RE: Is Atheism a religion?

RE: Is Atheism a religion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

GotSteel -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/10/2009 11:44:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eponavet And i am saying that you yourself said that you are agnostic. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel My own view when it comes to the existence(under any definition of the word) of a deity/s(under any definition of the word) is that I don't know. I could give a rat's ass if your call yourself the Lucky Charm leprechaun. Either way, you believe something....according to you, as it pertains to the existence of god, you don't know. So that would allow the rest of us to deduce that you are agnostic. Beyond that, you can be a twue whatever you want....enjoy! [;)] Did you seriously just call "I don't know" a belief.

Aswad -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/10/2009 11:52:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Your not only straw manning the atheist community right there. Your walking into a 15 page long thread where one of the major topics of debate is whether or not atheism has any beliefs, ignoring everyone's points and making that assertion. I've tried explaining a straw man several times in this thread and some people just don't seem to grasp it, I thought I'd try a different approach to explaining why the straw man is a fallacy. My reason for walking into the thread and skipping ahead is precisely what you point out here. Most participants in these debates do not want- without commenting on ability- to grasp simple propositional logic, and many of the most vocal find basic conjunctions challenging, even when put in the most basic and piecemeal terms, whereas mere rhetoric is lost in the background noise. That pretty much defines a stillborn debate. As such, I hold out little hope that you will succeed in explaining why a particular argument is fallacious to a broad audience. And I skip sifting through 15 pages, with a rather clear conscience, for exactly that reason. Now, I am used to dealing with predicate, propositional and typed logics, and have occasionally been accused of being able to at least not conflate entities, though I reserve the right to needlessly multiply them now and then, seeing as sex is fun and all that. On that grounds, I do think it should be quite possible to convince me that my conclusion is in error, if indeed it is, and to pinpoint where the error occured, if indeed one did, provided your argument is well conveyed, sufficiently coherent and further that I see no flaws in it. I do not intend to introduce a straw man, and dispute that I have. Please be more concrete (and, if necessary, verbose) in explaining how the quoted passage erects a straw man for me to knock down. I have a position, reasonably well thought out, that I am prepared to discuss, but not if we can indeed agree that it would constitute knocking down a straw man. Thus, I invite you to explain that complaint in greater detail, so that I can decide whether I need to revise my position before presenting it in order for it to knock down the actual argument, and not a straw man one. If I understand your more detailed complaint, yet disagree with it, I am more than willing to discuss that before proceeding to the main position. If you've already done a formal writeup in a previous post, I apologize and would appreciate a general indication of the page on which you did so. Health, al-Aswad.

Aswad -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 12:17:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Incredible. I had no idea that belief systems could be created without beliefs. Whoever was looking for a good example of a straw man argument might use this one; a tautology being presented in order to dismiss a position that was not the one forwarded... that is a prize example, although it being a tautology is a bonus only in that it offers the pedagogical value of a real world example which is nonetheless perfectly devoid of any other content than the fallacy. Obviously, a non-tautological example might also serve well as a contrast in a series of examples. Don't suppose you were looking for a serious answer, since you didn't offer much more than an interjection to reply to, but I hope you don't mind a bit of sarcasm in the same vein. Health, al-Aswad.

GotSteel -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 12:22:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eponavet And i am saying that you yourself said that you are agnostic. quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel My own view when it comes to the existence(under any definition of the word) of a deity/s(under any definition of the word) is that I don't know. I could give a rat's ass if your call yourself the Lucky Charm leprechaun. Either way, you believe something....according to you, as it pertains to the existence of god, you don't know. So that would allow the rest of us to deduce that you are agnostic. Maybe you should define agnostic before we move forward. When it comes to the existance of a deity, my answer isn't always I don't know. For one thing it depends on the god claim it also depends on how existence is defined. The claim that Zeus physically exists on top of Mt. Olympus isn't true. However Zeus clearly exists as a literary figure. OK, I'm only part way through this post but it's going up anyway, I just have to get to sleep.

Sunnyfey -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 1:59:18 AM)
(interjects random dictionary definition again...this is getting fun!) Agnostic (noun) a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (www.dictionary.com) You know I love being helpful![:D][:D][:D]

NihilusZero -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 2:03:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Incredible. I had no idea that belief systems could be created without beliefs. Whoever was looking for a good example of a straw man argument might use this one; a tautology being presented in order to dismiss a position that was not the one forwarded... I may not have brushed up on my English lately, but the sentence: "Atheism is a belief system." seems quite clear cut. To assert this, you would have to suggest there are beliefs within its construct. There aren't. The tautology serves it's purpose to indicate the illogic of your words. No straw man. quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad that is a prize example, although it being a tautology is a bonus only in that it offers the pedagogical value of a real world example which is nonetheless perfectly devoid of any other content than the fallacy. A "real world example" of what? What does it mean to say that my comments being a tautology "is a bonus"? What are you talking about? quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Obviously, a non-tautological example might also serve well as a contrast in a series of examples. A contrast between what? A series of examples of what? What are you talking about?? quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Don't suppose you were looking for a serious answer, since you didn't offer much more than an interjection to reply to, but I hope you don't mind a bit of sarcasm in the same vein. I did offer more. You've just said as much (with the portion of your post that is intelligible). Or did you want me to touch on the branches of your notion (that atheism is a belief system) when the fundamental trunk is hollow?

thishereboi -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 4:51:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Atheism is a belief system Incredible. I had no idea that belief systems could be created without beliefs. According to dictionary.com Main Entry: belief system Part of Speech: n Definition: faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society So if you have a group of people with the belief that there is no god, wouldn't that fit the second part of the definition?

SL4V3M4YB3 -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 5:03:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero Third? Were the first two insufficiently corroborating of your points to include here? Like, perhaps, Merrian Webster's which includes something strikingly similar to your definition as its third entry: Whilst yes the third definition suits my point best the idea that you have to pick one of the other definitions first ignores the reason way the third definition was created in the first place. What is a post? Is it something you collect from the mailbox or is it a supporting member for a fence? Which definition comes up first, that is the true meaning right? The point is the third definition exists and was created for a reason as English is a fluid language and words alone as I keep repeating need context. People don't need an emotional attachment to something to place faith in it. I have faith the mail will arrive because 9 times out of 10 it does. Saying I put an emotional attachment on things because I use a certain word in relation to them is rather patronising or assumes my use of English is as two tone as yours. quote: It's awfully myopic to think an argumentum ad populum makes one fantastical notion better than another. If purple gnomes become a genuine emotional concept to one person, they are just as metaphysically valid Seriously I don't know purple gnomes in another dimension don't exist do you? The fact is nobody cares if they do or don't at this time. People obviously have an idea of the concept of god for whatever reason (perhaps social ignorance). It's not much of a stretch really to attribute something to a force beyond our ability to recognise. Someone at some stage came up with the notion of god to describe how it all began and what will happen beyond this life. Some of that notion can be disproven and some can't. You can't really disprove it by pretending your ill conceived notion of purple gnomes matches it because that notion has no theological history at all to discredit thus it is already not as credible as the other idea in people’s minds. If you could imagine an alternative explanation for things religious people attribute to god then that is your best tactic to disprove the notion of god. I know it is highly annoying for you but god is like the cold virus too many versions of it to cure people of all in one lifetime. quote: If the god concept is not one that can be disproven because it relies of fallacious arguments (e.g. special pleading) it's a fundamentally useless bit of imagination. Don't really understand that argument. If one person has the right idea then that person is right; an idea doesn't have to be popular to be right but I take the point that the idea isn't going to benefit the greater population. This is the thing about spirituality though it isn't for the greater population it is for that specific individual. quote: People are not logical yet expect the rules of logic to guide their daily activities constantly. I'm not saying the theistic god concept has to be logical. I'm saying it has to be logical if it is of any bit of worth more than a fluffy memory from our youths. Some people gain strength from the notion so it isn't really useless to people. If it helps them cope even if it isn't logical it still helps them. Similarly when people are badly injured the medical people never tell them the truth although logically there is no reason why they can't be told about the uphill struggle they face straight away. Logically there is no difference between being told bad news on day one or day five, the only facts in that situation are if they know the truth or not. How do we know when someone can cope with the news? That is a human choice but crucial to a person’s recovery. The placebo effect how does this work we can't understand how someone can think themselves better but the fact is to test drugs you have to administer placebo to ensure the drugs are the things doing the work. How much logic is there in that batman? quote: You're decrying human ignorance about a deity while making a point that presumes you're not ignorant about it. I don't think I am right I just think you are wrong because you have the same vantage point as me and I couldn't begin to disprove such a notion. In any case I think you are going to have to communicate beyond the confines of the English language to disprove such a thing. The English language is imperfect, so is Latin i.e. far too easy for people to interpret your words as they like and maintain their own position. quote: The only people who have any real business dealing with anything outside our universe are well-versed theoretical physicists. Trying to make something up and then proclaiming that very thing has a 'Get out of Credibility' card because you've imagined it to be out of the realm of this universe is intellectually silly. And Sagan's Dragon was much more interesting as far as those sorts of creatures are concerned. I'll take human imagination over cold intellect any day. Personal choice.

kittinSol -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 5:06:47 AM)
Atheists do not believe there is no god. They know there is no god. Knowledge isn't belief, however much some religious people try to twist one into the other. Atheism isn't a religion, as atheists don't have faith, and it's a con to try and argue otherwise.

Rule -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 6:13:17 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel The claim that Zeus physically exists on top of Mt. Olympus isn't true. If you mean at this very moment, you are most probably right. For example: I occasionally do physically exist on top of my bike, but at this very moment I physically exist on the seat of my chair. Also, it may be that Zeus' Mt. Olympus does not have a top at this very moment, though of course we may call the part that ordinarily is the top, still the top.

thishereboi -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 6:33:40 AM)
Yea, our minister married one. I think we are one of the only congregational churches to have seder suppers.

thishereboi -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 6:41:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kittinSol Atheists do not believe there is no god. They know there is no god. Knowledge isn't belief, however much some religious people try to twist one into the other. Saying something is so, does not make it true, no matter how many times you say it. You can call it knowledge or what ever you want. It is still only your belief that it is true, not fact. Atheism isn't a religion, as atheists don't have faith, and it's a con to try and argue otherwise. I never said it was, however since you brought this up. If it's a con, just what are they trying to get out of the other guy? What's the payoff in this con?

kittinSol -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 6:48:04 AM)
You are arguing, then, that nobody knows anything, and that knowledge is nothing but belief. In this case, we cannot have any kind of conversation on this subject, because you are versing towards the irrational.

Lostkitten3 -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 7:01:17 AM)
Knowledge is something that can be proved scientifically, over and over again, by anyone following the same procedures. Given that most people's belief in god is via miracles, these would be anomalies that happen once in a blue moon, and no one (at the time) can explain why, so they call it something greater than themselves i.e. god. I once saw a show that said the proof of god is the patterns we see in the world, that they can't explain, like ripples in the sand, or concentric circles in dirt, but realistically, it is far easier to make a pattern, by humans and any other thing in nature than it is to be random. Many artists work many many years to try to create truly random pieces. I think Pollack got the closest, not that anyone understands his work outside the Art world. Honestly, to say that proof of god is in patterns then to say proof of god is in anomalies, is to say god exists because there is existence...which is pretty silly. And proves nothing. God is a story earlier humans made up to explain things like floods and death. We should have outgrown it by now.

DavanKael -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 7:52:34 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: eponavet quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael ORIGINAL: eponavet I think that agnosticism is the best example of the absence of a belief system as it pertains to a religious discussion. Do you disagree? ~ epona This was not asked of me but I am agnostic (I'll sometimes cop to being an atheistically-leaning one and I surely don't believe in an interventionist god) and, I don't think it is indicative of an absence of belief system at all. I espouse the belief quite clearly that I don't freakin' know: that's not a lack of belief system, I am certain that I don't have the answer: I believe that I don't know, I believe that there are possibilities and there are probabilities. I was among the faithful, I did believe in God (Of the Christian variety) for a number of years of my life. Then, I lost my faith (Cue the appropriate REM song here). I didn't want to lose my faith, it would be comforting in a lot of ways to have retained it. I do agree that agnostic atheists are a contradiction in terms (and found your Jews for Jesus reference amusing). I haven't read the entirety of the thread but you're arguing from an emotional viewpoint where NZ is speaking of logic. You're frustrating yourself with what's at the core of what I have read of the debate which is faith versus logic: the two are irreconcilable because one operates on the fluidity of emotions and a 'feeling' while the other has a fixed set of criteria and demands the rigors of proof. Davan I agree with you in that agnostics do have beliefs. I am personally of the opinion that viewpoints as they pertain to religion/non-religion are all beliefs....but the only one i could think of that seemed to not espouse a fixed set of ideals that i would term a "system" - i.e. there IS a god or there isn't...was agnosticism. I guess i would call myself agnostic. I would LOVE for their to be some divine plan/plane etc. but i cannot conceptualize/feel/have faith that there is, so i am left with agnosticism. Because i scare easily and don't like feeling nihilistic and having an exisitential crisis sucks! [:o] I can argue both sides, but logically, some points i cannot reconcile - like agnostic atheists or christian jews. Beyond that, i have moments of feeling like my signature line and moments of feeling like NZ. And moments of inexplicable insanity when i continue to post on a thread online when i should be asleep, dreaming of nirvana...or at least good sex! [:D] I don't think that agnostics or atheists have a fixed set of anything with the exception of agnostics saying "I don't know" and atheists saying "there is no G/god(s)". Trying to put all of either of those groups of people together based on any commonality beyond those simple assertions I noted above isn't inherently correct. It's trying to group non-religiously-identifying people in a religious-seeming way; or, if you will, putting people into boxes who may not find the box appropriate. Imo, correctly identifying as one of the above takes only the criteria I noted for each above. Being a Jew has any number of requirements, being a Catholic has any number of requirements, etc.: fundamental to each is a belief in a particular God but there are other requirements that distinguish each. I could be in error (And I haven't read the thread in its entirety) but, I'm not sure that I've seen NZ state that he feels any particular way but rather discussing modes of thought, belief (Or lack there-of), opinions, etc. Good sex...now that's the kind of worship I can get with! :> Davan

DavanKael -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 7:53:38 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: DavanKael I do agree that agnostic atheists are a contradiction in terms Do you think that agnostic theists are a contradiction in terms? I think that stating it as theistically leaning agnostic would make more sense. Davan

blackpearl81 -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 7:57:27 AM)
I believe in cake, but the cake is a lie. [sm=donttaseme.gif]

GotSteel -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 8:10:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Sunnyfey (interjects random dictionary definition again...this is getting fun!) Agnostic (noun) a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. (www.dictionary.com) You know I love being helpful![:D][:D][:D] Lol thanks, I guess we'll see if that definition is on the same page as the agnostic community. I don't take the position that the essential nature of things is unknowable, I'm hopeful that one day we will completely understand quantum physics and am eagerly anticipating what we'll learn from the Large Hadron Collider which is supposed to be operational this November. I also want to point out that "or that human knowledge is limited to experience." doesn't address belief. So wouldn't a Christian who acknowledges that they don't know if there there's a god because human knowledge is limited to experience but still believes there is a god be an agnostic Christian?

FirmhandKY -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 8:26:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi quote: ORIGINAL: NihilusZero quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Atheism is a belief system Incredible. I had no idea that belief systems could be created without beliefs. According to dictionary.com Main Entry: belief system Part of Speech: n Definition: faith based on a series of beliefs but not formalized into a religion; also, a fixed coherent set of beliefs prevalent in a community or society So if you have a group of people with the belief that there is no god, wouldn't that fit the second part of the definition? I think part of the issue is a confusion about who we are exactly talking about. For myself, I'll define the terms a little more closely. In general, when I am discussing "atheists", I am talking about people in the Western, Christian tradition who do not believe in God. Buddhist, for example, can be considered atheists, but that tradition hasn't been part of the mainstream Western culture. People are also getting into a snit about a "belief system", saying that atheists have nothing in common, and only a single common "disbelief" which binds them. I'm willing to modify my claim that "atheism is a belief system" to atheism is at least a "world view", considering that I am discussing Western atheists, although I think it a distinction without much difference once the group of atheists we (or I, at least) are defining as atheists from the Western tradition. Firm

ThatDamnedPanda -> RE: Is Atheism a religion? (9/11/2009 8:59:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY I'm willing to modify my claim that "atheism is a belief system" to atheism is at least a "world view", considering that I am discussing Western atheists, although I think it a distinction without much difference once the group of atheists we (or I, at least) are defining as atheists from the Western tradition. Firm ???

Page: << < prev 17 18 [19] 20 21 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875