Atheism Not A Religion?

[The Nehor]

Of course atheism is a religion, it is the religion of unbelief. The religon of the communist state. The true religion of Satan, one that discounts God and denies the Holy Ghost, one that mocks all that is sacred and holy, that reduces man to a mere animal that evolved by chance and tries to prove itself claiming "reason" as it's foundation. It is the concept that man is the "measure of all things" and it tries to prevade all of society. It is a philosophy that likes to sit in judgement of all other beliefs as an Anti-Religion, an Anti-belief. It sits in judgement blaming all the ills of mankind, war, hatred, vice, ignorance on religion (believers in a god or gods) and I believe it is a pathetic view that deludes itself of it's own supposed superiority and is really inspired of Lucifer from the very beginning in his own words: "believe it not!" There is nothing in my estimation of value in it's ideals or concepts. That is why I usually chose to not have dialogue with those who aspire to this "unbelief" dogma.

 

It's okay buddy, the Cold War is over. You can come out of the bunker.

[mfbukowski]

And what is this odd non-falsifiable belief of yours based on?  And what counts as "evidence"?  Whatever does that even mean?

 

And what is your evidence that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

 

Perhaps you don't believe it IS wrong?  After all, there is no evidence for that belief.

Logical positivism just doesn't work.  Philosophers have known that for years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

 

The only place it is still alive is in the imaginations of guys like Dawkins and Maher.  They need to learn some critical thinking skills.

 

Retrospect

By the late 1960s, the neopositivist movement had clearly run its course.^[43] Interviewed in the late 1970s, A J Ayer supposed that "the most important" defect "was that nearly all of it was false".^[44] Although logical positivism tends to be recalled as a pillar of scientism,^[3]Carl Hempel was key in establishing the philosophy subdiscipline philosophy of science^[15] where Thomas Kuhn and Karl Popper brought in the era postpositivism.^[41]John Passmore found logical positivism to be "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes".^[44]

Logical positivism's fall reopened debate over the metaphysical merit of scientific theory, whether it can offer knowledge of the world beyond human experience (scientific realism) versus whether it is but a human tool to predict human experience (instrumentalism).^[45][46] Meanwhile, it became popular among philosophers to rehash the faults and failures of logical positivism without investigation of it.^[47] Thereby, logical positivism has been generally misrepresented, sometimes severely.^[48] Arguing for their own views, often framed versus logical positivism, many philosophers have reduced logical positivism to simplisms and stereotypes, especially the notion of logical positivism as a type of foundationalism.^[48] In any event, the movement helped anchor analytic philosophy in the Anglosphere, and returned Britain to empiricism. Minus logical positivists, tremendously influential outside philosophy, especially in psychology and social sciences, intellectual life of the 20^th would be unrecognizable.^[15]

 

Edited November 13, 2013 by mfbukowski

[Stone holm]

 

Logical positivism just doesn't work.  Philosophers have known that for years now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_positivism

 

The only place it is still alive is in the imaginations of guys like Dawkins and Maher.  They need to learn some critical thinking skills.

 

 

 

What seems to be killing philosophy is the labeling and categorization of certain metaphysical theories and then making bold statements about the labels and categories being expressed.

[Stone holm]

It's okay buddy, the Cold War is over. You can come out of the bunker.

 

Well for some the Cold War, like the Civil War, never really ended, despite the fact that a Communist country is now one of our biggest trading partners and our major foreign creditor.  I love how all these Cold War era statements are made while our industrialists are busy moving the last of our manufacturing facilities to a Communist police state -- an amazing statement about how big government kills industrial development...lol

[Analytics]

And what is this odd non-falsifiable belief of yours based on?  And what counts as "evidence"?  Whatever does that even mean?

 

And what is your evidence that it is wrong to kill babies for fun?

 

Perhaps you don't believe it IS wrong?  After all, there is no evidence for that belief.

 

Atheism isn't a non-falsifiable belief.  It is the lack of belief.  As I've said above, most self-described atheists use the word the same way I am using it here--to self-described atheists, atheism is the lack of a positive belief in "god(s)." 

 

Why I don't have this positive belief is a different question.  For me, the word "god" is ill-defined because people who believe in "god" have wildly different conceptions of what "god" is, many of which don't even make sense to me.  And beyond that, I haven't found a convincing reason to believe in "god" (whatever "god" is).  Therefore I don't have that positive belief. 

 

My lack of positive belief isn't based on evidence--it is based on a lack of clarity about what is "god" actually means, along with a lack of (convincing) evidence to accept the proposition that something rightly called "god" exists.

 

This way of thinking is obviously confusing to you, so I'll offer an example.  Say somebody proposed that there is a tea cup in space, orbiting the sun somewhere beyond Mars.  Do you believe this tiny object is out there in the vast darkness of space?  Somebody who thinks like a self-described atheist would likely say, "While theoretically a tea cup could be out there, I have no reason to believe that it is, therefore I lack belief in a tea-cup orbiting the sun."  If somebody else said, "I've prayed about it, and God has told me through my feelings that there is indeed a tea cup there.  Therefore, your belief that there isn't a tea-cup is based on faith, just like my belief that there really is a tea cup is based on faith."  The atheist would simply say, "I don't have faith that there isn't a tea cup.  I simply lack positive belief in the tea cup because I haven't been presented with positive evidence to accept it."

 

Is killing babies for fun wrong?  I believe it is.  Why I hold the belief that it is wrong to kill babies seems off-topic.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If you were to ask a self-described atheist what he means by "atheist", he'll likely say something like, "Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods." (quoted from http://atheists.org/activism/resources/what-is-atheism)

 

I don't give a crap what that website says. Most athiest I have talked to have a postive belief that God does not exsist. Even Tarski said that you could prove a negative.  Athiest posit with certitude that God does not exsist. And quoting the laughable Bill Maher doesn't help your case. He is wrong on just about everything he talks about.

[jkwilliams]

What seems to be killing philosophy is the labeling and categorization of certain metaphysical theories and then making bold statements about the labels and categories being expressed.

 

I was thinking the same thing. gmta

 

Labeling someone else's thought as "positivism" and then providing quotes decrying positivism is not an effective means of understanding one another.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

 

My lack of positive belief isn't based on evidence--it is based on a lack of clarity about what is "god" actually means, along with a lack of (convincing) evidence to accept the proposition that something rightly called "god" exists.

 

Ha. But you don't have a lack of positive belief. You have a postive belief in a negative. God does not exsist.

[jkwilliams]

I don't give a crap what that website says. Most athiest I have talked to have a postive belief that God does not exsist. Even Tarski said that you could prove a negative.  Athiest posit with certitude that God does not exsist. And quoting the laughable Bill Maher doesn't help your case. He is wrong on just about everything he talks about.

 

I don't know any atheists who believe you can prove God does not exist. I know some who say "I believe God doesn't exist," but most are in line with what Analytics posted.

Edited November 13, 2013 by jkwilliams

[jkwilliams]

Ha. But you don't have a lack of positive belief. You have a postive belief in a negative. God does not exsist.

 

CFR. Just saying.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well for some the Cold War, like the Civil War, never really ended, despite the fact that a Communist country is now one of our biggest trading partners and our major foreign creditor.  I love how all these Cold War era statements are made while our industrialists are busy moving the last of our manufacturing facilities to a Communist police state -- an amazing statement about how big government kills industrial development...lol

You can talk to your beloved Democaratic Party for most of that. Oh well I digress.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I don't know any atheists who believe you can prove God does not exist. I know some who say "I believe God doesn't exist," but most are in line with what Analytics posted.

Cool. Prove? That has absolutley nothing with a positive belief in a negative. I can't prove that God is real. Does that mean I am now an athiest? If proof is required then that definition is even more different than I a have even heard.  I have had several tell me that " God does not exsist" Then they say "prove it to me". They assert a positive belief in a negative. Then often it goes into lame stories about the celestial tea pot and the flying spaghetti monster.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

CFR. Just saying.

CFR what? You really want a website that says what I am saying. Ha John you are a riot. I am asserting that athiest have a positive belief in a negative. I talked with Tarski a while back and told him that his position was weak because held a positiion of trying to prove a negative. To which he responded that you could indeed prove a negative. And I am sure as a PHD in math that he could do it.

 

Athiesim is more than just a mere lack of belief. If I assert that there is no moon that rotates around the earth is that just a lack of belief or is that a positive belief that the moon doesn't exist?  

[jkwilliams]

Cool. Prove? That has absolutley nothing with a positive belief in a negative. I can't prove that God is real. Does that mean I am now an athiest? If proof is required then that definition is even more different than I a have even heard.  I have had several tell me that " God does not exsist" Then they say "prove it to me". They assert a positive belief in a negative. Then often it goes into lame stories about the celestial tea pot and the flying spaghetti monster.

 

Some atheists are what you might call "hard atheists," but as Analytics noted, they don't represent atheists as a group. I know a few such hard atheists, but not many. As I said, most of them say, as Analytics has, that they don't see any reason to believe in God. The lame stories you've heard represent a lack of belief, not necessarily a "positive belief in a negative." I'm not an atheist, but it seems to me that we ought to let them speak for themselves.

[jkwilliams]

CFR what? You really want a website that says what I am saying. Ha John you are a riot. I am asserting that athiest have a positive belief in a negative. I talked with Tarski a while back and told him that his position was weak because held a positiion of trying to prove a negative. To which he responded that you could indeed prove a negative. And I am sure as a PHD in math that he could do it.

 

Athiesim is more than just a mere lack of belief. If I assert that there is no moon that rotates around the earth is that just a lack of belief or is that a positive belief that the moon doesn't exist?  

 

Riot or not, I'm asking you to back up your statement about Analytics: "But you don't have a lack of positive belief. You have a postive belief in a negative. God does not exsist."

 

He hasn't said that, and I'm CFRing because you claim he has. Either back it up, or acknowledge that you are misrepresenting him. That's not fair.

Edited November 13, 2013 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

A quick test- which of the following would be a religious question

1. Do you believe in black holes?

2. How old is the universe?

3. Do you believe in God?

4. Is nature beautiful?

5. Do you believe in magic?

1. Yes.

2. About 13.82 billions of years old.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. No.

 

It is not the questions themselves that are religious it is the answers we give to them.

Edited November 13, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Analytics]

Riot or not, I'm asking you to back up your statement about Analytics: "But you don't have a lack of positive belief. You have a postive belief in a negative. God does not exsist."

 

He hasn't said that, and I'm CFRing because you claim he has. Either back it up, or acknowledge that you are misrepresenting him. That's not fair.

 

Exactly.  Most self-described atheists think atheism means "lack of belief in god(s)," meaning a lack of a positive belief.  I've presented a link to an essay at a high-profile atheist site that's explained it, and I've explained it myself here. 

 

If Mola Ram Suda Ram and mfbukowski would like to have this debate with straw-man atheists rather than real atheists, they should let me know and I'll leave the discussion and let them have their fun.  But if they insist that my belief system is other than what I say it is, a CFR is in order: what is their evidence that I'm lying about what I believe?

Edited November 13, 2013 by Analytics

[The Nehor]

You can talk to your beloved Democaratic Party for most of that. Oh well I digress.

This is silly. Neither party is responsible or wants everything to move to China. The profit motive is moving it. Ayn Rand would have wanted it this way.

[Rob Osborn]

1. Yes.

2. About 13.82 billions of years old.

3. Yes.

4. Yes.

5. No.

 

It is not the questions themselves that are religious it is the answers we give to them.

Thanks for the reply. It proves the point that when atheists seek to answer the "god" question or show preference to it making it the main theme, then they have become religion.

[Analytics]

Just to drive the point home, I just finished searching the web for authoritative, high-profile atheist groups that define atheism.  Here are the five I found:

 

American Atheists (www.atheists.org) “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

 

The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/) “Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.”

 

About Atheism (atheism.about.com) “A-theism is the disbelief that at least one god exists; it is the absence of the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true.”

 

Rational Wiki (rationalwiki.org) “Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.”

 

To further drive the point home, consider this explanation from atheism.about.com:

 

 

Do you believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt? To put the question more technically, do you believe the proposition "Austin is wearing a yellow shirt" is true? It's a simple question where the meanings of all the terms are relatively straightforward, so there shouldn't be any issue with comprehension. There are lots of people wearing yellow shirts every day, so there is no issue with logical or physical impossibility.
 

The biggest problem is ignorance: you really have no way of knowing what I am wearing right now. I might not even be wearing a shirt, never mind a yellow one. There's just no reasonable basis for you to believe that I am wearing a yellow shirt. You should believe that it's possible that I'm wearing a yellow shirt, and you might reasonably believe that I sometimes wear a yellow shirt, but you shouldn't believe that I am wearing one right now.
 

By the same token, though, you also shouldn't believe that the proposition "Austin is wearing a yellow shirt" is false. Your ignorance of what I am wearing should prevent you from denying this proposition the same way it prevents you from affirming it. As you can see, not believing that this proposition is true isn't the same as believing the proposition is not true: not affirming that I am wearing a yellow shirt doesn't entail denying that I am wearing a yellow shirt.
 

This describes the most basic level of disbelief: you don’t actively believe my claim, but you don’t deny it either. Many atheists take this position with respect to theistic claims when those claims are too vague or incoherent to adequately evaluate. Obviously such claims don’t merit rational belief, but there simply isn’t enough substance to say anything more about them.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Analytics

[thesometimesaint]

Just to drive the point home, I just finished searching the web for authoritative, high-profile atheist groups that define atheism.  Here are the five I found:

 

American Atheists (www.atheists.org) “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

 

The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/) “Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.”

 

About Atheism (atheism.about.com) “A-theism is the disbelief that at least one god exists; it is the absence of the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true.”

 

Rational Wiki (rationalwiki.org) “Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.”

 

To further drive the point home, consider this explanation from atheism.about.com:

 

I think even those are a bit off. Buddhists don't believe in any god of gods. Buddhists are not atheists.

[pmccombs1]

Just to drive the point home, I just finished searching the web for authoritative, high-profile atheist groups that define atheism.  Here are the five I found:

 

American Atheists (www.atheists.org) “Atheism is usually defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods.”

 

The Secular Web (http://www.infidels.org/) “Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods.”

 

About Atheism (atheism.about.com) “A-theism is the disbelief that at least one god exists; it is the absence of the mental attitude that the proposition "at least one god exists" is true.”

 

Rational Wiki (rationalwiki.org) “Atheism is the absence of belief in the existence of gods.”

 

To further drive the point home, consider this explanation from atheism.about.com:

 

What do you make of those atheists, like the one in a 60 Minutes that aired with Barbara Walters some years ago, who actively deny the existence of a God? Do they qualify as atheists, or would you say they are something else? One self-proclaimed atheist acquaintance of mine makes a positive statement that there is no God. 

 

Personally, I would call someone who lacks belief on the basis of ignorance an agnostic, since the word "agnostic" connotes a lack of knowledge. The word "atheism" connotes the lack of theism, and it's entirely possible (in my mind) to lack theism for any number of reasons, not only for the lack of knowledge.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I should clarify my comments. When I am speaking of athiesm I am not talking about my friend or some guy that is like "I don't believe in god, whatever". I am talking about the hardcore militant athiest. And further more I might just have to agree to disagree on certain points.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

What do you make of those atheists, like the one in a 60 Minutes that aired with Barbara Walters some years ago, who actively deny the existence of a God? Do they qualify as atheists, or would you say they are something else? One self-proclaimed atheist acquaintance of mine makes a positive statement that there is no God. 

 

Personally, I would call someone who lacks belief on the basis of ignorance an agnostic, since the word "agnostic" connotes a lack of knowledge. The word "atheism" connotes the lack of theism, and it's entirely possible (in my mind) to lack theism for any number of reasons, not only for the lack of knowledge.

This is eactly what I am talking about. I think most athiest, and I have heard the term soft athiest are more agnostic than athiest. But the "hard" athiest are the militant athiest that hold a positive belief in a negative.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

This is silly. Neither party is responsible or wants everything to move to China. The profit motive is moving it. Ayn Rand would have wanted it this way.

Sorry I should have said progressives. They are in both parties. Think minimum wage. Anyway I we should not derail this thread and just to move past it all I take full responsibilty for the slight derail and I will not comment on this further.

Edited November 13, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram