Atheism is a religion

[catfood]

If you feel atheism is based on evidence, and you can provide evidence that will make a believer out of atheist, please post in "what proof / evidence do atheist need?" thread. While I believe that's not possible and no one has proposed plausible scenario, you may know something that works that's not been posted yet. If you feel there is no way to know the existence or non-existence of god is possible, let's discuss.

 

Religion is about blind faith. There is no way to change the religious because the basic premise is no evidence to the contrary is possible. For example, "bible is the word of god, never mind the contradictions, so there!" One can argue that the bible and all other religions have many contradictions (aka, flaws), so one chooses to be atheist. But if there is no possible way to not be an atheist or agnostic or ignostic or whatever (and be a theist), then the blind faith is just the same as religious. Therefore, atheism becomes a religion at the most basic level: blind faith.

 

Now this is very troubling, especially for atheist like me. If atheism is just another religion at a fundamental level rooted in blind faith (no way to be otherwise), then why not Christianity? There are many benefits to being a Christian in US. First of all, one is no longer the most hated group (atheists are hated even more than muslims). 70% of the population identify as Christians, so social circles become much larger. Christian, even Westborough Baptists, do not go around stoning people for missing Sabbath, despite what the bible says. If I have kids, I would have them also be Christian, because it benefits them in life (social circles, etc) while at a fundamental level, it's the same as atheism. In fact, teaching them to be atheist is immoral as that's purposely placing disadvantage to children's life. If I'm living in India, I might say something like this for Hinduism.

 

This is really deeply troubling.

[Libertus]

If you feel atheism is based on evidence,

 

Hold on. Atheism is based on lack of evidence, mine at least. Atheists don't need any evidence for not believeing, that is not how it works.

[Flake]

Hold on. Atheism is based on lack of evidence, mine at least. Atheists don't need any evidence for not believeing, that is not how it works.

He's talking about strong atheism, which states "There is no God.", a truth claim which does require evidence/proof. He's also talking about the strong version of agnosticism which says, "We can never know if God exists."

 

I'll expound on why ignosticism isn't a religion. The condition which must be met, to logically get a ignostic to renounce their position, is to prove that the word God has a referent, a referent being something you can point to to say what a word means. (e.g. The referent of a orange is the fruit it's named after.) You could say, "People do give referents for God, like saying it's the universe.", yes, but they can't prove that that is what the word originally referred to. To prove it there would have to be research into the first possible use of the word, then logically explain how it referred to something specific. Which could theoretically be done I guess, but to the best of my knowledge that hasn't been done. So logically, something could persuade a ignostic to change their position, therefore it isn't religious.

[powder]

Hold on. Atheism is based on lack of evidence, mine at least. Atheists don't need any evidence for not believeing, that is not how it works.

 

I think that the accepted definition of Atheism is that it claims that there is no god(s): 

 

"...a disbelief in the existence of deity. b : the doctrine that there is no deity." Merriam Webster

 

So, since there is no way to prove that claim, it is a belief.  

 

I have come to the place where I do not see the need to chose to believe anything.  It is more interesting to me that people feel it is important to choose to believe something they have no way of verifying through direct experience?  Be they atheists or theists.  

 

In response to the OP's concern, I have lots of Christian friends that I am very close to, I just don't discuss religion with them.  

[Wesley]

It is fundamental to science and the scientific method that the positive proposition is where the burden of proof is.

 

If I claim there are leprechauns, then it is my duty to prove that and you are fully allowed to accept that they do not exist if I am not able to prove it. This is how science works. 

 

However, much more of the problem is that everyone means something different by "God", so the entire argument is stupid to begin with. If you define God as something self-contradictory, then we can claim non-existence in the same way we can claim that a square-circle doesn't exist. If you define it as something that does exist like "the universe" then it exists, but we have the word "universe" for it and it seems that it is unnecessary to complicate things. If you define it as "the process by which the universe was created" then that is something scientific and we may not completely understand what it is, but it did happen.

 

The major problem with God is that it means nothing. Everyone has a different definition which they project their own emotional baggage onto the word. Thus, it doesn't become about facts and evidence, but about saving the emotional crutch. 

[LovePrevails]

Atheism is not a religion, but it does have its high priests

 

I hate the fact that whenever they get Richard Dawkins on some debate program they always have him debating some religions extremist with no ability to reason

 

it would be good to see him up against some  philosophers, physicists or eastern mystics for a fun debate with some actual real arguments from the other side not just basic1st year blatant logical fallacy stuff.

[powder]

It is fundamental to science and the scientific method that the positive proposition is where the burden of proof is.

Right on.  

If I claim there are leprechauns, then it is my duty to prove that and you are fully allowed to accept that they do not exist if I am not able to prove it. This is how science works. 

Is it the actual definition of the scientific method that things are accepted as not existing until proven so, even in the presence of evidence?  This is not my understanding of the scientific method.  Lack of proof does not mean that something does not exist, rather, simply, that it has not been adequately demonstrated.  There are many things that were not known to exist (germs, other planets) because we didn't have the means to verify their existence.  Sure, you are allowed to accept (believe) that something does not exist because of lack of proof, but that is then a belief, not a scientific position.  That is my take on it, is it not consistent with accepted scientific thinking?  

 

However, much more of the problem is that everyone means something different by "God", so the entire argument is stupid to begin with. If you define God as something self-contradictory, then we can claim non-existence in the same way we can claim that a square-circle doesn't exist. If you define it as something that does exist like "the universe" then it exists, but we have the word "universe" for it and it seems that it is unnecessary to complicate things. If you define it as "the process by which the universe was created" then that is something scientific and we may not completely understand what it is, but it did happen.

 

The major problem with God is that it means nothing. Everyone has a different definition which they project their own emotional baggage onto the word. Thus, it doesn't become about facts and evidence, but about saving the emotional crutch. 

This is very well put.  Still, how would you address the OP's concern that it is better to subscribe to a belief system for social reasons?  

[prohexa]

This debate never gets old, does it?

 

Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

 

[Pepin]

Catfood, I would suggest taking a week or two of distancing from the idea, and then to reread what you wrote as if you were reading what someone else has said.

[catfood]

Hold on. Atheism is based on lack of evidence, mine at least. Atheists don't need any evidence for not believeing, that is not how it works.

That's exactly the same as religious saying they don't need evidence for believing. If evidence was requirement for religion, most (all?) religions won't exist today. So in effect, atheism is a religion.

...

I'll expound on why ignosticism isn't a religion. The condition which must be met, to logically get a ignostic to renounce their position, is to

...

something could persuade a ignostic to change their position, therefore it isn't religious.

Flake, you bring up yet again an interesting point. But the point becomes that if it's virtually impossible, but not really impossible to become theist, that seems the same. Even at a personal level, I wouldn't be intellectually honest with myself if I tell myself that there is a way to be theist. In this regard, virtual impossibility become true impossibility, which brings back to atheism (agnosticism, ignosticism, etc) being a religion based on blind faith.

[Pepin]

 If evidence was requirement for religion, most (all?) religions won't exist today. So in effect, atheism is a religion.

 

If evidence was a requirement for religions

Then this standard would invalidate all religions

A result would be that there nobody would believe in deities

Therefore no religion is a religion

[catfood]

 

...

I have come to the place where I do not see the need to chose to believe anything.  It is more interesting to me that people feel it is important to choose to believe something they have no way of verifying through direct experience?  Be they atheists or theists.  

...

If I don't affect anyone else, what you say is true. Who cares what I believe and what others believe? But if I affect others by my belief, which we all do by being social animals, we have a problem. In my original post, I describe an example of artificially crippling one's children through atheism is demonstrated. After all, children tend to follow the religion of their parents, including atheism.

 

Now if one goes beyond one's own children and affect others, then atheism is destructive in that it makes the converts to become hated group throughout the world not to mention social stigma. Even Hitler hated atheism. As a religion, atheism becomes awful.

It is fundamental to science and the scientific method that the positive proposition is where the burden of proof is.

 

...

 

The major problem with God is that it means nothing. Everyone has a different definition which they project their own emotional baggage onto the word. Thus, it doesn't become about facts and evidence, but about saving the emotional crutch. 

You miss my point. When one claims atheism, no amount of evidence is possible, hence it's blind faith. This is exactly what the creationists do. "You didn't find a transitional fossil; you found a new species. Now you need to find two more transitional fossils to explain the one you just found."

 

God doesn't have to be any one thing that some lunatics preach today. What would cause you to believe in god? You can define that to be anything you want that will cause you be claim that you are now theist. If you say the question is meaningless, well, that's just what the religious say, and you become part of that religion. Religious claim god exists, period, and questioning is meaningless. This is why atheism is a religion.

Atheism is not a religion, but it does have its high priests

 

I hate the fact that whenever they get Richard Dawkins on some debate program they always have him debating some religions extremist with no ability to reason

 

it would be good to see him up against some  philosophers, physicists or eastern mystics for a fun debate with some actual real arguments from the other side not just basic1st year blatant logical fallacy stuff.

I agree with shortcomings of Dawkins. But having studied eastern religions and physics, I can assure you, all religions are bunk; this is why I have such difficulty accepting atheism as religion, and need to examine it carefully.

 

Take Buddhism for example. They claim reincarnation and that people who suffer is so, because they did bad in past lives. Well in that case, one shouldn't help them, because they are suffering what they deserve. Kids starving in the streets? F'em. They deserve it! But if I feel like it, I'll feed them. What Buddhism have in common with atheism is that both are based on blind faith.

...

This is very well put.  Still, how would you address the OP's concern that it is better to subscribe to a belief system for social reasons?  

That is absolutely the point. If there is no difference between atheism and religion at a fundamental level, why go through all the pain of holding on to atheism? In fact, purposely becoming a member of one of the most hated group (maybe THE most hated group), atheism is beyond sadistic, maybe even evil. This is getting worse and worse down the rabbit hole!

This debate never gets old, does it?

He's asking the wrong question. It's easy to debunk any lunacy. The question is to debunk one's own lunacy. I would like to ask what would it take for you to no longer be atheist? If you have something to contribute to this, please use my other thread regarding proof / evidence.

 

This debate has serious social consequences due to practical concerns. Are we, the atheists, really immoral and insane as religious claim, but for different reasons? By participating in immoral activity on purpose are we evil?

If evidence was a requirement for religions

Then this standard would invalidate all religions

A result would be that there nobody would believe in deities

Therefore no religion is a religion

I don't know if it's all religions. If a religion has some plausible way out, that won't depend on blind faith; I don't know how that might be, though. Unfortunately, there is no way out of atheism, so it is a religion.

[Alan C.]

Superstitious dogmatists often engage in equivocation (using words like 'belief' and 'faith') to mislead people into thinking that their fatuous claims are as valid, or as deserving of consideration and respect, as any other kind of claim, and to put skeptics and non-believers on the defensive.

 

Skeptics and non-believers aren't obligated to prove the non-existence of a god, or the non-existence of Bugs Bunny, Superman, or Popeye.

[Flake]

That's exactly the same as religious saying they don't need evidence for believing. If evidence was requirement for religion, most (all?) religions won't exist today. So in effect, atheism is a religion.

Flake, you bring up yet again an interesting point. But the point becomes that if it's virtually impossible, but not really impossible to become theist, that seems the same. Even at a personal level, I wouldn't be intellectually honest with myself if I tell myself that there is a way to be theist. In this regard, virtual impossibility become true impossibility, which brings back to atheism (agnosticism, ignosticism, etc) being a religion based on blind faith.

Virtually impossible doesn't mean impossible. Just because something would be exceedingly difficult to test doesn't mean that it can't be tested. Ignosticism however isn't blind faith no matter how it is looked at. I don't have faith that the word "God" is meaningless, it is a purely logical position, there is currently no proof that there is a specific referent for the word "God", so for now the word "God" is meaningless.

[Formelyknown]

Is there a time or a place we can say something doesn't exist?

[powder]

Catfood, you a claiming a lot of things in this thread that just don't add up for me.  agnostism and ignostism are not at all the same as aetheism.  not sure what to make of the stuff about evil aetheists.  

 

I affect all kinds of people, and I do have beliefs, just not ones based on 'blind faith' and religious or political dogma.  I believe that love and compassion will work every time I test them, no blind faith required.  same holds true of gravity and many other laws of nature and human behavior.  

 

I still don't need to choose a 'story' made up by a priest class to control the masses (insert religion of choice here:____________) to be a happy, productive and positively contributing member of society.  

 

So the bottom line is that you are afraid that if you don't have the most popular religious label attached to your name (insert name favorite religion here:__________) that people won't like you and your children?  Seriously?  or are you just being argumentative?  

[STer]

Topics like this, which have been dealt with infinite times, should really have FAQ's so people who start threads on them all over again can just be referred to the FAQ which covers every single common argument we know is going to come up. It would save a lot of time.

 

Going over the basics of burden of proof again and again from scratch? 

[TheRobin]

Is there a time or a place we can say something doesn't exist?

Any thing that's described as having contradictory properties can be safely said to not exist. But mostly because the description of the thing itself fails being meaningful. THat's true for things like square circles or in regards to the god hypothesis to any "omni-something" property.Also there are circumstances where you can prove a negative by proffing a positive that can't be true at the same time as the negative. Alibies work that way for instance (i.e. if you can prove you were in Chicago at 9am, you also have proof to NOT have been anywhere else at that time).Or you can proof that the moon is NOT made out of cheese by measuring and figuring out what it IS made off.Basically the mroe you know about the properties of thigns that DO exist the more things you can be certain DON'T exist because it would defy those properties. Which though isn't quite the same as to say that things with completely different properties could not hypothetically exist somewhere (but just not anywhere where they cold influence us, as the known universe seems to be consistent everywhere else with what we know and have in our part of it)But generally (and unless we already have very solid information about a certain thing or area) it's often either practically or literally impossible to proof the non-exsitence of a thing which is why the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim that the thing exists and never the other way around. Even more so if the thing in question defies all known rules and laws.

[powder]

But generally (and unless we already have very solid information about a certain thing or area) it's often either practically or literally impossible to proof the non-exsitence of a thing which is why the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim that the thing exists and never the other way around. Even more so if the thing in question defies all known rules and laws.

I think this is understood and obvious to most, but it is not pertinent to the point of the thread as I see it.  But I am a bit baffled by the intent of the OP now anyway, so I guess I am done here.  

[TheRobin]

I think this is understood and obvious to most, but it is not pertinent to the point of the thread as I see it.  But I am a bit baffled by the intent of the OP now anyway, so I guess I am done here.  

Well, I'd hope so :)Tough I get the sense that catfood doesn't quite udnerstand the reason behind those basic principles which is why I wanted to point it out. Also, I was about 27 years old when I myself first heard that principle and the reasons behind it, so maybe it's just my personal bias, but given that these things never get taught at school or even higher education I often find it very useful to check if people have a good grasp on the basics of reason and science before going off on more complex topics.

[JamesP]

Topics like this, which have been dealt with infinite times, should really have FAQ's so people who start threads on them all over again can just be referred to the FAQ which covers every single common argument we know is going to come up. It would save a lot of time.

 

Going over the basics of burden of proof again and again from scratch? 

 

I think a FAQ is a pretty good idea, but it seems that most of the people who start and perpetuate these threads don't actually take the time to process these arguments.  The presence of a FAQ would probably reduce the degree to which people engage with the people who starts these kinds of threads... though they could also do a search on other relevant threads and link to them here as well.

[prohexa]

I think a FAQ is a pretty good idea, but it seems that most of the people who start and perpetuate these threads don't actually take the time to process these arguments.  The presence of a FAQ would probably reduce the degree to which people engage with the people who starts these kinds of threads... though they could also do a search on other relevant threads and link to them here as well.

 

I've seen other forums (often for technical support or similar) where, before you can start a new thread, you have to give your intended thread a title. The board will then automatically search for and suggest similar threads (based on the given keywords), forcing the poster to actively dismiss the suggestions and claim that "my post does not fit in any of the suggested threads". I think that could help reducing these often-repeated new threads, but I don't know if IP.Board has a plugin or built-in support for this...

[JamesP]

I've seen other forums (often for technical support or similar) where, before you can start a new thread, you have to give your intended thread a title. The board will then automatically search for and suggest similar threads (based on the given keywords), forcing the poster to actively dismiss the suggestions and claim that "my post does not fit in any of the suggested threads". I think that could help reducing these often-repeated new threads, but I don't know if IP.Board has a plugin or built-in support for this...

 

I think you see the sort of functionality you describe in knowledge bases.  I don't think I like that idea for this board as people make posts on personal topics.  A technical means of dismissing a new thread in this way would not benefit that sort of post.

 

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of this is that, based on my observations, either somebody has tried to search and hasn't found that information, or they haven't tried to search and wouldn't give two flying figs if somebody else has already asked that question.

[STer]

I think you see the sort of functionality you describe in knowledge bases.  I don't think I like that idea for this board as people make posts on personal topics.  A technical means of dismissing a new thread in this way would not benefit that sort of post.

 

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of this is that, based on my observations, either somebody has tried to search and hasn't found that information, or they haven't tried to search and wouldn't give two flying figs if somebody else has already asked that question.

James,

 

I didn't foresee sending someone to the FAQ in lieu of responding to them. I just mean that when the response is going to include something as fundamental and repeated as the concept of burden of proof, which has been laid out so many times, yet continues to be misunderstood, a simple link to that description would be nice. It could also be more of a glossary of common concepts rather than an FAQ. Of course, you can always just link someone to a wikipedia article or some other page about a topic. But the descriptions could probably be more concise and be written in a way that people on the board find most useful.

[catfood]

Is there a time or a place we can say something doesn't exist?

Yes. If there is a way out. Test your hypothesis, and see if there is plausible criteria for you to believe it exist or doesn't exist. There is no way for theist to test this, and there is no way for atheist, so that's why both are blind faith religions.

Catfood, you a claiming a lot of things in this thread that just don't add up for me.  agnostism and ignostism are not at all the same as aetheism.  not sure what to make of the stuff about evil aetheists.  

 

I affect all kinds of people, and I do have beliefs, just not ones based on 'blind faith' and religious or political dogma.  I believe that love and compassion will work every time I test them, no blind faith required.  same holds true of gravity and many other laws of nature and human behavior.  

 

I still don't need to choose a 'story' made up by a priest class to control the masses (insert religion of choice here:____________) to be a happy, productive and positively contributing member of society.  

 

So the bottom line is that you are afraid that if you don't have the most popular religious label attached to your name (insert name favorite religion here:__________) that people won't like you and your children?  Seriously?  or are you just being argumentative?  

I'm only claiming one thing: all questions related to god is based on faith. That includes theists, atheist, agnostics, ignostics, or whatever you will about god. Bottom line is not about what existing religion is most popular. Bottom line is given that all questions regarding god are fundamentally the same, what religion works best for a given person? If one lives where his current religion is the most hated, rational being would have to reconsider his current religion.

 

Again, this is important, because atheism is most hated group according to news article I read recently. And if fundamental belief is just belief the same as any question regarding god, then what rational reason does one have to hold onto atheism? Why not go with Christianity? They ignore much of what's in their bible that's objectionable anyway.

Topics like this, which have been dealt with infinite times, should really have FAQ's so people who start threads on them all over again can just be referred to the FAQ which covers every single common argument we know is going to come up. It would save a lot of time.

 

Going over the basics of burden of proof again and again from scratch? 

This topic has never been encountered in any of my searches. If you have any reference that covers the topic, "what evidence would you accept to become theist" I'd like to know (that's my other thread). If you have any reference that says atheism (or any discussion of god) is not based on blind faith, I'd like to know that, too. Simply saying it's not a valid question doesn't address the issue. If it's not a valid question, then why are we atheists (and hated) and not Christians? Are we just insane?

[Formelyknown]

Yes. If there is a way out. Test your hypothesis, and see if there is plausible criteria for you to believe it exist or doesn't exist. There is no way for theist to test this, and there is no way for atheist, so that's why both are blind faith religions.

How do you proceed and what are the criterias? Does the invisible apple no one can touch, smell, taste or see on all known spectrum next to me exist?

[catfood]

Any thing that's described as having contradictory properties can be safely said to not exist. But mostly because the description of the thing itself fails being meaningful. THat's true for things like square circles or in regards to the god hypothesis to any "omni-something" property.Also there are circumstances where you can prove a negative by proffing a positive that can't be true at the same time as the negative. Alibies work that way for instance (i.e. if you can prove you were in Chicago at 9am, you also have proof to NOT have been anywhere else at that time).Or you can proof that the moon is NOT made out of cheese by measuring and figuring out what it IS made off.Basically the mroe you know about the properties of thigns that DO exist the more things you can be certain DON'T exist because it would defy those properties. Which though isn't quite the same as to say that things with completely different properties could not hypothetically exist somewhere (but just not anywhere where they cold influence us, as the known universe seems to be consistent everywhere else with what we know and have in our part of it)But generally (and unless we already have very solid information about a certain thing or area) it's often either practically or literally impossible to proof the non-exsitence of a thing which is why the burden of proof rests on the one making the claim that the thing exists and never the other way around. Even more so if the thing in question defies all known rules and laws.

Suppose you define god to be dog; I always found it humorous that it's reverse of the other, but anyway, then would you believe in god? If you define god to be something that is contradictory, and consequently does not exist, well, there is no god. But if you define god as something that exist despite the contradictions or logic, well, there you have god. I hate to bring up god of the gaps, but who's to say contradictions is not possible in other universes of god just as quantum mechanics (I really hate bringing up Q.M.!) show both existence and non existence? Deeply religious folks can't see past their existence of god, just as you can't seem to see past non-existence of god.I agree the burden of proof is on the existence. But if the definition of proof is no way Jose, (ie, I will reject every proof you throw at me), then it becomes blind faith. Why do you think some Christians reject evolution? It's because of the same argument you are making. In fact, take your argument and apply to religion (say, Christianity). You will see that they say pretty much the same as what you say. This is why I keep bringing up blind faith and atheism as religion.

I think you see the sort of functionality you describe in knowledge bases.  I don't think I like that idea for this board as people make posts on personal topics.  A technical means of dismissing a new thread in this way would not benefit that sort of post.

 

Another reason I'm not a huge fan of this is that, based on my observations, either somebody has tried to search and hasn't found that information, or they haven't tried to search and wouldn't give two flying figs if somebody else has already asked that question.

It's quite interesting the response I'm getting here. It's pretty much the same as when I was arguing against Christianity. They also want to shut it down with FAQ or restricting discussion contrary to their beliefs and so on. And the reasoning for their belief is pretty much the same as here (ie, question is invalid, logically impossible blah blah). Very few claimed blind faith, yet I can clearly see it's blind faith.

 

It seems folks can't seem to see past their dogma. If that dogma is beneficial, well, that's good for them. But as an atheist shown to be hated the world over, what benefit does it bring? Do I meet more hot chicks? Of course not. If anything, this reduces one's chances of meeting / procreating and socializing. Do I keep it going for the benefit of others? Well, I'm no red pinko commie who want to sacrifice myself for others. Then why? I suppose I can bury my head in the sand and pretend to accept some argument made here, but then if that's the case, why not accept argument made by theist since they are all invalid anyway?

 

Even knowing that atheism is faith based and it's not beneficial, I still can't seem to get to church or claim as theist.

[JamesP]

James,I didn't foresee sending someone to the FAQ in lieu of responding to them. I just mean that when the response is going to include something as fundamental and repeated as the concept of burden of proof, which has been laid out so many times, yet continues to be misunderstood, a simple link to that description would be nice. It could also be more of a glossary of common concepts rather than an FAQ. Of course, you can always just link someone to a wikipedia article or some other page about a topic. But the descriptions could probably be more concise and be written in a way that people on the board find most useful.

When somebody fails to grasp something so basic as the burden of proof, it indicates a very broken brain. A FAQ is probably not going to help them, though having access to one may help people break their own repetitive cycles of engaging with those who cannot think. In short, if somebody demonstrates that they cannot or do not want to think, it's best to just move on.

[Formelyknown]

You can't prove that "God doesn't exist" is faith, because you didn't prove it wasn't true. See you are an irrational faithish dogmatic fool. 

[gwho]

He's talking about strong atheism, which states "There is no God.", a truth claim which does require evidence/proof. He's also talking about the strong version of agnosticism which says, "We can never know if God exists."

 

I'll expound on why ignosticism isn't a religion. The condition which must be met, to logically get a ignostic to renounce their position, is to prove that the word God has a referent, a referent being something you can point to to say what a word means. (e.g. The referent of a orange is the fruit it's named after.) You could say, "People do give referents for God, like saying it's the universe.", yes, but they can't prove that that is what the word originally referred to. To prove it there would have to be research into the first possible use of the word, then logically explain how it referred to something specific. Which could theoretically be done I guess, but to the best of my knowledge that hasn't been done. So logically, something could persuade a ignostic to change their position, therefore it isn't religious.

agreed. it's simply annoying when people just start redefining god.

[Libertus]

 

I think that the accepted definition of Atheism is that it claims that there is no god(s): 

 

"...a disbelief in the existence of deity. b : the doctrine that there is no deity." Merriam Webster

 

So, since there is no way to prove that claim, it is a belief. 

 

A-theism means "non-theism". That's why that is the first definition even in Merriam Webster. If I'm not a theist, I'm an atheist. That's how it works. The second definition is the less precise. It neglects the difference between "not accepting a premise" and "negating a premise". It's an important difference.

So, again, an atheist doesn't have to prove anything.

 

He's talking about strong atheism, which states "There is no God."

 

Well then let's deal with (basic?) atheism first, thereby giving the theist no leg to stand on. It's the more defensible position.

[STer]

I'm finding this thread to be rehashing a lot of the very same points discussed already in a previous thread. And it is also reinforcing why, in that previous thread, I said that these debates, which often stem mostly from disagreements on labels rather than substance, are often easily avoidable if we just talk in terms of how probable we believe a certain well-defined thing is. I think that point applies yet again in this thread.

 

Here is my previous post on that old thread and you can read through that thread for all of that exciting discussion.

 

http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/35304-dont-atheists-need-to-have-absolute-knowledge-in-order-to-be-atheists/?p=325914

[Alan C.]

Atheism isn't a religion. There is no established dogma, iconography, or messiah.I think that catfood's use of 'faith' and 'belief' is deliberate equivocation. Afterall, every thought is a belief and any expectation could be construed as faith. The difference is that some faith and belief is backed by compelling evidence and some is wishful thinking.Religion is blind faith because it's a belief without reason and evidence; it's simply wishes and fantasies. Atheism is not blind faith. Nobody has presented supernatural evidence in 10,000 years which would suggest that it's nothing but an imaginary figment.The reason why people become religious is because taking refuge in delusions is a means of avoidance to cope with unpleasant aspects of life.I couldn't care less if atheists are the most hated.

[Dogbyte]

i think its interesting that you see very few atheists in academia these days holding the position that they merely have the absence of a belief in God, as if its some default position, and then try to play the burden of proof game. call it what you will, negative or positive statements...the fact remains that ALL of them are a claim to knowledge.

 

its the agnostic that has the neutral ground, not claiming to know either way. Both sides of the assertion requires justification. yes there is a logical difference where you place the negation,  between saying "i do not believe p", and "i believe not-p".  So if atheism is merely some state of mind that doesnt hold the belief in God, then i dont see how it continues to be a view at this point. Since anything that doesnt have this psychological state is therefore an atheist, a baby, a dog, a cabbage perhaps.

 

I think the term is being redefined by closet agnostics that want to side step their epistemic duty, and fly the flag of atheism from the neutral position. if the atheist insists on providing a negative definition,  that they are devoid of a belief in God and therefore the theist shoulders the burden of proof, then what is stopping the theist from coming up with the exact same strategy? Just define the "anti-theist", and claim that anyone holding the opposite belief can now shirk the burden of proof? Its just word play now.

 

Like this:  the theist is someone that fails to have the belief that it is not the case that God exists, failing to have this belief is not making a claim to knowledge. So the burden of proof falls on the anti-theist. All the theist has to do, is not have the psychological state of mind that the anti-theist has...a theist merely lacks this belief or non-view or whatever you want to label it. The anti-theist is making the claim of knowledge.

 

This parity of reasoning is why most academic atheists do not share in this redefinition of atheism that is so ubiquitous on blogs and forums, and youtube comments. Its not defensible at all, since its a game of semantics. You still need justification for either God exists, or God does not exist. Only the agnostic fails to have either belief, and thus has no claim to knowledge. Make up any definition you wish, if it makes you content.

[cam.bankord]

Atheism is for those who need evidence before taking the leap of acknowledgement, and those who have evidence against the conventional "god".

 

As stef would say, "One cannot be all knowing and all powerful."

 

Agnosticism is for those who acknowledge the possibility but fail to see the conflicting nature of evidence of no evidence.

 

Atheism is the proud stance against religion and agnosticism is the cruel center that condones such moral hypocrisy.