Atheism Not A Religion?

[jkwilliams]

No, that is not what I am saying. Please read carefully-

 

Atheists are those who have a firm belief that god does not exist- they actively do deny the existence of god based on their belief- their actual belief, that god doesnt nor can exist. Thats almost completely opposite of what you posted.

 

Again, that is you telling atheists what they believe. Analytics has repeatedly stated that he, as an atheist, simply lacks a belief in God. Unfortunately, you choose to ignore him in favor of assigning beliefs to him that he doesn't actually hold.  

[Ahab]

So, you're acknowledging that atheists are those who simply lack belief in God but may not actively deny the existence of God. That's progress.

Many theists lack belief in God, including theists who believe in the existence of Jesus Christ, our Father, and the Holy Spirit.

 

There was someone who said:  Lord, I believe.  Help me with my unbelief.

 

There are varied degrees of belief in God, or lack of belief in God, but we can all say whether or not we believe God exists.

 

Atheists are those who believe God (a supreme being) does not exist.

[jkwilliams]

Atheists are those who believe God (a supreme being) does not exist.

 

Oddly enough, that's not what our atheist friend is saying. He has said repeatedly that he lacks belief in God, not that he insists that God doesn't exist. I guess I prefer to accept what atheists say they believe over what theists say atheists believe. Seems like common sense to me.

[Rob Osborn]

Again, that is you telling atheists what they believe. Analytics has repeatedly stated that he, as an atheist, simply lacks a belief in God. Unfortunately, you choose to ignore him in favor of assigning beliefs to him that he doesn't actually hold.  

Analytics then is not a true atheist but rather falls under the definition of being agnostic. Its not rocket science. If you have this belief- "god doesnt exist", then you are an atheist. If you just have this belief- "I lack the belief on the existence of god" then you are agnostic.

[Ahab]

Hmmm. In LDS theology, God is not all powerful but is bound by the laws of the universe. If I believe in an all-powerful being who is not thus constrained, that would be a more supreme being than what Mormon doctrine describes. Also, in LDS theology, God has a Father, and His Father is glorified by His exaltation and glory. The same is true of God's Father, and His Father, and so on. So, there really is an infinite number of beings and Gods.

Laws of the universe involve things as they are, and it's not that God is bound (or limited) to how things are but that he must work with things as they are to accomplish his purposes.    The law of entropy, for example, involves how things will fall apart and deteriorate if they are left to themselves, so God has to allow for that when he wants to restore something and have it endure forever, like how he will resurrect us after our body has died.  It's not that he can't resurrect us and cause us to endure forever.  He just has to do something to overcome the law of entropy.

 

And, no, while there are many individuals who are the kind of being we refer to as God, there is only one kind we refer to as God.  Some people say "Gods", and some people say something more like "persons who are God", but either way, there is only one kind of being that is God.

[Ahab]

Oddly enough, that's not what our atheist friend is saying. He has said repeatedly that he lacks belief in God, not that he insists that God doesn't exist. I guess I prefer to accept what atheists say they believe over what theists say atheists believe. Seems like common sense to me.

That's what I figured.  You just prefer to accept what atheists say over what theists say.  But, still, there is a God.

[Stone holm]

Interesting how this thread spun into a discussion of what the definition of "atheist" was from a discussion of whether "atheism" is a religion.  In the end most OP's on this Board seem to end in discussion of semantics is that because semantics don't cause lock ups, but politics does?

[jkwilliams]

That's what I figured.  You just prefer to accept what atheists say over what theists say.  But, still, there is a God.

 

Nope, I'm a theist myself. I'm just saying that when I want to know what someone believes, I ask them, not someone else. If I want to know what Mormons believe, I ask a Mormon, not an Evangelical. If I want to know what Catholics believe, I ask a Catholic, not a Muslim. If I want to know what an atheist believes, I ask an atheist, not a Mormon. Is there something wrong with that approach?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Interesting how this thread spun into a discussion of what the definition of "atheist" was from a discussion of whether "atheism" is a religion.  In the end most OP's on this Board seem to end in discussion of semantics is that because semantics don't cause lock ups, but politics does?

Interesting observation. They say that they don't want politics because it gets too emotional. Well religion is alot like politics in some cases. I think the main reason politics should not be allowed (and probably is not allowed) is it is so easy to go off coarse as it is. Adding another thing that is just as complicated as relgion in would make it almost impossible to to stay on any given topic.

[jkwilliams]

Analytics then is not a true atheist but rather falls under the definition of being agnostic. Its not rocket science. If you have this belief- "god doesnt exist", then you are an atheist. If you just have this belief- "I lack the belief on the existence of god" then you are agnostic.

 

There you go again, telling people what they should or shouldn't call themselves. Why not ask them?

 

I once had an Evangelical in Texas ask me if I believed in Jesus as my Savior, the Son of God, and so on. I said I did, and he then said, "That means you're not a Mormon." I most certainly was, but he told me that I couldn't believe in Jesus and still be a Mormon. What you're doing is no better and no fairer.

[jkwilliams]

Interesting how this thread spun into a discussion of what the definition of "atheist" was from a discussion of whether "atheism" is a religion.  In the end most OP's on this Board seem to end in discussion of semantics is that because semantics don't cause lock ups, but politics does?

 

The idea that atheism is a religion rests on its being a positive assertion of something. Analytics has argued from the beginning that lack of belief in something doesn't constitute a religion because it isn't a positive assertion. The predictable response has been to tell Analytics that he really does believe there is no God, not that he simply lacks belief in God.

 

So, no, it hasn't derailed that far, if at all.

[Ahab]

Interesting how this thread spun into a discussion of what the definition of "atheist" was from a discussion of whether "atheism" is a religion.  In the end most OP's on this Board seem to end in discussion of semantics is that because semantics don't cause lock ups, but politics does?

Semantics is all about trying to define what we mean when we say something, and words by nature convey different ideas.

 

This thread was like:  Isn't atheism a religion?  I think it is.  How about you?  

Yes.

No

Yes

No.

What do you mean it's not?  What do you think being atheist means?

I agree.

I disagree.

I agree.

I disagree.

Now we don't even agree on what being atheist means.

 

I think it's typical.  It's not like we're all going to be in agreement about something.

[Ahab]

Nope, I'm a theist myself. I'm just saying that when I want to know what someone believes, I ask them, not someone else. If I want to know what Mormons believe, I ask a Mormon, not an Evangelical. If I want to know what Catholics believe, I ask a Catholic, not a Muslim. If I want to know what an atheist believes, I ask an atheist, not a Mormon. Is there something wrong with that approach?

Only that one doesn't speak for the entire collective, so you can reasonably expect to get different and even conflicting answers from people.

 

Which is why when I want to know what is true, I just ask God.  And then I know, even if someone else doesn't agree.

[jkwilliams]

Only that one doesn't speak for the entire collective, so you can reasonably expect to get different and even conflicting answers from people.

 

Which is why when I want to know what is true, I just ask God.  And then I know, even if someone else doesn't agree.

 

Sure you can get different answers, but what I find odd is that people on this thread insist that Analytics can't even speak for himself because they say he's not really an atheist. That's just weird.

[Analytics]

I'll take that as what you believe.  Now I'll try to show you why I think you should examine your beliefs more closely to find errors in your reasoning.

 

If there were an infinite number of beings there would be beings everywhere, without any space where there are no beings.  Not just here on this planet, but everywhere else in space throughout what there is in the universe.  Even if the universe went on forever and ever and there was some more of the universe that we on this planet were not aware of now, there would be no end to the number of beings there are.

 

 

 

Same idea as above, except there would be no end to the different kinds of beings both here and everywhere else in the universe, with there also being no such thing as "everywhere".

 

 

 

It is impossible for you to identify or even describe a more supreme being than the kind of being that I know God is, and if you were to try you would at least be acknowledging the being that I know is God rather than saying that God does not exist.

 

I'll break this apart.

 

If there were an infinite number of beings there would be beings everywhere. False.  That's like saying that if there were an infinite number of odd numbers, there would be no room for even numbers.

 

It is impossible for you to identify or even describe a more supreme being than the kind of being that I know God is...  We aren't talking about your specific beliefs about God--we are talking about your proof that a generic "supreme being" must exist.  In that proof, the conclusions don't follow from the premises--if there are an infinte number of beings and the ranking of them is infinite, then there isn't a "supreme being".

 

This approach illustrates one of the reasons why "God" is such an ill-defined concept.  Some people believe that God is infinte--infintely powerful, always everywhere, etc.  That type of being is categorically different than the "supreme being" which is simply the most supreme being that can be found in a finite universe.

[jkwilliams]

Semantics is all about trying to define what we mean when we say something, and words by nature convey different ideas.

 

This thread was like:  Isn't atheism a religion?  I think it is.  How about you?  

Yes.

No

Yes

No.

What do you mean it's not?  What do you think being atheist means?

I agree.

I disagree.

I agree.

I disagree.

Now we don't even agree on what being atheist means.

 

I think it's typical.  It's not like we're all going to be in agreement about something.

 

I see it more like this:

 

What do atheists believe?

I'm an atheist, and this is what I believe.

No, you don't.

Well, yes, I do.

Then you're not an atheist.

 

We may not agree, but it stands to reason that we ought to allow people to define what they believe.

[Ahab]

 

I'll break this apart.

 

If there were an infinite number of beings there would be beings everywhere. False.  That's like saying that if there were an infinite number of odd numbers, there would be no room for even numbers.

The nice thing about numbers is that they don't take up any real space until you put them on paper, but yeah, if an infinity of odd numbers were put on paper they would take up all space in existence and there would be no more space for anything else. 

 

It is impossible for you to identify or even describe a more supreme being than the kind of being that I know God is...

We aren't talking about your specific beliefs about God--we are talking about your proof that a generic "supreme being" must exist. In that proof, the conclusions don't follow from the premises--if there are an infinte number of beings and the ranking of them is infinite, then there isn't a "supreme being".

You said something about how you could identify a being more supreme than any being I would call God.  I rebutted, and now you're deflecting my rebuttal without any substance to prove your point.  And I know it's because you can't do it.

 

This approach illustrates one of the reasons why "God" is such an ill-defined concept. Some people believe that God is infinte--infintely powerful, always everywhere, etc. That type of being is categorically different than the "supreme being" which is simply the most supreme being that can be found in a finite universe.

I know.  Some people have some false concepts about what "God" actually is.  But at least all theists believe God does exist.

[jkwilliams]

The nice thing about numbers is that they don't take up any real space until you put them on paper, but yeah, if an infinity of odd numbers were put on paper they would take up all space in existence and there would be no more space for anything else.

Unless, of course, space is also infinite.

[Ahab]

I see it more like this:

 

What do atheists believe?

I'm an atheist, and this is what I believe.

No, you don't.

Well, yes, I do.

Then you're not an atheist.

 

We may not agree, but it stands to reason that we ought to allow people to define what they believe.

You mean like making up their own definitions instead of using the ones in standard dictionaries?

 

Hold on there, bud.   We need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise there will never be an end to the madness.

[pmccombs1]

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.

 

I'd slightly disagree with your assessment of an agnostic. I consider myself an agnostic believer, but I'm agnostic because I am without knowledge. I can't say whether the thing is intrinsically knowable, but I know that my knowledge can't be justified beyond myself. I consider Sam Keen a pretty good example of my type. "It isn't about belief and disbelief, but experimentation and play." Something like that.

 

I do believe that the evidence out there is typically not justifiable in the sense that it can be asserted for everyone in the manner of, say, gravity or magnetism. This doesn't make the evidence uninteresting or irrelevant.

 

I like Analytic's terms: "agnostic theist" and "agnostic atheist."  The agnostic atheist is the soft-atheist of disbelief, while the agnostic theist is the religious experimenter, or the anarchist, like me. We just don't get along with religious authority very well.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Unless, of course, space is also infinite.

As far as anyone can tell that seems to be the case. But lets not get off topic too much.

[jkwilliams]

You mean like making up their own definitions instead of using the ones in standard dictionaries?

 

Hold on there, bud.   We need to draw a line somewhere, otherwise there will never be an end to the madness.

You guys are the ones insisting on a very narrow definition of atheism that is not consistent with either the dictionary's definition or Analytics' self-definition.

[Ahab]

Unless, of course, space is also infinite.

Even if space were infinite (and I believe it is even though some of space has some things in it), if infinite space was filled with an infinity of odd numbers on paper there would still be no more space for anything else... because the infinity of space would be filled with an the infinity of odd numbers on paper. 

[jkwilliams]

Even if space were infinite (and I believe it is even though some of space has some things in it), if infinite space was filled with an infinity of odd numbers on paper there would still be no more space for anything else... because the infinity of space would be filled with an the infinity of odd numbers on paper.

Mormonism teaches that there is an infinite number of Gods stretching back forever and that there is an infinite number of potential Gods going forward. By your logic, eventually there will be too many Gods for the universe to accommodate.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mormonism teaches that there is an infinite number of Gods stretching back forever and that there is an infinite number of potential Gods going forward. By your logic, eventually there will be too many Gods for the universe to accommodate.

I think you are right about this.