Be skeptical about everything else.
I agree completely. But you treat my offhand comment as if it is the only response we should make. The silliness of religion should be mocked in many situations while at the same time more serious attacks are leveled in more appropriate venues. Sometimes a jeer is a more effective tool than an essay.
Yes, I understood the distinction you were making between "atheism in isolation" and "atheism in contrast with theism." This distinction is unhelpful with regard to my question.
If atheism has meaning then it is possible to critique the idea. And, as a consequence, it is possible to discuss the idea. Therefore, what does one think or talk about when one has the desire to critique or discuss atheism?
Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.
If atheism had meaning then atheism would have substance. If atheism had substance then atheism could be discussed. Yet, we've agreed atheism offers nothing to be discussed. Thus, atheism can have no meaning.
Atheism in isolation has no meaning. When contrasted with theism, however, it does have meaning. It is, in fact, only recognized because there is a concept called theism. In a world without theism, atheism would be completely unknown, even though it would be state of everyone in the world.
The basic picture is clear. You have a preferred definition of atheism and assume it's the only one or only correct one. Either way, the "lack of theistic belief" conception of atheism is really nothing more than a propaganda tool. (See? It's fun to oversimplify.)
Since one cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist, one could argue that atheism is a belief system as well.
No. Being agnostic is a different axis that atheism and theism. Some agnostics are atheists(don't believe in a god and don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it) and some are theists(believe in a god but don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it).
And, again, atheism is not a system. It is a statement about a single point of belief.
If we agree atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, is simply referring to a state of being (i.e., a simple description of what is), as oppose to intellectual assent (i.e., a belief), then the question "Why are you an atheist?" is meaningless.
Bingo!
It would be akin to asking a tree, "Why are you a tree?" It does not make sense to ask either question because the terms are simply referring to a state of being.
With that in mind, why do atheists answer the question, "Why are you an atheist?"
Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.
It is a meaningless question. Yet, for some reason, atheists feel compelled to give an answer. (More often than not, they appeal to a lack of evidence for the existence of gods.) So, if atheists are compelled to give an answer, I find it difficult to believe that atheism does not mean something more than a simple lack of theistic belief to the atheist. I am inclined to belief atheists actually mean more by atheism than they let onto with the lack of theistic belief definition. (I would willing grant such meaning is subconscious rather than a conscious intent to deceive, though.)
I am compelled to answer simply because many people assume that it is a choice, or a rebellion, or any of a number of things. They assume this for different reasons, usually because they are theists who cannot imagine someone who lives without that baggage. If you probe deeper, you will usually find that the question they are really asking is "how come you are not like me?" And this usually requires some explanation, since it is not obvious to them. And in the cases where the question is asked genuinely and in a format that allows it, I do so, all the while making clear that I am answering these questions largely as a secular humanist and an anti-theist, not necessarily in the strict category of atheist.
Yes I find that when a large mob comes with sinister instruments designed to torcher, mame or kill me, that responding to accusations with "You big silly" is the wisest move.
Well, yeah, if they showed up in person, I would be more likely to reach for something with a bit more bite(or bang, as the case may be) than mockery. But, this being the internet and all, ridicule will do nicely.
Well, not exactly. If one wanted to oversimplify things then sure. For the rest of us who live in reality, we realize there are many different conceptions of atheism, and some of these conceptions would qualify as a religion under some definitions of religion.
Nope. There are many different belief systems which may include atheism, and some of those may be considered religions, but not atheism itself.
Thus, it's too simplistic to simply pound the table saying, "Atheism is not a fucking religion."
Though, I can certainly understand the psychology behind why "Internet atheists" would not want atheism to be viewed as a religion, a dogma, a position, or a worldview.
Wow, you just keep missing the basic picture, don't you? Atheism could be part of a religion. It could be a dogmatic statement. It could be a position and it most certainly does inform a worldview. But it is not any of those.
I can certainly understand why you want to try and equate them, though. Religions are in general so foolish and puerile that you have to imagine that the atheist you are debating is saddled with the same nonsense that you are. Otherwise, you just end up looking like a jackass jawing on about hand-me-down delusions.
I mean, if it were any of these things then an atheist would bare a burden -- the burden of supporting their perspective.
I have no problem supporting my perspective. I do it all the time. But my position is far more than simple atheism.
As it is, the pansy definition of atheism provides atheists with a means to attack theism, and then when rightly the theists expect the atheists to present and defend an alternative perspective, per the Gricean maxims of conversation, they can simply retreat back to their safety hole. (In other words, I see atheists who push this definition as nothing more than intellectual pussies.)
That's ok. I see theists as intellectual pussies who can't handle reality and so run like little sobbing children to hide behind the skirts of their imaginary sky bully who will protect them from the universe which really doesn't give a flying fuck about them. Grow the fuck up.
Er, believing that there is no "theos" IS a belief, and its a belief about the spiritual.
Yeah, it means "without god," which includes those who simply lack a theistic belief(the broadest point of the term) and those who actively deny deities. It includes many of what are commonly called agnostics as well.
Its not like there are those who believe certain things about certain gods, and then theres the athiests; athiests hold certain views about gods, namely that they dont exist. Whether or not you want to call this a faith or a religion is a matter of semantics, but unless youre a nihilist, you certainly believe something.
My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists. They had no conception of a deity until it was installed in them. Now, they reject deities. They have met both the broad definition and the more restrictive one. Since it is a single axis of belief that entails no dogma, no scripture and no practices, there is no basis for calling it a religion.
It sounds like youre defining "religion" as any systematized belief in or about the supernatural. That being the case, why is the belief "your god doesnt exist" exempt?
Nope. Religions can be entirely atheistic or non-supernatural . And a simple belief in a deity is not necessarily a religion. That's my point. A single point of belief does not a religion make.
A "lack of a belief in a god" is a belief that there is no god. You keep wording it in the negative as if to hide the fact that you too have beliefs that can be scrutinized.
No, you keep ignoring the fact that there are two different states that we are talking about. That's why things like strong and weak atheism are defined. Simply saying "atheism is a religion" is wrong, as it doesn't mean anything. There are atheists all along that spectrum, including those who attend and promote religions.
I imagine parent doesnt like the term religion because it is ambiguous and not a terribly useful word. I would define it as "the way people behave in response to what they believe", which, while (IMO) it captures how people use the word, is so incredibly broad as to not be terribly useful.
I imagine that they do it in an attempt to distance themselves from the very public failings of organized religion while still holding onto the same irrational beliefs. Every time I have run across this claim, it has come from a Protestant Christian who wanted to claim that their church, their beliefs and their religious authority figure were not the same as all of the others. I could be wrong, of course, but I very much doubt that this case is much different.
Sigh. The wrong one is marked as troll, and the wrong one as insightful. And your insightful comment stays at zero.
I'm getting tired of slashdot - any good substitutes?
Maybe it's because the rest of the world is getting increasingly tired of the rampant irrational stupidity that religion brings to the table, and we are more and more willing to mock those who keep pushing it. Religion in general is a childish and immature response to life, and I for one believe that it should be treated as such.
Well, actually, there are growing numbers of individuals who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious". They seem to have no issues with differentiating themselves between practicing their theologies, which may or may not be theistic, and practicing a traditional religion.
Great. If they are "practising" something, then it's a religion, pretty much by definition. Being non-theistic has no bearing on the issue in the least.
They generally seem interested in personal spiritual growth outside of a formal religion (which has a public or social aspect).
You've described a private religion, nothing more.
As far as Atheists go, I don't know if I would go so far as claiming they share such concepts as ritual or dogma. I have noticed that they are capable of having the same rigidity of beliefs and intolerance of other people's beliefs as any other dick.
Indeed. The only thing that necessarily binds atheists together is that they lack a belief in gods. That's it. They can be pricks(like me) or nice people. They can be rigid or flexible in their beliefs. They can be hard nosed realists or flighty irrational whackos. That was one of my points in my response. You can't define atheism as a religion because it doesn't entail any of the things you'd need to define it as such. It is exactly one dimension of belief in a whole spectrum.
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, or a belief that there is no god?
"someone who denies the existence of god" according to Google. Denying something is different from simply "not believing" in something.
Indeed, this is what is commonly called strong and weak atheism. Strictly speaking, atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. The second definition is included as a subset under this more broad definition.
I have no theistic beliefs, thus I am an atheist. I also believe that all of the gods that I am familiar with are non-existent. In addition, I also believe that theistic beliefs are downright harmful, both to individuals and society as a whole. So, I am anti-theistic.
So I assume that you would in the latter group then since you don't understand the difference between faith and religion.
It depends on how it's used. Faith is just belief which is not based on proof. But a lot of people call their religion "faith." It seems especially popular in Christian circles. In most cases, there is no difference.
Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion.
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.
A personal faith in god is not the same as a belief system/religion/philosophy.
What a load of bullshit. If your "faith" includes scriptures, commandments and the like, it's a religion, and your naive sounding assertions are crap.
Religion is a man made system of dogma and rituals.
Modern Atheism has a set of man made rituals and dogma. Ergo, Atheism == Religion.
Since you can't define a single piece of ritual or dogma which would include atheists, aside from the obvious "lack of belief in a god" entailed in the definition, you can't even make this specious piece of reasoning work.
I have a brain and I do not follow a religion. I have a personal faith in god and I share that faith with a community of believers.
In other words, a fucking church. Geez, are you another liar for Jesus?
The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: Those with brains, but no religion, And those with religion, but no brains.”
- Abul Ala Al-Maarri
I'd have to say that this is incorrect. There are plenty of smart people who manage somehow to believe in various deities and such. And there are plenty of dumbasses who have at least figured out that there is no god. Smart people are just as capable of irrational thoughts as anyone else.
I'm also fully aware that no scientist (or group of scientists) have been able to get non-living matter to start doing the chemical reactions needed to create organic life from the chemical soup.
You keep making the same mistake in pretending that there is some fundamental difference between chemistry depending on where it is taking place. Scientists can replicate proteins in the lab. They can create entirely new proteins. They can remove the DNA from a bacterial cell and insert an artificially generated DNA sequence, creating a new hybrid species.
The idea that we need to replicate the original conditions of abiogenesis is ludicrous, and makes me suspect that you have no grasp of the scale involved in such a useless project. Work from people like Craig Venter is improving our understanding of cellular chemistry constantly, and the only people who think that we are not within a few years of replicating an entire organism from scratch are those attempting to prop up ancient mythologies.
Oh, and I found your act of changing our relationship status to be "foe" quite amusing. It fits with the petulant and myopic nature of your posts. But, on the other hand, you are quite right. I am anti-theistic, and I am quite happy to do my little part helping to whittle away the various misconceptions and downright lies that keep your fellow theists in mental and moral slavery.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you really surprised?
The group mentality here is that Religion has done nothing good for the world while causing great ills and that Science does the exact opposite. Both claims are demonstrably false, but it's pointless to try and point out the good that religion has done. The ills of science are a little more accepted, but only slightly so.
Religion have historically constrained the best of human nature while canonizing the worst. They most often trade on authoritarianism, ignorance and conformity. They have long acted as a retardant of human progress, and are collectively the greatest threat to global stability that we see. Science is what drug us out of the muck and mire that religions have tried to bury us in. I'll take an honest search for knowledge over childish dogma every time.
Let me be clear: I take no issue with mocking the cult's wacky beliefs. What I take issue with is the misinformation in the summary that paints a much larger group as being completely irrational and that much of the "conversation" here is general religion-bashing; due in part to the atheist zealots who are even more vigilant of possible soapboxes than their religious counterparts, and due in part to the misleading headline. If you equate the belief in a supreme being with the belief that USB is the devil's connection then you are as much a zealot as those in the cult, and the fact that the reader is led to believe that this measure is backed by all Christians in Brazil shows a complete lack of journalistic integrity.
The core Christian beliefs are no less irrational and wacky than this particular tidbit. It's no more irrational than magic sky fathers, burning bushes, impossible arks, talking snakes, rib created humans, nonexistent floods, healing disease with prayer, imagining that you are immune to snake venom, that fish guts can drive away demons, that there are magical invisible monsters and heroes vying for your soul, that believing the wring things lands you in a pit of fire or even the whole stupid idea that you must achieve forgiveness for nonexistent sins through the mutilation and killing of people and animals. And you think that a silly trident belief is somehow more wacky than this crap?
Feel free to abuse the moderation system and mark this Troll as well so that the Two Minutes Hate may continue uninterrupted.
You think that THIS is hate?! Why don't you go do a google image search on "sectarian violence," if you have the stomach for it. That's hate, and most of it is bred in that fucked up institution we collectively call religion.
Umm, maybe.. I don't know what the question is... also I am not the same "you", i am another "you" unmocked, so far.
Alas, the uncertainty inherent in arguing with AC.
In the same way being a jerk and saying "im joking" makes it all better. What is true in your mind is not a global truth, what others think is also true(at least to them). It seems to me you use definitions to hold things in certain places, so that they cannot be more or less than what you have defined. I find this limiting. It is possible that a whole bunch of small parts make up a whole, each defined by the other all to create a single - or more likely a tangle. So is it possible it could be that atheism is a part of "that" - for without atheism, would "that" still be "that", or would it be "this".
I use definitions for clarity. If you do not have a clear definition of a concept, then how can you possibly communicate about it? And if two people are arguing about a concept for which they hold two differing definitions, then they aren't communicating about that concept at all.
Well at least its a possibility. Is this how you "practise" your religion. If so I'm glad to have helped :) I guess that you enjoy this as much as I do, but for different reasons.
I suppose in part it is. But I do enjoy it, especially with a glass of good red wine.
I agree, that does not seem the illusion you are under. But that is the great thing about illusions, if you knew you were under the effects of one, it would cease to be an illusion. I found myself under the illusion the other day that no one had thought of making hot chip nachos, but a little searching and alas, i was not unique in this regard. The trick is never to stay under the same illusion for too long.
I agree. I was under the illusion of theism myself for quite a while, and it is refreshing to be out from under that illusion.
Strong disagreement here. I was a missionary for two years, and I could count the number of people I met who actually believed (their faith) what their church said was correct (their religion). Even the number of people who have read the book(s) they consider scripture is pretty small, not to mention all the official declarations and positions churches take.
Being heterodox is not the same thing as being without a religion. And being ignorant of your particular church's dogma and scripture is also not the same as being without religion.
Here's the kicker. If atheism is going to be meaningful then it must necessarily have some central defining opinion. If atheism lacks a central defining opinion, then it cannot be an "-ism." You, along with your Internet buddies, have made atheism into a meaningless term.
Rendering it completely meaningless is a noble goal, as that will happen when theism is finally regulated to the dustbin of mythology. I would be perfectly happy knowing that my grandchildren won't have any reason to think about atheism at all.
A discussion is the sharing and supporting of differing opinions on an issue. With regard to theism, the opinions of the theist are often well known (i.e., "God exists" is a true proposition, etc.). What are the opinions of the atheist?
It depends on the individual. Some don't have an opinion(my kids for all the years until they became aware of the god concept). Some find theism to be benign. Some, like myself, find it to be a toxic and puerile concept. You answer could range from "I don't know if a god exists" to "I believe that this certain set of gods don't exist" to "I believe that no god exists."
Have you not read any of my posts? The thing I am doing when I mock you and poke fun at you? That's not atheism. That's anti-theism. If I have a religion, it is a form of secular humanism. My atheism informs my disgust of theism, but it is not the same thing. It's my anti-theism and general asshole tendencies which lead me to have fun attacking theists. I'm under no illusion that speaking to theists in such a forum does anything at all to dent their delusions.
Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.
I would agree if religion were just silliness. It isn't. It is horribly damaging. The key teaching of religions is that believing in things that are provably false is a virtue. They call it faith. What's worse is that the more absurd a thing that you can believe in the more virtuous you are. A person who believes that the earth is literally about 7,000 years old has much stronger faith than a person who equivocates and says that Genesis is metaphorical. Faith is the one basic teaching that is at the root of so much suffering. It leads directly to fundamentalism. Fundamentalist Islam is the Taliban, and the intensely repressive regimes in Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc. Fundamentalist Judaism believes that despite being largely absent for a thousand or so years they have a right given them by some sky guy to possess to the exclusion of all others a bit of real estate at the East end of the Mediterranean Sea. Christian fundamentalists lead America into unwinnable wars that sap our spirits and drain our treasury. Fundamentalist personality cult is the twisted crap that has lead to decades of starvation and tyranny in North Korea. Please teach your children this: if you have seen it proven then believe it until you see it dis-proven. Be skeptical about everything else.
I agree completely. But you treat my offhand comment as if it is the only response we should make. The silliness of religion should be mocked in many situations while at the same time more serious attacks are leveled in more appropriate venues. Sometimes a jeer is a more effective tool than an essay.
Yes, I understood the distinction you were making between "atheism in isolation" and "atheism in contrast with theism." This distinction is unhelpful with regard to my question.
If atheism has meaning then it is possible to critique the idea. And, as a consequence, it is possible to discuss the idea. Therefore, what does one think or talk about when one has the desire to critique or discuss atheism?
You would discuss theism, of course.
If atheism had meaning then atheism would have substance. If atheism had substance then atheism could be discussed. Yet, we've agreed atheism offers nothing to be discussed. Thus, atheism can have no meaning.
Atheism in isolation has no meaning. When contrasted with theism, however, it does have meaning. It is, in fact, only recognized because there is a concept called theism. In a world without theism, atheism would be completely unknown, even though it would be state of everyone in the world.
The basic picture is clear. You have a preferred definition of atheism and assume it's the only one or only correct one. Either way, the "lack of theistic belief" conception of atheism is really nothing more than a propaganda tool. (See? It's fun to oversimplify.)
It must be, since you keep doing it.
Actually, that's agnosticism.
Since one cannot scientifically prove that God does not exist, one could argue that atheism is a belief system as well.
No. Being agnostic is a different axis that atheism and theism. Some agnostics are atheists(don't believe in a god and don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it) and some are theists(believe in a god but don't believe that there is any way to prove or disprove it).
And, again, atheism is not a system. It is a statement about a single point of belief.
If we agree atheism, as a lack of theistic belief, is simply referring to a state of being (i.e., a simple description of what is), as oppose to intellectual assent (i.e., a belief), then the question "Why are you an atheist?" is meaningless.
Bingo!
It would be akin to asking a tree, "Why are you a tree?" It does not make sense to ask either question because the terms are simply referring to a state of being.
With that in mind, why do atheists answer the question, "Why are you an atheist?"
Because it attains meaning when contrasted against theism.
It is a meaningless question. Yet, for some reason, atheists feel compelled to give an answer. (More often than not, they appeal to a lack of evidence for the existence of gods.) So, if atheists are compelled to give an answer, I find it difficult to believe that atheism does not mean something more than a simple lack of theistic belief to the atheist. I am inclined to belief atheists actually mean more by atheism than they let onto with the lack of theistic belief definition. (I would willing grant such meaning is subconscious rather than a conscious intent to deceive, though.)
I am compelled to answer simply because many people assume that it is a choice, or a rebellion, or any of a number of things. They assume this for different reasons, usually because they are theists who cannot imagine someone who lives without that baggage. If you probe deeper, you will usually find that the question they are really asking is "how come you are not like me?" And this usually requires some explanation, since it is not obvious to them. And in the cases where the question is asked genuinely and in a format that allows it, I do so, all the while making clear that I am answering these questions largely as a secular humanist and an anti-theist, not necessarily in the strict category of atheist.
Yes I find that when a large mob comes with sinister instruments designed to torcher, mame or kill me, that responding to accusations with "You big silly" is the wisest move.
Well, yeah, if they showed up in person, I would be more likely to reach for something with a bit more bite(or bang, as the case may be) than mockery. But, this being the internet and all, ridicule will do nicely.
Well, not exactly. If one wanted to oversimplify things then sure. For the rest of us who live in reality, we realize there are many different conceptions of atheism, and some of these conceptions would qualify as a religion under some definitions of religion.
Nope. There are many different belief systems which may include atheism, and some of those may be considered religions, but not atheism itself.
Thus, it's too simplistic to simply pound the table saying, "Atheism is not a fucking religion."
Though, I can certainly understand the psychology behind why "Internet atheists" would not want atheism to be viewed as a religion, a dogma, a position, or a worldview.
Wow, you just keep missing the basic picture, don't you? Atheism could be part of a religion. It could be a dogmatic statement. It could be a position and it most certainly does inform a worldview. But it is not any of those.
I can certainly understand why you want to try and equate them, though. Religions are in general so foolish and puerile that you have to imagine that the atheist you are debating is saddled with the same nonsense that you are. Otherwise, you just end up looking like a jackass jawing on about hand-me-down delusions.
I mean, if it were any of these things then an atheist would bare a burden -- the burden of supporting their perspective.
I have no problem supporting my perspective. I do it all the time. But my position is far more than simple atheism.
As it is, the pansy definition of atheism provides atheists with a means to attack theism, and then when rightly the theists expect the atheists to present and defend an alternative perspective, per the Gricean maxims of conversation, they can simply retreat back to their safety hole. (In other words, I see atheists who push this definition as nothing more than intellectual pussies.)
That's ok. I see theists as intellectual pussies who can't handle reality and so run like little sobbing children to hide behind the skirts of their imaginary sky bully who will protect them from the universe which really doesn't give a flying fuck about them. Grow the fuck up.
Er, believing that there is no "theos" IS a belief, and its a belief about the spiritual.
Yeah, it means "without god," which includes those who simply lack a theistic belief(the broadest point of the term) and those who actively deny deities. It includes many of what are commonly called agnostics as well.
Its not like there are those who believe certain things about certain gods, and then theres the athiests; athiests hold certain views about gods, namely that they dont exist. Whether or not you want to call this a faith or a religion is a matter of semantics, but unless youre a nihilist, you certainly believe something.
My kids(and, indeed, every single kid) were born atheists. They had no conception of a deity until it was installed in them. Now, they reject deities. They have met both the broad definition and the more restrictive one. Since it is a single axis of belief that entails no dogma, no scripture and no practices, there is no basis for calling it a religion.
It sounds like youre defining "religion" as any systematized belief in or about the supernatural. That being the case, why is the belief "your god doesnt exist" exempt?
Nope. Religions can be entirely atheistic or non-supernatural . And a simple belief in a deity is not necessarily a religion. That's my point. A single point of belief does not a religion make.
A "lack of a belief in a god" is a belief that there is no god. You keep wording it in the negative as if to hide the fact that you too have beliefs that can be scrutinized.
No, you keep ignoring the fact that there are two different states that we are talking about. That's why things like strong and weak atheism are defined. Simply saying "atheism is a religion" is wrong, as it doesn't mean anything. There are atheists all along that spectrum, including those who attend and promote religions.
I imagine parent doesnt like the term religion because it is ambiguous and not a terribly useful word. I would define it as "the way people behave in response to what they believe", which, while (IMO) it captures how people use the word, is so incredibly broad as to not be terribly useful.
I imagine that they do it in an attempt to distance themselves from the very public failings of organized religion while still holding onto the same irrational beliefs. Every time I have run across this claim, it has come from a Protestant Christian who wanted to claim that their church, their beliefs and their religious authority figure were not the same as all of the others. I could be wrong, of course, but I very much doubt that this case is much different.
So what do atheists belief? Or are you just another liar for that chick with no head?
I'm not sure what atheists "belief" nor do I have any idea what "chick with no head" you might be referring to.
Sigh. The wrong one is marked as troll, and the wrong one as insightful. And your insightful comment stays at zero.
I'm getting tired of slashdot - any good substitutes?
Maybe it's because the rest of the world is getting increasingly tired of the rampant irrational stupidity that religion brings to the table, and we are more and more willing to mock those who keep pushing it. Religion in general is a childish and immature response to life, and I for one believe that it should be treated as such.
Wow.
Well, actually, there are growing numbers of individuals who consider themselves "spiritual" but not "religious". They seem to have no issues with differentiating themselves between practicing their theologies, which may or may not be theistic, and practicing a traditional religion.
Great. If they are "practising" something, then it's a religion, pretty much by definition. Being non-theistic has no bearing on the issue in the least.
They generally seem interested in personal spiritual growth outside of a formal religion (which has a public or social aspect).
You've described a private religion, nothing more.
As far as Atheists go, I don't know if I would go so far as claiming they share such concepts as ritual or dogma. I have noticed that they are capable of having the same rigidity of beliefs and intolerance of other people's beliefs as any other dick.
Indeed. The only thing that necessarily binds atheists together is that they lack a belief in gods. That's it. They can be pricks(like me) or nice people. They can be rigid or flexible in their beliefs. They can be hard nosed realists or flighty irrational whackos. That was one of my points in my response. You can't define atheism as a religion because it doesn't entail any of the things you'd need to define it as such. It is exactly one dimension of belief in a whole spectrum.
Congrats. This describes nothing of substance which can be discussed.
Bingo! That's why you can't call it a fucking religion, eh?
Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, or a belief that there is no god?
"someone who denies the existence of god" according to Google. Denying something is different from simply "not believing" in something.
Indeed, this is what is commonly called strong and weak atheism. Strictly speaking, atheism is a lack of a belief in a god. The second definition is included as a subset under this more broad definition.
I have no theistic beliefs, thus I am an atheist. I also believe that all of the gods that I am familiar with are non-existent. In addition, I also believe that theistic beliefs are downright harmful, both to individuals and society as a whole. So, I am anti-theistic.
So I assume that you would in the latter group then since you don't understand the difference between faith and religion.
It depends on how it's used. Faith is just belief which is not based on proof. But a lot of people call their religion "faith." It seems especially popular in Christian circles. In most cases, there is no difference.
Modern Atheism is a belief system aka. a religion.
Not even close. Atheism is a lack of theistic beliefs. That's all.
A personal faith in god is not the same as a belief system/religion/philosophy.
What a load of bullshit. If your "faith" includes scriptures, commandments and the like, it's a religion, and your naive sounding assertions are crap.
Religion is a man made system of dogma and rituals.
Modern Atheism has a set of man made rituals and dogma. Ergo, Atheism == Religion.
Since you can't define a single piece of ritual or dogma which would include atheists, aside from the obvious "lack of belief in a god" entailed in the definition, you can't even make this specious piece of reasoning work.
I have a brain and I do not follow a religion. I have a personal faith in god and I share that faith with a community of believers.
In other words, a fucking church. Geez, are you another liar for Jesus?
Intelligence, please. Not just name calling
I agree. Slinging around foul names like "evangelical Christian" is just uncouth.
There's no question in my mind that the point is just to poke more fun at religion, in this case, for no good reason at all.
Poking fun at religion is a good reason in its own right. Mockery is the best response to silliness.
The inhabitants of the earth are of two sorts: Those with brains, but no religion, And those with religion, but no brains.” - Abul Ala Al-Maarri
I'd have to say that this is incorrect. There are plenty of smart people who manage somehow to believe in various deities and such. And there are plenty of dumbasses who have at least figured out that there is no god. Smart people are just as capable of irrational thoughts as anyone else.
Actually no, I'm not.
Indeed, it is evident.
I'm also fully aware that no scientist (or group of scientists) have been able to get non-living matter to start doing the chemical reactions needed to create organic life from the chemical soup.
You keep making the same mistake in pretending that there is some fundamental difference between chemistry depending on where it is taking place. Scientists can replicate proteins in the lab. They can create entirely new proteins. They can remove the DNA from a bacterial cell and insert an artificially generated DNA sequence, creating a new hybrid species.
The idea that we need to replicate the original conditions of abiogenesis is ludicrous, and makes me suspect that you have no grasp of the scale involved in such a useless project. Work from people like Craig Venter is improving our understanding of cellular chemistry constantly, and the only people who think that we are not within a few years of replicating an entire organism from scratch are those attempting to prop up ancient mythologies.
Oh, and I found your act of changing our relationship status to be "foe" quite amusing. It fits with the petulant and myopic nature of your posts. But, on the other hand, you are quite right. I am anti-theistic, and I am quite happy to do my little part helping to whittle away the various misconceptions and downright lies that keep your fellow theists in mental and moral slavery.