Atheism Not A Religion?

[Brian 2.0]

I don't get into such distinctions. It is kinda like being a little pregnant.

As an atheist, I think there is a very big difference between the two (soft and hard) and when that difference is not acknowledged people misunderstand my position and often argue the wrong points.

So often I get told "prove to me there is no God" or "what is your evidence there is no God" or "knowing there is no God takes just as much faith as knowing there is a god." But those arguments don't apply to a "soft atheist".

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God because I see no evidence for God. But i admit I could be wrong in my belief and my view could change with additional evidence. This does not make me agnostic because I think god is knowable, and if credible evidence presented itself supporting the existence of God I could change my mind and become a theist. But I see no such evidence, and therefore do not believe in God, making me an atheist.

[Brian 2.0]

People often place agnosticism right next to atheism and think of them as the same general idea but just to differing degrees. But that's not true.

An atheist can be interested in the evidences or lack of evidences for the existence of God because these evidences can determine his belief or disbelief in God.

An agnostic does not care discussing the "evidences for god" because to him, there are actually no "evidences" for God. God is unknowable so such discussions are irrelevant.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Brian 2.0

[Tacenda]

As an atheist, I think there is a very big difference between the two (soft and hard) and when that difference is not acknowledged people misunderstand my position and often argue the wrong points.

So often I get told "prove to me there is no God" or "what is your evidence there is no God" or "knowing there is no God takes just as much faith as knowing there is a god." But those arguments don't apply to a "soft atheist".

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God because I see no evidence for God. But i admit I could be wrong in my belief and my view could change with additional evidence. This does not make me agnostic because I think god is knowable, and if credible evidence presented itself supporting the existence of God I could change my mind and become a theist. But I see no such evidence, and therefore do not believe in God, making me an atheist.

I've been struggling with belief in an afterlife, and God lately. But it always comes back to others experience with someone on the other side, or reading a NDE here and there, along with how did evolution begin unless something was initiated. What is the answer for the last one? If you care to answer.

[thesometimesaint]

I've been struggling with belief in an afterlife, and God lately. But it always comes back to others experience with someone on the other side, or reading a NDE here and there, along with how did evolution begin unless something was initiated. What is the answer for the last one? If you care to answer.

 

I can't answer for anyone but myself. I am content to leave Evolution as how God created every living thing.

[Brian 2.0]

And for the record, I used to think I was agnostic because I believed the evidences for and against God were roughly even. Then I thought I was agnostic because I believed there was no God but admitted I could be persuaded otherwise with additional evidence. I thought atheists were people that KNEW there was no God, case closed. But I now realize that I was misunderstanding the meanings of the words and now accept atheist as a appropriate label of my beliefs (or lack thereof) and I have never actually been agnostic during my entire "faith journey."

[thesometimesaint]

As an atheist, I think there is a very big difference between the two (soft and hard) and when that difference is not acknowledged people misunderstand my position and often argue the wrong points.

So often I get told "prove to me there is no God" or "what is your evidence there is no God" or "knowing there is no God takes just as much faith as knowing there is a god." But those arguments don't apply to a "soft atheist".

I am an atheist. I don't believe in God because I see no evidence for God. But i admit I could be wrong in my belief and my view could change with additional evidence. This does not make me agnostic because I think god is knowable, and if credible evidence presented itself supporting the existence of God I could change my mind and become a theist. But I see no such evidence, and therefore do not believe in God, making me an atheist.

 

I don't have a problem with Atheists. I'm really much more interested in how we treat each other than our personal beliefs. If my beliefs help me to better treat my fellow man. Who gives a rats behind what I believe? Atheists like everyone else is entitled to believe whatever they want. Keep in mind that if you are correct then none of us is going to know any differently after we die.

 

I doubt you would agree with the evidence I find all around me. Other than the electronic blips on your computer screen what evidence do you have that I exist?

[Stone holm]

And for the record, I used to think I was agnostic because I believed the evidences for and against God were roughly even. Then I thought I was agnostic because I believed there was no God but admitted I could be persuaded otherwise with additional evidence. I thought atheists were people that KNEW there was no God, case closed. But I now realize that I was misunderstanding the meanings of the words and now accept atheist as a appropriate label of my beliefs (or lack thereof) and I have never actually been agnostic during my entire "faith journey."

 

I suspect there may actually be three types of atheists:  1) Hard atheists, 2) Soft Atheists, and 3) those who the question of God's existence is just not important to the person and they have a default setting for non-existence.  The problem we have is that there are a lot of Hard believers who lump all atheists in the first category and vent a tremendous amount of unkindness and sometimes downright viciousness on them -- the general effect is to cause people to move from the third category to the second category and the second category to the first category.  If we could just shut off the ugliness which includes the claim that atheism is a religion -- which is nearly always used in a twisted claim of conspiracy or in support or defense of government assisted religion -- everyone would be better off.

[Rob Osborn]

The problem with atheism being classified as a religion is that if "theism" is classified as religious then so too must be atheism.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's worth bumping this comment.  A LOT of Americans feel this way about atheists.  If they felt this way about YOU, would you think it important to clarify what you believe and why?

Here is the thing and this is were it gets sticky and I am not sure there is an easy way for you guys to clarify. But from certain POV's that is indeed what they see happening from a larger perspective not on an indavidual perspective. And I am not sure you offering up your definitions that don't cover what they view really helps. I hope this makes some sense.  I do see plenty of good getting into the specifics of athiesm. Which is why I have participated alot in this thread.

 

To clarify it is sorta of like an EV telling the LDS they are not Christian. From their perspectives they are right. THey even present arguments from an EV perspective that are compelling. BTW I am not saying they are right in this and this analogy is not 100% correct.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[thesometimesaint]

I suspect there may actually be three types of atheists:  1) Hard atheists, 2) Soft Atheists, and 3) those who the question of God's existence is just not important to the person and they have a default setting for non-existence.  The problem we have is that there are a lot of Hard believers who lump all atheists in the first category and vent a tremendous amount of unkindness and sometimes downright viciousness on them -- the general effect is to cause people to move from the third category to the second category and the second category to the first category.  If we could just shut off the ugliness which includes the claim that atheism is a religion -- which is nearly always used in a twisted claim of conspiracy or in support or defense of government assisted religion -- everyone would be better off.

 

I think there are as many types of atheists as there are atheists. But their unifying belief is that there is no God or Gods.

 

I guess you can call an apple a banana if you want, but doing so really doesn't foster accurate communication. I believe in the near absolute separation of Church and State. There is never any excuse to treat anyone badly, and even worse to use your religion as a justification for doing so.

[Stone holm]

I think there are as many types of atheists as there are atheists. But their unifying belief is that there is no God or Gods.

 

I guess you can call an apple a banana if you want, but doing so really doesn't foster accurate communication. I believe in the near absolute separation of Church and State. There is never any excuse to treat anyone badly, and even worse to use your religion as a justification for doing so.

 

If I dislike bannanas does that unify me with all people who dislike bannanas in opposition to people who do?  For some people, belief or non-belief is pretty much the equivalent in importance as to whether they do or do not like bannanas actually the latter may be a more important stance in their life because they think about it more often.  That is the sole point that I am making -- non-belief in God or gods does not unify a person with anyone, unlike the converse.

[thesometimesaint]

We have Americans of every size, shape, color, humanly possible. We also have Americans of every political, religious, economic status there is. The unifying thing is that we are all American's. Again I have no problem with atheists, I just don't agree with their beliefs.

[Analytics]

Here is the thing and this is were it gets sticky and I am not sure there is an easy way for you guys to clarify. But from certain POV's that is indeed what they see happening from a larger perspective not on an indavidual perspective. And I am not sure you offering up your definitions that don't cover what they view really helps. I hope this makes some sense.  I do see plenty of good getting into the specifics of athiesm. Which is why I have participated alot in this thread.

 

To clarify it is sorta of like an EV telling the LDS they are not Christian. From their perspectives they are right. THey even present arguments from an EV perspective that are compelling. BTW I am not saying they are right in this and this analogy is not 100% correct.

 

Different people do have different pre-conceptions about the meaning and implications of different labels.

 

To me, it's like a non-Mormon saying, "Mormons are polygamists who believe they'll get their own planet when they die," and a Mormon replying, "well I'm a Mormon, polygamy is an excommunicable offense in my Church, and I don't believe I'll get my own planet when I die."

 

At that point, the non-Mormon has two choices. He can either listen to the Mormon and learn more about what Mormons really believe, or he can insist his description of Mormons is correct, and dismiss the self-described Mormon as not really being a Mormon, or only being a Mormon in a deceptively broad sense, or insist that his caricature is true about hard-core, militant Mormons.

[mfbukowski]

People often place agnosticism right next to atheism and think of them as the same general idea but just to differing degrees. But that's not true.

An atheist can be interested in the evidences or lack of evidences for the existence of God because these evidences can determine his belief or disbelief in God.

An agnostic does not care discussing the "evidences for god" because to him, there are actually no "evidences" for God. God is unknowable so such discussions are irrelevant.

Please define what kind of "evidence" would make a difference for you.

[Ahab]

This really doesn't say much when you think about it. The question is the DEGREE with which they care about and attempt to promulgate their views.

The problem is that there are many people who "lack belief in god" who do not identify with the title "atheist". In fact those who call themselves "agnostics" also lack an affirmative belief in God.

No, the question is to whether someone IS atheist, not to whether they consider themselves to be atheist.

 

If you look like a duck and quack like a duck and in every respect are a duck, then you're a duck, even if you think you're a rooster.  (an image I have in my mind from a movie about a pig called Babe)

 

There are some atheists who recognize the fact that they are atheist, and then there are some atheists who deny that they are.  Their denial doesn't mean they are not atheists.  It just means they deny that they are.

 

And no, this is not the mindset as someone who says Mormons are not Christian, because as a matter of fact we are Christian even though some people say we are not.

[jkwilliams]

No, the question is to whether someone IS atheist, not to whether they consider themselves to be atheist.

 

If you look like a duck and quack like a duck and in every respect are a duck, then you're a duck, even if you think you're a rooster.  (an image I have in my mind from a movie about a pig called Babe)

 

There are some atheists who recognize the fact that they are atheist, and then there are some atheists who deny that they are.  Their denial doesn't mean they are not atheists.  It just means they deny that they are.

 

And no, this is not the mindset as someone who says Mormons are not Christian, because as a matter of fact we are Christian even though some people say we are not.

 

Well, thank heavens there are people around like you to tell people what they really believe.

[thesometimesaint]

Well, thank heavens there are people around like you to tell people what they really believe.

 

Sorry I just don't believe that is the case here. The difference between cats and dogs is that dogs just think that they are people while cats know that they are people.

[jkwilliams]

Here is the thing and this is were it gets sticky and I am not sure there is an easy way for you guys to clarify. But from certain POV's that is indeed what they see happening from a larger perspective not on an indavidual perspective. And I am not sure you offering up your definitions that don't cover what they view really helps. I hope this makes some sense.  I do see plenty of good getting into the specifics of athiesm. Which is why I have participated alot in this thread.

 

To clarify it is sorta of like an EV telling the LDS they are not Christian. From their perspectives they are right. THey even present arguments from an EV perspective that are compelling. BTW I am not saying they are right in this and this analogy is not 100% correct.

 

So, essentially you're saying that anyone can use any label as long as they believe from their perspective they are right. That's a scary thought. Suppose I define a neurosurgeon as someone who likes the Pogues. According to this definition, I'm totally in the right if I say that the man with an MD with 20 years experience in neurosurgery isn't really a neurosurgeon because he doesn't like the Pogues.

 

Again, why is it so hard to let people speak for themselves?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

Different people do have different pre-conceptions about the meaning and implications of different labels.

 

 

 

I am not talking about a pre-conception though. I am talking about a POV. They have a point of view and given the frame work of that point of view there is nothing that I can say that will change it.

 

I mean with regards to what LIghtbearer said none of it even remotley makes sense to an athiest as they don't believe in Satan. An no amount of you telling him what you really mean when you say athiest will change what he believes. He is looking at a point of view and he is also looking at a much bigger picture. Sorta of like saying he is stepping away from the trees to look at the forest. I will try to expand this idea if you need me to.

[Ahab]

But the problem is, that if God is a Man, glorified, then man IS the measure of all things, and all things are created by man

To me the logic is inescapable and can't understand why many members also think as you do.

"Man is the measure of all things" is the central core doctrine of Mormonism at least as far as I see it.

At least that was my intellectual (as opposed to spiritual- the spiritual was the clincher) reason for joining the church.

Not sure what you mean by saying man is the measure of all things.  Are you talking about comparing all other things to man to see if those things are better or worse than man?  Like determing whether another kind of being is more supreme than man, or not as good?  What about things like love?  I know some dogs who are more loving than some of the children of man.  But then again, I also know some children of man who are more loving than dogs can be.  Or maybe you're talking about something like intelligence, realizing man is the most supreme kind of being there is.  Not that all children of man are intelligent as the kind of being called man can be, but it's not like a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch.

[jkwilliams]

Sorry I just don't believe that is the case here. The difference between cats and dogs is that dogs just think that they are people while cats know that they are people.

 

I disagree. Analytics has explained what he believes as an atheist, and everyone here is telling him either that he's really an atheist and doesn't know it, or that he's not an atheist at all. Not only that, but they are telling him what you have to believe to consider yourself an atheist.  

 

If that's not telling people what they really believe, I don't know what it is.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So, essentially you're saying that anyone can use any label as long as they believe from their perspective they are right.

No that is not what I am saying. I am not really even talking about labels.

[jkwilliams]

No that is not what I am saying. I am not really even talking about labels.

 

Ahab's post suggested that some people don't recognize they are atheists but that people like him know who is a real atheist or not. He was talking about labeling other people and who gets to define other people's beliefs and what labels they use to describe themselves. Seems a bit presumptuous to tell someone they aren't really what they think they are because you know better.

[Ahab]

Well, thank heavens there are people around like you to tell people what they really believe.

If someone fits the definition of what an atheist is then you can call that person an atheist, even if they don't call themselves that.

 

It's akin to how some people are a-holes without realizing they are in fact a-holes.  The fact that they don't know doens't mean they are not.  And no, someone is not an a-hole if in fact they are not even though someone may say that they are.

 

it's just about whether or not someone fits the definition.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Ahab's post suggested that some people don't recognize they are atheists but that people like him know who is a real atheist or not. He was talking about labeling other people and who gets to define other people's beliefs and what labels they use to describe themselves. Seems a bit presumptuous to tell someone they aren't really what they think they are because you know better.

Putting aside Ahab's comments which mine have nothing to do with his as I largley disagree with him. I have not read or paid attention to his posts. What I am getting at is what people do when they try to interpret what an athiest means to their point of view. OR what an LDS means to an EV's point of view. That is a different thing than trying to let some one define their beliefs. And to a certain extent is some what futile. As you might know there are EV's that refuse LDS the title of Christian no matter how good the LDS position is argued. Also please note that regarding the validity of an argument for or against something is some what irrelvant to what I am getting at.

Edited November 14, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram