atheists

[Cerpin Taxt]

Atheists may believe that are right, but they really cannot be sure - that is also called faith (in science, logic, etc.)

There may be some atheists that believe that no gods exist, but the belief that there are zero gods is a superfluous belief to atheism, so you've simply introduced another red herring.

Except, again (if you had read the thread), these analogies all fail because they do not involve a belief system.

Atheism is not a belief system.

One is not a non-believer in the existence of cars or basketball. A deity non-believer is very different than one who does not own a car.

The possession (or lack) of a certain belief among one's belief-set is perfectly analogous to the possession (or lack) of an automobile among one's belongings. The participation (or non-participation) in religion is perfectly analogous to the participation (or non-participation) in a particular sport.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You are being purposely obtuse.

Nonsense. You haven't addressed my argument. A lack of something can not coherently possess any qualities or characteristics. This is a fact that directly refutes your claims, and you have introduced one irrelevancy after another to avoid acknowledging it.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I agree. Atheism is very much like a religion.

Yeah, that's how grown-ups argue.

 

[MotionMan]

There may be some atheists that believe that no gods exist, but the belief that there are zero gods is a superfluous belief to atheism, so you've simply introduced another red herring.

Atheism is not a belief system.

The possession (or lack) of a certain belief among one's belief-set is perfectly analogous to the possession (or lack) of an automobile among one's belongings. The participation (or non-participation) in religion is perfectly analogous to the participation (or non-participation) in a particular sport.

I cannot continue to argue with someone who simply makes shit up as we go along (maybe that is the trick to being an atheist?).

I feel like you are making me dumber with each post I read, so:

You win. You are right. Atheism is whatever you say. Congratulations.

MotionMan

 

[destrekor]

I will do the "right thing" and direct you to read the thread for my responses.

I do not believe it is necessary for me to repeat such things.

MotionMan

I shall butt in here and do the same. If you have not read my posts in the various religion/atheism-oriented threads of late, please do so. Many of my posts include responses geared toward common points raised throughout these threads. I do not quote many of the ideas because I basically digress into different points as I address a specific point in some post I chose to reply (or the general point of said post).

 

[Kev]

I agree. Atheism is very much like a religion.

MotionMan

2 things:

1) You continue to mistakenly equate a lack of belief with a belief in nothing.

2) You need to define "religion" for us. Because apparently everyone has a different definition than you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I cannot continue to argue with someone who simply makes shit up as we go along (maybe that is the trick to being an atheist?).

Please indicate which facts you believe I fabricated. I assure you, there are none, else you could have refuted them instead of continuously evading them and introducing irrelevancies.

I feel like you are making me dumber with each post I read, so:

I will agree that each successive post of yours in which I have to correct your false claims makes you appear dumber.

You win. You are right. Atheism is whatever you say. Congratulations.

This is also false. Atheism is the same as it has always been: lacking a belief that a god exists. I did not make it this way. It is simply a fact.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Still false.


I do not insist that "god" (in a general sense) does not exist. I can only assert with confidence that certain inconsistent god-concepts are not instantiated in reality.


Also false. "I do not believe X" is not the logical equivalent of "I believe not-X."



You omitted the rational response "I do not believe your claims about the teapot are true."

Perhaps this is where semantics comes comes into play, but I consider the bolded a statement of agnosticism, rather than atheism.

As for "I do not believe your claims about the teapot to be true", the only way you can assert that is through a set of rational arguments that go beyond what is directly testable. This is the realm of metaphysics (see definition 1b), no matter how rational the argument might be.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Perhaps this is where semantics comes comes into play, but I consider the bolded a statement of agnosticism, rather than atheism.

Agnosticism is dichotomous with gnosticism, and atheism is dichotomous with theism. The dichotomies are orthogonal, not mutually exclusive.

This means that it is coherent to describe individuals as agnostic atheists, or gnostic theists, etc.

If someone asked you if you were a theist or an atheist, a response of "I'm an agnostic" does not answer the question.

It appears you missed the graphic I inserted in my post some pages back. Here is another, more easily interpreted graph:

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

As for "I do not believe your claims about the teapot to be true", the only way you can assert that is through a set of rational arguments that go beyond what is directly testable.

No, all I require is to be unconvinced by the arguments presented.

 

[crashtestdummy]

Agnosticism is dichotomous with gnosticism, and atheism is dichotomous with theism. The dichotomies are orthogonal, not mutually exclusive.

This means that it is coherent to describe individuals as agnostic atheists, or gnostic theists, etc.

If someone asked you if you were a theist or an atheist, a response of "I'm an agnostic" does not answer the question.

It appears you missed the graphic I inserted in my post some pages back. Here is another, more easily interpreted graph:

I'm afraid I did skip over several of the in-between pages. I still consider the subject of theism and atheism, even within this rubric, to be metaphysical. It takes evaluation of an argument that is inherently nonphysical in order to make a judgement, regardless of purported certainty. An agnostic atheist still claims to have made a judgement of their belief or non-belief in God.

I will at this point cease arguing the topic (which you are welcome to claim victory on, if it pleases you), as we are no longer debating the content of your (or my) beliefs, but rather the names and labels we attach to them. I'm not sure this is a particularly productive discussion, especially when I have to get back to lab.

 

[slayer202]

I have spent a lot of time discussing this subject. I will not repeat myself because you came in late in the game. Go back a read the thread.

MotionMan

You can spend all the time in the world, but you still won't have a clue about what you're talking about.

Compare not believing in god to not believing in unicorns and fairies. Your statements don't hold up for a second. This is such an easy analogy, I'm not sure how you still can't understand atheism.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

An agnostic atheist still claims to have made a judgement of their belief or non-belief in God.

I do not disagree with this statement. It simply seems you have confused the judgement "I am unconvinced by the arguments for X's existence, and therefore do not believe X exists" for the irrational judgement "I am unconvinced by arguments for X's existence, and therefore have reason to believe X does not exist." The former is a proper characterisation of atheism's response to theistic arguments, while the latter is irrational.

I will at this point cease arguing the topic (which you are welcome to claim victory on, if it pleases you), as we are no longer debating the content of your (or my) beliefs, but rather the names and labels we attach to them. I'm not sure this is a particularly productive discussion, especially when I have to get back to lab.

I do agree it is a semantic issue, and these rarely seem substantive, but too many people make false claims and judgments about atheism and atheists based on their false understanding of what atheism means. It is my goal to make people understand the reality of atheism instead of the false (albeit unfortunately popular) ideas of atheism (usually propagated by theists, it seems).

 

[HumblePie]

Motionman, atheism is not a religion.

Why? Simply not believing in something doesn't make that view a religion. Take a look at babies or small children that are never told anything about religion, or any fantasies. They are atheist because they don't believe in a god. They are not religious because they simply do not THINK about their non belief at all. They have nothing to contrast it to.

For example I didn't even know the existence of black holes in the universe when I was 5 years old. Does my lack of knowledge or belief in black holes constitute a religion?

That is why your argument is flawed and stupid. As Cerpin stated before as an analogy. Bald is NOT a hair style. Lack of hair is not a hair style Lack of knowledge or lack of belief in a deity is NOT a religion. End of story.

 

[destrekor]

Agnosticism is dichotomous with gnosticism, and atheism is dichotomous with theism. The dichotomies are orthogonal, not mutually exclusive.

This means that it is coherent to describe individuals as agnostic atheists, or gnostic theists, etc.

If someone asked you if you were a theist or an atheist, a response of "I'm an agnostic" does not answer the question.

It appears you missed the graphic I inserted in my post some pages back. Here is another, more easily interpreted graph:

That graphic is a little all inclusive, at first glance, by saying, "believes that no god exists and claims to know that this belief is true." I feel I have thoroughly explained the key differences up to this point, and will make a concise point that I can argue: making assertions in posts, like I have done, and all the approaches that those of the type I have described as Agnostic-Atheists often use to describe "beliefs" in conversation -- whether online or in drunken banter or what have you -- still remain precisely as such. How most individuals articulate these things, religiously-minded individuals often view as firm-handed assertions of fact, when in fact, they are most certainly not. There is a linguistic divide when there is a bias at play that differs between parties, especially when the average majority, a slightly less educated, and religiously-biased individual [statistics, do not argue what can be readily proven if you dare search. I will not cite these and do the work for anyone who would argue against this. This is my free-time.] is the target of, what one might call philosophical musings, of an educated Agnostic-Atheist trying with all his effort to articulate his non-beliefs and do so with targeted delivery. It's actually more difficult than you might imagine to get these kinds of points across that people understand, and I hope I am remotely having that impact [as indeed, that is my goal, thus why I am often so wordy. Some might say arrogant, and possibly so, though I would argue otherwise ].

 

[BurnItDwn]

Ninety-nine percent of everything that goes on in most Christian churches has nothing whatsoever to do with the actual religion. Intelligent people all notice this sooner or later, and they conclude that the entire one hundred percent is bullshit, which is why atheism is connected with being intelligent in people's minds.

I think in my mind I simply see skepticism as being a sign of intelligence. That said, I know very intelligent people who do have some sort of religious beliefs as well, however, most of the extremely intelligent people I know tend to be atheist agnostic and instead follow a golden rule type of philosophy.

 

[AMDZen]

I agree. Atheism is very much like a religion.

MotionMan

Atheism Is a Religion Like Abstinence Is a Sex Position

Nonsense. You haven't addressed my argument. A lack of something can not coherently possess any qualities or characteristics. This is a fact that directly refutes your claims, and you have introduced one irrelevancy after another to avoid acknowledging it.

MotionMan obviously doesn't get it.

 

[DrPizza]

Okay, two things from me, and I've only looked at posts 201-here,

1.

I wonder if a good study has actually ever been done, to see if the ratios of convicted criminals' religious beliefs is any different than typical society.

I would bet it's no different.

Yes, it's different. I haven't seen a recent study, but about a decade ago, there was a study that showed that less than 1% of prison inmates were atheists. I've read a few rebuttals to this; one of the better ones being that the atheist prisoners converted while in prison after realizing their mistakes. This may be the case for some, but it ignores the problems of recidivism - for it to be logically correct, people would be atheists out of prison, convert to Christians in prison, then convert back to atheists upon release, then convert back after committing another crime, etc.

2nd: is atheism a belief system or not.

I've seen a few people argue that the lack of a belief doesn't mean it's a belief system. To this, I can agree to an extent. Because, of course, you would say "well, just because I don't believe in unicorns doesn't mean it's a belief system." Nonetheless, it overlooks a major difference - you've made a conscious effort to weigh the choices and significant arguments that two sides have.

 

[HumblePie]

Okay, two things from me, and I've only looked at posts 201-here,

1.
Yes, it's different. I haven't seen a recent study, but about a decade ago, there was a study that showed that less than 1% of prison inmates were atheists. I've read a few rebuttals to this; one of the better ones being that the atheist prisoners converted while in prison after realizing their mistakes. This may be the case for some, but it ignores the problems of recidivism - for it to be logically correct, people would be atheists out of prison, convert to Christians in prison, then convert back to atheists upon release, then convert back after committing another crime, etc.

2nd: is atheism a belief system or not.

I've seen a few people argue that the lack of a belief doesn't mean it's a belief system. To this, I can agree to an extent. Because, of course, you would say "well, just because I don't believe in unicorns doesn't mean it's a belief system." Nonetheless, it overlooks a major difference - you've made a conscious effort to weigh the choices and significant arguments that two sides have.

No. Just no.

Does a child who has never been told anything about religion, or unicorns, for example have a belief system set AGAINST believing in those things? Atheism is a lack of belief, not a conscience choice not to believe. A child that is never told of any form of super natural being will lack a belief system for one. That is Atheism, a lack of belief.

To champion a disbelief is not a religious matter either. That's a zealotry matter. Much like a die hard Cleveland Browns fan is not a religion just because they champion the hope that one day the Browns might make it.

There are very specific rules regarding what is the definition of a religion. Zealotry is not the encompassing definition of a religion. Religion does typically induce zealotry, but that is a by product and not the definition.

 

[sandorski]

2+2=5 is a Correct answer!

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

I think in my mind I simply see skepticism as being a sign of intelligence. That said, I know very intelligent people who do have some sort of religious beliefs as well, however, most of the extremely intelligent people I know tend to be atheist agnostic and instead follow a golden rule type of philosophy.

The world holds two classes of men — intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.

 

[HumblePie]

The world holds two classes of men — intelligent men without religion, and religious men without intelligence.

And you are the enigma then?

There are intelligent men that are religious, at least intelligent in certain fields of study, just like there are complete dumbasses out there who are without religion.

Holding a religious belief does not make you not intelligent. Deists are people that believe that at one point the universe was created by a supreme being of some sort, or at least a being greater than anything we've known. They don't profess to know if that is true or not, nor do they hold that belief to be a truth. Deists realize what they believe is what they believe. Neither does their belief hold that this supreme being still exists, and if it does if it even cares about its creation.

Their belief is nothing worse logically speaking then any person believing in one day they will be successful, accomplish a goal they set for themselves, marrying someone the love, or dreaming of winning the lottery. Holding to those believes does not make someone less intelligent as long as the people realize those believes are dreams they wish to be true. In that case, they haven't proven they are incapable of logic, deductive reasoning, ability to formulate, memorize, and retain knowledge all of which are key indicators to a highly intelligent person.

Now the common religious fanatic that holds what they believe as the absolute truth regardless of any evidence for their belief shows their lack of intelligence.

 

[LiuKangBakinPie]

And you are the enigma then?

There are intelligent men that are religious, at least intelligent in certain fields of study, just like there are complete dumbasses out there who are without religion.

Holding a religious belief does not make you not intelligent. Deists are people that believe that at one point the universe was created by a supreme being of some sort, or at least a being greater than anything we've known. They don't profess to know if that is true or not, nor do they hold that belief to be a truth. Deists realize what they believe is what they believe. Neither does their belief hold that this supreme being still exists, and if it does if it even cares about its creation.

Their belief is nothing worse logically speaking then any person believing in one day they will be successful, accomplish a goal they set for themselves, marrying someone the love, or dreaming of winning the lottery. Holding to those believes does not make someone less intelligent as long as the people realize those believes are dreams they wish to be true. In that case, they haven't proven they are incapable of logic, deductive reasoning, ability to formulate, memorize, and retain knowledge all of which are key indicators to a highly intelligent person.

Now the common religious fanatic that holds what they believe as the absolute truth regardless of any evidence for their belief shows their lack of intelligence.

If there were a god, there would be no need for religion. If there were not a god, there would be no need for religion.

 

[HumblePie]

If there were a god, there would be no need for religion. If there were not a god, there would be no need for religion.

Another incorrect blanket statement. And I'm speaking as an atheist here.

Religion is defined as the belief in a supernatural being that concerns the cause, nature, or purpose of the universe. Be it a God, bigfoot, unicorns, vampires, mother earth, the spiritual energy that links all living things, or whatever other mumbo jumbo out there. Belief in this supernatural power is the actual definition of religion.

Could there have been a supreme being, or supernatural energy that created our universe that no longer exists now or is not able to manifest itself in the universe anymore? Possibly, but I doubt it. That doesn't mean that there wasn't. That doesn't require a religion either for it to have been true. However, if that "religion" leads humanity into finding evidence that supports it or contradicts it then it was definitely a useful tool for humanity for that.

I'll give you an example. Ever heard of dark matter? It's still a sketchy scientific theory, but it some evidence now that supports it. Not much, but some. Basically as scientists were putting in many variables as to why galaxies coalesce, they were unable to figure out based on many models why galaxies would do this. This is even taking into consideration the extreme forces exerted by super black holes at the center of every galaxy ever found. The power of a super black hole is not enough to form a galaxy. Thus the hypothesis that "dark matter" was the glue that held the universe together. There was no evidence at first for this hypothesis. Believing that such a force exists, despite all that science knew up until that point, could almost be considered a religious following. Why? We have a supernatural power that concerns the nature of the universe at work. This power was dark matter that had no supporting evidence behind it. By using their belief that this dark matter may be the glue that holds the universe together, scientists are able to track down possible evidence to prove or disprove it. Evidence for it has come forward, but it took almost 40 years to do so. 40 years is a LONG time to believe in something like that wouldn't you agree?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Some win and fail on both sides. These threads are fascinating at times.