Dangers of atheism -Sam Harris

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

matter doesnt have to be observed in order to exist.

Think about that. Think about the scientific method. How can you say with certainty something with no evidence exists.

If that's true everything exists including Gods.

common sense. if it exists, my lack of observing it doesnt make it not exist. or else i could make you not exist by closing this browser.

Science is not always common sense. Like matter being vast areas of empty space.

I could be a program, you could be dreaming there are lots of rebuttles. It's more complicated than that answer.

You can only say matter may or most likely exists without an observer. Just like a physicist can only guess where electrons go between pictures in an electronic microscope through probability.

If something was undetectable what is the difference of that and non existence? Existence only has relevance to an expectation within awareness.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

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. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their a, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

atheists.org...

I am not sure you are understanding the history of debates between theists and Atheists. Many Atheists have labelled themselves. Many famous Atheists have defined what atheism is in historic debates. It's hardly just theists labelling. For instance the New Atheists have certainly defined themselves by saying Gods do not exist. I mean this by Dawkins,Hitchins, Harris etc.

It is true and in my posts I have said there are many sub branches of atheism and not all Atheists labell themselves as saying the believe no gods exist. But rather a lack of belief. Which to me is agnostic in my own labelling /classical philosophy labelling.

Like I said is Spinoza a theist or atheist? What about a Deist is a Deist a theist?

It's not so simple to label people. However if you are willing to debate the subject this is when the truth about beliefs can be clearly defined.

Atheists are not only labelled by theists. There is a long history of debate about the exist of God that also define the two sides.

Bill Mahr is not a philosopher. He is a pop culture figure. I don't think he has a great grasp of the subject.

I understand. You don't.

Atheist means one thing, and one thing only: lack of belief in a god. Period!

There is NO belief, no doctrine, no anything --- just lack of belief in a god.

A true atheist is an agnostic atheist. The real meaning if agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven.

Atheism does not mean anti-god or there is no god.

Know the difference between atheist and an individual's philosophy.

The only thing connecting all atheists is lack of belief ---- beyond that is each persons individual philosophy.

Atheists have redefined atheism by sheer misuse. So far, the only way they can argue their preferred definition—which apparently is the meaningless denotation "lack of belief in deities", and also the most awkward formulation in existence—is to claim their authority over the term. Such a fallacy, though cringe-worthy, is not out of the ordinary.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: Annee

What Is Atheism?

No one asks this question enough.

The reason no one asks this question a lot is because most people have preconceived ideas and notions about what an Atheist is and is not. Where these preconceived ideas come from varies, but they tend to evolve from theistic influences or other sources.

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. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no God." Some dictionaries even go so far as to define Atheism as "wickedness," "sinfulness," and other derogatory adjectives. Clearly, theistic influence taints dictionaries. People cannot trust these dictionaries to define atheism. The fact that dictionaries define Atheism as "there is no God" betrays the (mono)theistic influence. Without the (mono)theistic influence, the definition would at least read "there are no gods."

Why should atheists allow theists to define who atheists are? Do other minorities allow the majority to define their a, views, and opinions? No, they do not. So why does everyone expect atheists to lie down and accept the definition placed upon them by the world’s theists? Atheists will define themselves.

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. Two commonly used retorts to the nonsense that atheism is a religion are: 1) If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color, and 2) If atheism is a religion then health is a disease. A new one introduced in 2012 by Bill Maher is, "If atheism is a religion, then abstinence is a sexual position."

The only common thread that ties all atheists together is a lack of belief in gods and supernatural beings. Some of the best debates we have ever had have been with fellow atheists. This is because atheists do not have a common belief system, sacred scripture or atheist Pope. This means atheists often disagree on many issues and ideas. Atheists come in a variety of shapes, colors, beliefs, convictions, and backgrounds. We are as unique as our fingerprints.

atheists.org...

I am not sure you are understanding the history of debates between theists and Atheists. Many Atheists have labelled themselves. Many famous Atheists have defined what atheism is in historic debates. It's hardly just theists labelling. For instance the New Atheists have certainly defined themselves by saying Gods do not exist. I mean this by Dawkins,Hitchins, Harris etc.

It is true and in my posts I have said there are many sub branches of atheism and not all Atheists labell themselves as saying the believe no gods exist. But rather a lack of belief. Which to me is agnostic in my own labelling /classical philosophy labelling.

Like I said is Spinoza a theist or atheist? What about a Deist is a Deist a theist?

It's not so simple to label people. However if you are willing to debate the subject this is when the truth about beliefs can be clearly defined.

Atheists are not only labelled by theists. There is a long history of debate about the exist of God that also define the two sides.

Bill Mahr is not a philosopher. He is a pop culture figure. I don't think he has a great grasp of the subject.

I understand. You don't.

Atheist means one thing, and one thing only: lack of belief in a god. Period!

There is NO belief, no doctrine, no anything --- just lack of belief in a god.

A true atheist is an agnostic atheist. The real meaning if agnostic is: God can not be proven or disproven.

Atheism does not mean anti-god or there is no god.

Know the difference between atheist and an individual's philosophy.

The only thing connecting all atheists is lack of belief ---- beyond that is each persons individual philosophy.

How can you speak for all Atheists. Are you talking about emtymology? Who was the first Athesit? What did he say?

I understand you don't? Thats pretty childish.
Where are your sources and what is the history of this?

What you say about Atheists can be said about anything and any meaning.

The word Atheist has transformed in the latter part of the 20th century to mean a lack of beliefs.

Lots of famous Atheists have stated there are no gods. The world's first record of any atheist says there are no gods.

My point which you were to angry to address is that it isn't only theists defining atheism. It is also philosophers who are atheist.

When you call yourself something you bare the history of the word whether you like it or not.
You can redefine the word but not with a childish arguement. Maybe point out my lack of understanding next time rather than resorting to childish claims. Atheism does not mean one thing only.
www.allaboutphilosophy.org...
plato.stanford.edu...
www.pluralism.org...

a reply to: luthier

The fact is when you label yourself as anything you carry the weight of that titles history. So maybe it's best to no label yourself at all but rather explain your position of belief.

that's exactly his point...dont know if you watched the videos.

He actually states...that he never wanted to define himself as an atheist...others did it. After a while he accepted it because it was too much effort constantly explaining it. People want to put you into labels, because it's easier to attack/defend positions.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

matter doesnt have to be observed in order to exist.

I could argue about that with you back and forth for days...but it would be off topic

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Atheists have redefined atheism by sheer misuse. So far, the only way they can argue their preferred definition—which apparently is the meaningless denotation "lack of belief in deities", and also the most awkward formulation in existence—is to claim their authority over the term. Such a fallacy, though cringe-worthy, is not out of the ordinary.

I'm dying to know...who do you define yourself ? If you dont mind.

Do you believe in some kind of higher power ?

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly
a reply to: luthier

The fact is when you label yourself as anything you carry the weight of that titles history. So maybe it's best to no label yourself at all but rather explain your position of belief.

that's exactly his point...dont know if you watched the videos.

He actually states...that he never wanted to define himself as an atheist...others did it. After a while he accepted it because it was too much effort constantly explaining it. People want to put you into labels, because it's easier to attack/defend positions.

I have watched the video and had already seen the video. As I said Harris is one of my favorite modern philosophers. I have actually been to a lecture of his.

My point is that it's human nature and not just evil theists who do this. In fact Atheists and theists have often defined themselves.

My other point is atheism is certainly not only one thing. It is at least two things. Strong and weak.

When you make a claim that someone opposes it's natural for the mind to box in the arguement for disection. It takes reason and elevated thinking to move beyound this. Definitions are a tool humans use often incorrectly but are often based on a historical lineage in this case of arguements.

This is actually a discussion I didn't care much for by Harris. It seemed like it was unnecessary.

I don't call myself a Deist. I say I lean towards deism. Which usually makes people say what do you mean by that.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

matter doesnt have to be observed in order to exist.

I could argue about that with you back and forth for days...but it would be off topic

I am sorry for that. Sometimes I can't help to rebuttle what I see as a fallacy. I should just start my own thread.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Atheists have redefined atheism by sheer misuse. So far, the only way they can argue their preferred definition—which apparently is the meaningless denotation "lack of belief in deities", and also the most awkward formulation in existence—is to claim their authority over the term. Such a fallacy, though cringe-worthy, is not out of the ordinary.

here we go again. atheist is a response to a claim.

you claim there is a god, our response is we do not believe your claim. that's it. we cannot say there is no god because there is no way to prove it. if you say atheism is more than a response to a claim made by deists/theists, it is you that is redefining terms.

originally posted by: vjr1113

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
Atheists have redefined atheism by sheer misuse. So far, the only way they can argue their preferred definition—which apparently is the meaningless denotation "lack of belief in deities", and also the most awkward formulation in existence—is to claim their authority over the term. Such a fallacy, though cringe-worthy, is not out of the ordinary.

here we go again. atheist is a response to a claim.

you claim there is a god, our response is we do not believe your claim. that's it. we cannot say there is no god because there is no way to prove it. if you say atheism is more than a response to a claim made by deists/theists, it is you that is redefining terms.

Technically there are three responses to the claim.
.I believe in a God//gods

I have no beliefs in god/Gods

I don't believe in God or gods.

This is where the arguement gets confused. Philosophy has called weak atheism the lack of belief where as believing there is no God or gods strong atheism.

Do you disagree?

originally posted by: luthier

My other point is atheism is certainly not only one thing. It is at least two things. Strong and weak.

NO. Atheism is only one thing. Lack of belief in a god. It is nothing else.

Atheism is not anti-god. Nor does it claim god does not exist.

What an individual atheist thinks or believes beyond that is that individual atheists own philosophy. Do not confuse atheism with an individual atheist's philosophy/belief.

Hard or weak is the individual's own philosophy, connected to atheism and other atheists by only one thing, lack of belief in a god. Atheism itself does not change.

I personally am a Spiritual Atheist. It is my PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY (belief). I've had too many paranormal (for lack of better word) experiences to not believe there is something more going on beyond what we see and touch.

I believe everything is energy. That there is an energy connection, not a God.

I am connected to all other atheists because I lack belief in a god. That single thing. Its very simple.

www.centerforabetterworld.com...

a reply to: luthier

whats the difference between not believing and not knowing? there is none both address a claim, the god claim is not true. i not believing in an unknown god is the same as believing it doesn't exist. x claim of a god is not true in the end.

one can be agnostic and atheist. its okay to say you dont know or cannot know (agnostic), which places you as an atheist by definition.

agnostic addresses your knowledge, atheist addresses your belief in a claim. as far as i can tell we are all agnostic.

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: luthier

My other point is atheism is certainly not only one thing. It is at least two things. Strong and weak.

NO. Atheism is only one thing. Lack of belief in a god. It is nothing else.

What an individual atheist thinks or believes beyond that is that individual atheists own philosophy. Do not confuse atheism with an individual atheist's philosophy/belief.

Hard or weak is the individual's own philosophy, connected to atheism and other atheists by only one thing, lack of belief in a god. Atheism itself does not change.

I personally am a Spiritual Atheist. It is my PERSONAL PHILOSOPHY (belief). I've had too many paranormal (for lack of better word) experiences to not believe there is something more going on beyond what we see and touch.

I believe everything is energy. That there is an energy connection, not a God.

I am connected to all other atheists because I lack belief in a god. Its very simple.

www.centerforabetterworld.com...

That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Think of it some one describes a tree you have never seen. You may hold no belief in that tree then someone else says no that tree doesn't exist. In any of the cases there is no proof shown. Those are not the same positions.

a reply to: luthier

I have actually been to a lecture of his.

cool.

My point is that it's human nature and not just evil theists who do this. In fact Atheists and theists have often defined themselves.

Indeed. Even Hitchens and Dawkins are sort of proud atheists...but Harris seems to me wants to move away from that definition...and not like a fashion statement (even though he agrees with them on most subjects). But a reasonable effort to gain the upper hand in the debate. He's trying to knock obstacles from his path to winning the argument. You could say he's a bit different. Perhaps it's only his methodology.

Definitions are a tool humans use often incorrectly but are often based on a historical lineage in this case of arguements.

This is actually a discussion I didn't care much for by Harris. It seemed like it was unnecessary.

well it was something different for me...I guess that's why I liked it. But I'm ok with you not liking it

I don't call myself a Deist. I say I lean towards deism. Which usually makes people say what do you mean by that.

I think I know perfectly what you mean. It's ok.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

matter doesnt have to be observed in order to exist.

I could argue about that with you back and forth for days...but it would be off topic

I am sorry for that. Sometimes I can't help to rebuttle what I see as a fallacy. I should just start my own thread.

Little off topic is perfectly natural...people wander off. Just dont hijack the thread to the max

originally posted by: vjr1113
a reply to: luthier

whats the difference between not believing and not knowing? there is none both address a claim, the god claim is not true. i not believing in an unknown god is the same as believing it doesn't exist. x claim of a god is not true in the end.

one can be agnostic and atheist. its okay to say you dont know or cannot know (agnostic), which places you as an atheist by definition.

agnostic addresses your knowledge, atheist addresses your belief in a claim. as far as i can tell we are all agnostic.

See above. But as I said the claim there is no God is an active claim. Which is why its separated from claiming not knowing.

originally posted by: luthier


That sounds like pantheism or spinozaism to me just based on the developed principle.

Both those believe in a God.

There is a difference in saying God does not exist as an absolute than I don't have a belief one way or the other.

No one can say God does not exist.

It is a belief to say God does not exist active. Rather than simply a lack of belief passive.

Acknowledge God, so I can then say he doesn't exist?

That is why it is defined as such in philosophy.

Philosophy just means belief. Atheism is lack of belief.

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

matter doesnt have to be observed in order to exist.

I could argue about that with you back and forth for days...but it would be off topic

I am sorry for that. Sometimes I can't help to rebuttle what I see as a fallacy. I should just start my own thread.

Little off topic is perfectly natural...people wander off. Just dont hijack the thread to the max

I truly am sorry. It's probably best I just stop commenting all together. I just love philosophy. I am glad you cared enough to post what I think is an important philosopher.

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: luthier

matter doesnt have to be observed in order to exist.

I could argue about that with you back and forth for days...but it would be off topic

I am sorry for that. Sometimes I can't help to rebuttle what I see as a fallacy. I should just start my own thread.

Little off topic is perfectly natural...people wander off. Just dont hijack the thread to the max

I truly am sorry. It's probably best I just stop commenting all together. I just love philosophy. I am glad you cared enough to post what I think is an important philosopher.

dont be crazy...so far everything is in order.