Is Atheism a Religious Faith?

Thank you Gregory for not resorting to flaming and for keeping this discussion on track and not turning into an "argument for the sake of argument thanks to an enlarged ego" type of thing. I will reply to your inquiries and comments as soon as I get the chance, which is approximately 11 hours from now, when I get home from college. I will try to truncate the post and address the issues that we disagree on, to keep it at a reasonable length and readable by a casual reader.

Once again, thanks, and don't worry about the "wuss" thing, I was not offended. I simply didn't see the logic and necessity to resort to subjective judgements, nor did I (nor do I) see the logic behind that particular statement. However, we all can make emotionally-tainted statements, and I think at that particular moment you were simply angered and confused by the things that I said, as they apparently contradicted and contrasted with what you've come to know and believe. This is understandable, and I will try to give as much support to my statements as I can, but the work to understand must be done by you. If somebody doesn't understand why 1+1=2, and says it is 3 no matter what you say, what's the use arguing with such a person? All I mean is, this discussion can evolve and really help both of us, if we BOTH try to understand each other's points of view, and utilize that understanding in our further assertions.

-Mike

I get what you're saying. I've used the argument that a rock may, in fact, be alive, before. Just because it's not alive in a sense that we think of "life", doesn't mean it's not. However, just because I bring up the question of whether a rock is actually alive or not, does not mean that I believe a rock really is alive. That would be a belief based on faith, since there is no proof. I merely like to point out the fact that our undertstanding of "life" is limited to what we perceive as "life", based on what we're taught....just as 1+1=2, based on what we're taught. Is it correct? Who's to say? Did we create math? If we never invented numbers and assigned them values, would math exist? If there were no numbers, would you have faith in math?

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Satyr]

Originally posted by Satyr
I get what you're saying. I've used the argument that a rock may, in fact, be alive, before. Just because it's not alive in a sense that we think of "life", doesn't mean it's not. However, just because I bring up the question of whether a rock is actually alive or not, does not mean that I believe a rock really is alive. That would be a belief based on faith, since there is no proof. I merely like to point out the fact that our undertstanding of "life" is limited to what we perceive as "life", based on what we're taught....just as 1+1=2, based on what we're taught. Is it correct? Who's to say? Did we create math? If we never invented numbers and assigned them values, would math exist? If there were no numbers, would you have faith in math?

[Edited on 4-1-2004 by Satyr]

Well 1+1=2 is correct in the context that we created it in, after we define what 1 means, what + and = mean, and what 2 mean. After all the definitions are specifically clear, then yes, 1+1=2. However, this is very limited to our own definitions and understanding of mathematics and its principles.

There are also many number systems, based on different bases, not base-10 like we always use. Computers use base-2 (0's and 1's) and HEX is base-16 I think. In computer's understanding, 1+1 is NOT equal 2, even though the computer is aware of what 1 is.

In computer language, 2 is actually represented as 10, and 1 is 01. So no, 1+1=2 isn't universally accepted, and an alien race *may* not even understand the concept, if their reality is constructed differently.

I'll address the issues and hopefully clear up mutual misconceptions that we may already agree on anyway, but not be really aware of it due to different ways of expressing the same thing. (I'll try to truncate this post, so only the issues we don't agree upon are retained, to conserve space and keep this post readable.)

Originally posted by GregoryON520
Someone who believes in something does not pretend to know it, he or she merely believes it until he or she is able to prove it to be true or false--believing that it is plausible--before he or she accepts it as knowledge or rejects it as false. Nobody's trying to fool anyone, it's all a pursuit of truth. Then you proceed to attack certain people groups because you have nothing else to say, that's very big of you.

Isn't there a difference between keeping an open mind, being open to any and all possibilities, and BELIEVING that one of the possibilities is indeed the TRUE one, if you don't really know? What�s the use of being convinced one way or another, if ultimately it doesn�t reflect reality, as you don�t know? Doesn't belief mean conviction that something is true? It doesn't mean conviction that something is POSSIBLE, as that wouldn't be belief by its very definition anymore, but just an open mind. For example, I never BELIEVED the Christian doctrine, but I keep it in mind as a Possibility, until I can ascertain its validity and KNOW if it is true or false (or which parts are true or false). This didn't require me to first BELIEVE it to find out the truth! In fact, if I first believed it to be true, I'd be reluctant to accept evidence to the contrary even if I saw it, because belief creates the impression in your mind that it is indeed true, regardless of objective reality. This is why I said belief hinders the process of acquisition of knowledge, since it puts you only on ONE SIDE, and it's hard to let go of the belief, if it exists - because of the very nature of what belief is.

Also, I'm not sure where it appears that I resorted to attacking people or groups, as that was not my intention. If somebody is ignorant, and I call them ignorant, I don't consider that an attack. Ignorance is relative, as some can be more ignorant than others; it's hard to be 100% ignorant 100% of the time. We're all ignorant to some degree, though some far more ignorant than others, by choice. Notice that whether an ignorant person believes they are ignorant is irrelevant to the reality of the situation, and belief simply keeps them in denial of the possible truth.

lilblam said: "Perfect according to WHOSE definition? What's perfect, someone without faults?"

Yes.

"Well, who defines what a FAULT is anyway? Someone only makes a mistake when someone DEFINES what he did as a mistake."

This is the escape of the person that is tired of thinking. Just because everyone does not agree that something is right or something is wrong does not mean that it is objectively right or wrong. We argue forever about whether something is right or wrong, abortion for instance, and not everyone can agree on a concrete black and white view of right or wrong because there are a lot of details and specific exceptions. THIS DOES NOT MEAN, HOWEVER, THAT A CONCRETE RIGHT AND WRONG FOR EVERYTHING DOES NOT EXIST. Morality exists outside of our individual selves. Some things are obviously right and wrong, others are more obscure, but that does not mean that they are subjective. Right and wrong exist whether we agree or not. Now where do we draw this standard, you ask? Where is this ultimate right and wrong that exists outside of ourselves. THAT'S where the subjectivity comes in. I personally believe that morality comes objectively from God, but you don't care what I think. I just hope we can agree that although there are debates over whether or not something is right or wrong, a correct answer DOES EXIST. Just because something is debatable doesn't mean that everybody's right or nobody's right. Like you said, "TRUTH is objective." "The truth is out there," as was the X-Files tagline, whether we can all agree on it or not. That is what I'm saying and I hope you agree.

Well, I think there is a distinction between 2 different kinds of right or wrong. The first meaning is, correct vs incorrect. 1+1=2 is correct aka right, based on our definition/understanding of mathematics. Another meaning for right or wrong is in terms of morality, and THAT one is the relative/subjective one. Let me explain. It is RIGHT if somebody's morality says it is right, and it is wrong if somebody's morality says it is wrong. You claim that there is an objective right/wrong that exists there, despite the apparent inability by the 2 opposed parties to SEE this. However, this is where I disagree. The thing is, nobody calls it right or wrong until somebody DOES call it that. What I mean is, if the 2 people weren't arguing about it, the universe doesn't really care. Things are what they are. If I hit a rock against a wall, it is simply the action of hitting a rock against a wall � this would be the objective assessment of the action. Whether it is morally decent to do, or whether it is a sin, or evil, all good, those would be individual SUBJECTIVE judgments from different OBSERVERS of the event, based on their own preconceptions and opinions only. Objectively, all I did was hit a rock against a wall. Subjectively, however, somebody can call it right, and somebody can call it wrong, and others may even burn me at the steak if the act of hitting a rock against a wall is considered some kind of great evil in their society etc. Can you see the relative and subjective judgements imposed on an OBJETIVE action? Can you see their utter irrelevancy to the objective reality of the situation? The universe does not judge, as it has no need to, it has no "opinions".. it is what it is, and things happen as they happen. Until someone comes along and declares something as "wrong" or "right", these concepts simply do not exist.

But when I said, "He [GOD] can be perfect" because He is not human, I was just saying that no human is perfect but God is [NOT] human, so He's not limited in that way. Perfection is a limit? How so? I would think that something with a limit necessitates it being imperfect. Perfection is infinite.

If perfection is limitless and infinite, how can something be imperfect? Does any PART of perfection mean it is IMPERFECT simply because that part is not infinite? Maybe it's better to just call it what it is, finite, or limited? Perfection is lack of fault, correct? If so, does not infinity consist of every possible FAULT, every possible situation, every POSSIBILITY that there could ever possibly be, without limit?

I look at it this way. If you make a mistake, how do you know it is a mistake? If I throw a rock against the wall, is this action PERFECT? Well, it depends entirely on ME and my INTENTION. If my intention was to MISS the wall, but I HIT the wall instead, then the result was a MISTAKE (from my view of course), and therefore imperfection exists. However, if my intention was to HIT the wall, and I DID that, then NOTHING went wrong with this action, and the result was perfect - just as I intended. This makes perfection relative. How can GOD say that my throw was imperfect if the result was EXACTLY as I intended? Unless God has a different opinion about what SHOULD HAVE happened when I threw the rock, in which case, perfection is defined from his personal VIEW and perspective, which begs the question - how could an INFINITE being have a SINGLE opinion of what is right/wrong, if everything that possibly could ever exist is within him already?

Also, if you strive for perfection, do you not set a limit, or DEFINE what should be PERFECT and try to reach it? And if you reach it, does this suddenly mean that NOTHING exists that is "better" or "more advanced" or "smarter" than this self-set limit? That's what I mean when I said perfection limits... you set a goal and call it "this would be perfect" and when you reach the goal, you STOP ADVANCING, because you're satisfied and no longer want to advance. You think you've achieved everything there is to achieve in that area. However, because you yourself agreed with me that reality is unlimited and infinite, this automatically means that there is no LIMIT to achievement, except for a self-imposed limit, such as defining something as perfect.

"--In fact, He's perfect and He doesn't care whether or not you agree with Him, because He is since He invented the good, true, and the beautiful and you didn't.--
And you know all this because HE told you? I can self-proclaim anything I want too!"

I'm not proclaiming anything from myself. No, He did not tell me this. I'm saying that IF God exists and IF the Bible is without error, God is perfect and it doesn't matter what anybody else thinks because He created perfection and you did not. You can create your own view of perfection, I wouldn't put that past you, but it would not be TRUE, Objective Perfection, IF the proceeding is all true. And if it is all true, it is true whether or not you agree, that's all I'm saying.

But you said he is infinite, so all that exists is automatically part of HIM, as how could something NOT be part of infinity? Could a number be outside the infinite number line that goes both ways? By objective perfection you mean God's opinion of perfection, and opinion is by its very nature, a subjective thing. Objectively, everything is perfect, because it is exactly as it�s supposed to be. If it�s not, then it�s subjective, as someone suddenly thinks that it is somehow NOT supposed to be this way!

"Also, beautiful is subjective, as what's beautiful to someone is ugly to someone else. TRUTH is objective, as it exists regardless of your opinion or anybody else's view. GOOD is subjective, as what's good to you is bad to someone else. So what's the difference between me and God? Or do you still not understand what I said?"

No I get you. Plato's turning over in his grave after what you just said though. Claiming that within the Platonic triad, the Good, the True and the Beautiful, only Truth is objective? That doesn't make sense, even aside from Plato. Sure, two people may look at a piece of art, one calling it beautiful and the other ugly, but this is a specific instance and it is perfectly plausible that the one who called it ugly is simply ignorant to the beauty that is there objectively.

By this definition, absolutely EVERYTHING is beautiful, because there is absolutely nothing that someone, SOMEWHERE won't consider beautiful. And the exact same thing goes for ugly, as there is absolutely NOTHING that someone, somewhere, does not consider ugly. This is precisely what I mean by subjective, in both cases.

Now with goodness, we could go on for years debating this one because you will never agree with me that goodness is objective. When something produces a positive result (not necessarily pleasure, that gets tricky) that benefits both that which is acting and that which is receiving the action, it is good.

Unless of course there is a 3rd party, that looks at the one acting and the one receiving, and wondering why someone would commit such a horrible evil to someone else, and both of them call it good? So how would you know who is right? You can�t, unless you have a subjective opinion that it�s either good or bad.

If something performs its function, that which it was made to perform, it is good.

The concentration camps performed their function very well. They must be good then. See, still subjective.

Anything on the contrary of these is bad.

Yes, after someone deactivates a bomb in a public area that was designed to blow up a building, the bomb is no longer functioning as it is designed, so this is very bad indeed! He better fix it quick if he knows what�s good for him! Once again, subjective!

If something doesn't do what it was made to do or does something that either harms or produces a negative result in something else, or itself, it is bad.

Harm is subjective. What one person calls harm, another calls benefit, and vice versa.

Sure, once again, we can get into specific exceptions, but please do not deny the fact that even though not everyone can agree on what is Good, the Good does exist outside of our opinions.

How can it exist outside of our opinions, if it is created in the first place BY someone�s opinion? If no one is around to call it �good� or �bad�, then it�s neither! It just IS! Once again, I think you�re ignoring the fact that specific examples are exactly what determine if something is subjective or not, since you APPLY good/bad specifically do you not? And in those same examples I say, others disagree, which means it is subjective.

Why else do we debate anything? We want to uncover the objective truth of what is good, what is true, and what is beautiful.

No, we want to WIN the debate and get recognition as the ones who won. If the information is OBJECTIVE, debate does NOT exist, period. Debate only exists for SUBJECTIVE things! Think about it please! Don�t be afraid of being wrong, because if you are, you are blocking that which you may learn from. Do you not see that every single example of good/bad can be either depending on who observes it? Subjective judgements do not exist OBJECTIVELY, because they are subjective!

"--Murder is wrong. Every single person in the world knows this to be true, objectively.--
False. People fight in wars, which is simply "politically justified" murder, but murder nevertheless. THOSE who commit murder obviously don't think it's so wrong, and in fact often think it's VERY right and necessary. Need I go on?"

No, stop before you make another wrong statement. Murder and killing are two separate things. Murder is the unjust ending of life. DON'T TELL ME JUSTICE IS RELATIVE, I'VE HAD ENOUGH OF YOUR RELATIVITY!

Justice is not only service to self, but it is very subjective and relative. You can tell your math teacher �I had enough of your damn numbers!� also, but is this going to stop him from teaching those who ask? If you had enough, we can terminate this discussion. If you can�t stand having someone break reality to you, that is your personal issue to deal with, if you so choose, not mine.

Question: Who defines when the ending of a life is JUST? Humans, with their judgements and opinions only. There is no objectively just reason to end anyone�s life, ever, until you DECIDE that this reason is �just�, which is subjective.

You know what, why not? Go ahead and tell me it's relative. In war, ending someone's life in a just circumstance is not wrong. But both sides in a war think they are just? So what do we do, you ask? Let's go back to Hitler since I think everyone in their right mind agrees that he was wrong.

No, the Germans at the time didn�t, the entire Nazi regime didn�t. �Right mind� is subjective and relative! You�d have to define what you think �right mind� is, before making such a huge assumption.

So the Nazi's and their allies were unjust and those that they fought against were just.

All in their own individual views of course. From the Nazi perspective, the Nazis were just, and everyone who fought them were unjust. Just because you disagree doesn�t make it objective. Things either ARE objective, or they are not. In order to see which is which, you first need to understand what objective means, vs subjective.
Subjective:
1. Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.
2. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.
3. Existing only in the mind; illusory

Good/Evil only exist in someone�s mind, they do not exist no matter how much you WISH that they did. This is absolutely OBVIOUSLY seen by the fact that everyone has their own opinion on what is good and what is evil. Therefore, it is subjective.

Objective:
1. Of or having to do with a material object.
2. Having actual existence or reality.

Glad that�s clear�

In other wars, it could be true that both sides are unjust because the cause being fought over is unjust in the first place. Murder is wrong, no if's and's or but's.

That�s an assumption and a subjective opinion. Just because you wish that no one disagrees, does not mean they will not, and will not see themselves as correct. Just because you think you are correct does not automatically make it so, because subjective statements are neither correct or incorrect� they are based on personal opinion, and do not exist in objective reality.

"--Is it just by coincidence that the laws of every nation of the world are strikingly similar?--
No, they were made by the same power-hungry psychopaths with similar goals, no coincidence. They are reflective of a service-to-self 3rd density control structure, and the illusions of good/evil and right/wrong that are so easily imposed upon docile citizens in order to control them with their own ignorance. You asked."

Okay, well if these laws were all developed by these awful people and that's why they were the same. Provide for me a legal code that makes sense for all people that is strikingly different than the ones already in place. Let's hear your code of laws.

No law makes sense to ALL people. Give me one that you think is, and I�ll show that it�s not universally-accepted by EVERYONE � unless this �law� represents something from objective reality, which is not so easy to find, by the very nature of what a law is.

"Who defines righteousness? The church? Come on now..."

Now when did I say that? The church didn't invent righteousness. The church might support righteousness, but it didn't invent it. I say that Righteousness comes from God, but you don't agree with that, go figure.

Go figure.. because you have no clue what God wants, do you? How can you say what god defines as righteous, has he told you this himself?

"Good or bad is always subjective, because otherwise debates would not exist about them."

Here it is, your moment of brilliance! We debate things why? TO COME TO THE TRUTH; TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT SOMETHING IS GOOD OR BAD IN TRUTH!

No, we debate to determine who will be DECLARED the winner, and in whose VICTORY the law will be made to FORCE everyone ELSE to comply, whether they want to or not. Objective truth is NEVER debated, EVER. Give me one example where something objectively true was debated over, ONE.

"Nothing is right or wrong objectively, period. I already gave you examples where people disagreed upon what is right and wrong, and STILL disagree, and will forever disagree, as long as people remain service-to-self, which promotes subjectivity, ignorance, and LACK of objective understanding of reality as it IS, not as we WANT it to be."

Just because a lot of people are self-centered, ignorant people doesn't mean that it's okay to never come to an agreement on something. You're right, some people will debate topics until the end of time, but does that mean that there is no right answer?

Yes, because of the very nature of debate � it only exists for subjective opinions, because subjectivity exists regardless of opinion, therefore debate is not necessary. Do you debate whether 1+1=2?

Debate:
1. A formal contest of argumentation in which two opposing teams defend and attack a given proposition.

Why do they do it then? What's the point of debating something in which everyone is right or everyone is wrong? THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER TO EVERYTHING!

There is an answer to every single question, but it doesn�t mean that everything is either right or wrong, no matter how much you WISH the world was black and white, it�s not. Don�t ignore the shades of gray now.

Granted, many times it is hard to see the right answer, but it does not mean that it doesn't exist. For the sake of this argument, I do not pretend to have the right answers, but I do know that there is a right answer out there and I will pursue it all of my life as I know you will also.

I pursue TRUTH, and objectivity. I do not bother myself with subjective things, as they lead absolutely nowhere, as they only exist in your mind.

"Some did [believe things before they knew them], yes. Others didn't believe, they had a hunch and they tested IF it's true, and then proved it. The difference is, people believed the Earth was flat, but that was proven false wasn't it. Therefore, belief is irrelavant, and does not bring you closer to truth, as I just demonstrated."


Okay, so a hunch is not a belief according to you. What is it then?

Hunch: An intuitive feeling or a premonition. �dictionary.com

It's not knowledge, it's a BELIEF that someone has some knowledge about and thinks might be true but isn't sure. Just a side note by the by, those who thought the world was flat weren't very well educated. Turns out Plato knew the world was a sphere, I'll get text if you want it, so whatever historical thinker you're thinking of must have been left out of the loop. And even if historical thinkers were proved wrong by newly acquired knowledge, how is that a hindrance to the pursuit of truth? We can't be right all of the time. We learn from mistakes. People make assumptions that seem right and if they're later proven to be right, then they're right, if not, what have we lost? Nothing.

Time. Energy. If scientists assumed things, science advance would CRAWL. If you assume something is true, then you are satisfied with it, because you think it�s already true. If you keep searching for the truth, it means you don�t really ASSUME it is true, you just leave it as a possibility! For example, you believe that good and evil are subjective, and you simply do not SEEK to know if you�re wrong (even when confronted and demonstrated time and time again, that good/evil ARE subjective with numerous examples and logic), because you ASSUME, and this stagnates your progress, as you IGNORE reality. Eventually, you will find out that it is objective, but look at all the time you spent arguing your subjective points, JUST because you assume and believe!

Are you deeply scarred by the fact that people once thought the world was flat? Does that make any difference to you in regard to what you believe now?

If they never assumed, everyone would�ve known it was round a LONG time ago. Assumptions stagnate progress big time, because since they all were so convinced that it�s flat, it took one brave person who chose to DISAGREE and went against public concensus, and then proved them wrong. If everyone else weren�t so gullible and assuming, we�d never even HAVE it written in text books that historically, people once believed it was flat. I ask, what do you GAIN from belief, other than wishful thinking and illusion? You lose time and energy, and stagnate in progress if you believe.

It's harmless to assume things, or dare I say, believe things that we cannot prove, at least at the moment. Now I would agree with you that when people impose their beliefs on unwilling people, it is wrong.

Wrong is subjective, I never said it�s wrong! I don�t play in the mud called �subjectivity�, because I wish to learn and advance, not stagnate, and never really gain much knowledge as belief = ignorance. I deny it.

Christians should not do that. But something like Evolution is not entirely proven either, there are still a lot of holes whether or not your biology teacher is willing to admit it or not. So how is it acceptable for Evolution to be taught in schools if it is not entirely proven? It's not knowledge yet, it's still a belief.

Exactly, and all those kids are being taught a possible LIE, being immersed in an ILLUSION based on evidence, which is not conclusive at all. Instead of teaching the kids all the POSSIBILITIES that exist, and telling them that no one knows for sure, they are instead told that it IS this way, despite the fact that it�s not proven.

Could turn out to be another "world is flat." Or it could be true, I'll give you that for the sake of this argument. But why the hypocrisy? Now I'm not saying you are a supporter of evolution, I don't know. Doesn't really matter, this is a tangent anyway.

I do not support that which I do not know the truth of, as this is senseless and means I ignorantly pretend to know the truth when I do not. However, if I do know the origins of the human species, I can then tell this to whomever asks.

"--In the end times, when either all is explained to perfection or nothing happens and we all simply cease to exist, some of us will have at least made a guess and stuck with it.--
And others will have not made guess, but searched for the truth and FOUND it. They then looked at those who stucked to their guess till their deaths, and smiled as they waved to them."

For one, if Christianity is wrong, you won't be waving in the end times, you'll be dust. For another, the scientific method does not function without a hypothesis, or a guess--educated, yes, but a guess nonetheless.

A guess to be tested, not a BELIEF or an ASSUMPTION. It�s an educated guess, but the scientist says �I do not KNOW� until he can ascertain it. On the other hand, those who believe and assume, say they DO know, when this is obviously not true.

So truth does not come without first making a guess and testing it. I am not one of those people, nor is any good Christian, who will stick with their guess if and when it is proven wrong without a shadow of a doubt. Belief is not blind, it has conditions, and if there is proof that these conditions are not met, Christians will abandon ship.

Those conditions were not met the second those beliefs were invented, if the Christians used their minds at all. Apparently, they all went down with the ship. And you say belief is harmless!

"--Others of us will have not even tried because they were afraid.�

Or they simply denied ignorance! Big difference there, unless fear means unassuming search for truth in your mind, then so be it!

Do you think it takes courage to believe in something? If you don't, you're a wuss? So those who seek to know the truth are wusses, and those who choose to PRETEND TO KNOW the truth are courageous? Well once again, this is your choice to label and judge anyone you want, but it is really irrelevant in objective reality, isn't it."

It does take courage to believe in something.

Courage? Define courage, and then explain how it�s involved in belief. I call it gullibility, and a decision to accept subjective reality, lies, and illusions, over truth. This is objectively what it is, whether the believer is in denial about it or not. It also takes courage to jump off a cliff, believing that you will survive the impact below. Once again, some call it courage, some call it �someone who ASSUMED, but did not know, so he decided to BELIEVE he will survive anyway! Well he�s gone now�. So belief is not harmful you say?

Who wants to be wrong? No one. So to be so vulnerable to error as to say that one believes in something that could be wrong takes courage.

And by believing, you�re ALWAYS vulnerable to error. If you don�t care whether what you think is correct in objective reality or not, then be my guest. Personally, I�d rather know the TRUTH, and prefer to AVOID error as much as possible. If you think this makes me a wuss, that�s your subjective judgement.

Those who don't accept anything until someone else proves it (who does do a little believing) are playing it safe. Those who seek to know the truth are those who believe first, then prove it later.

False. Belief leads to truth only accidentally. I like to use my mind and intentionally locate it.

Those who pretend to know the truth aren't wusses, they're just stubborn idiots.

I�m glad you understand what belief is finally, and what assumption makes you.

Christians don't pretend to know the truth, they believe in a possible truth. If you meet a pretentious Christian, I apologize, but don't accuse the rest of us. I pretend to know nothing. I believe in many things and I believe that I CAN know these things.

I apologize for calling you a wuss and I thank you for a good discussion.

[Edited on 31-3-2004 by GregoryON520]

You CAN know absolutely everything, but belief is IRRELAVANT in this respect. Also, I am finished with this discussion, simply because I�ve already stated my point and all I need to say on this matter, about 125 times. If you don�t put any effort into trying to understand and LEARN, this is your choice, and knowledge can never be acquired without SEEKING it. Once again, all that I have to say about belief, assumption, evil, good, right, and wrong, is in this post. No need to clutter the board with repeating statements, is there? Please review what I said if you�d like, as I will not be repeating this very soon.

I haven't read this whole thread, nor do I have the time to do so, and so I do not know how the debate has developed. However, as regards the question posed by the title...

Atheism is not a religious faith. It is, by definition, a lack of faith. Atheism is unfortunately misconstrued as something comparable to a religious faith by those who argue that such a lack of faith is impossible, such is the strength of their own religious conviction.

CiderGood_HeadacheBad,
What you are saying is correct by definition. What I think the problem is that some aetists are as or more zealous in their convictions as those who profess a belief in a supreme being. In the case of some aethists, they have no problem in denying another's right to have their own beliefs and feel it is their (GOD given right pun intended) to demean anyone that has faith.

Zang, I haven't been on here in forever and what do you know this topic is still going

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
I wouldn't call atheism a religion, more a belief.

Agnosticism is safer for social affiliators.

I agree with MaskedAvatar. I don't see Atheism as a religion....they don't believe in anything.....right?

Also, I would go further and say it is a belief in nothing (or nothingness), and even suggest that they (atheists) are existentialists.....which means:

A philosophy that emphasizes the uniqueness and isolation of an individual in a hostile or indifferent universe.



Religion has rituals or symbolic actions (prayers, music, etc.) that depict their beliefs within a shared community (Church).

Faeryland

.
Atheism is the [temporary or permanent] non-commitment to any espoused belief systems, either because you have not seen/felt convincing evidence of any particular diety/dieties.

Belief for us is always an emotional attachment.
Of course our whole sense of what is 'real' and what is not is also based on emotional attachments. It has to do with the neural connections to the emotion center(s?) of the brain.

You can, i am certain, actually completely synthetically manipulate someone's whole world model of reality by simply re-structuring the neural pathways in the brain. Its frightening really, But you can also get hit by a bus, so its not high on my list of worries.
The natural operations of the brain interacting with the real world [sensory input] will tend to eventually override any synthetic introduced realities, barring some society's support of a synthesized idea, which would conversely tend to re-inforce it.

I do have faith in the integrity my experiences [maybe upbringing too] and in so far as they lead me to see no clear great good hand operating in the world, I do not believe in the God many people in this culture assert exists.

If the sum total of what i see in the world is the work of God, he is one sick and/or confused puppy.

*Fanatic's Response* "No God is only responsible for the good things and Satan/evil is responsible for the Bad things."

*Me* "And how, precisely do you distinguish the two?"

*Fanatic's Response* "I don't, I just have faith in God"

*Thinking to myself* "Honestly this is just silly. Maybe Heaven is not meant for thinking people."

Some people like Cocaine, some like God and i am cool with either as long as you don't push your addiction on me, Thx.

Beware, though, if you try to forcibly pedal that Religious BS at me and I will rip the fabric of the Universe apart and shove you half way down it and ask you if you can see God from there. Can you see God from the inside of a Black Hole? In the super hot gases and x-rays of a Hyper-nova?

If not your God is a little to puny to deal with Macro reality, and i will shop elsewhere before i sign on to any so-called Gods.
.

Atheism is the [temporary or permanent] non-commitment to any espoused belief systems,

I thought that was agnostic. thats what ive been told.

I always thought as atheism as believing that there is no God. because of course you cant prove there to be no God, you have to believe it.

just my opinion, but the first statement is my main question. kind of a question is a statement form.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher

Atheism is the [temporary or permanent] non-commitment to any espoused belief systems,

I thought that was agnostic. thats what ive been told.

I always thought as atheism as believing that there is no God. because of course you cant prove there to be no God, you have to believe it.

just my opinion, but the first statement is my main question. kind of a question is a statement form.

Yeah, that's agnostic. Though one would be playing games to call Atheism a belief IMO. It's merely an acknowledgement that God's existence (or lack thereof) is unknowable and of no concern to this non-metaphysical existence. It's the non-consideration of Him as anything but irrelevant to discussions of any relevance. Morality, politics, self, etc.

But laypeople abound on both sides claiming all sorts of beliefs and labels incorrectly. Especially as concerns trying to redefine the "opposing" team to suit their own agenda. Frankly, there's no such thing as a sincere believer versus atheist debate anymore than creationists and scientists have any business talking to each other... ever. Apples and oranges.

well as an atheist, dont you have to believe that there is no God? there is no way to know that, IMO I would consider is a religion, because you have to believe or have faith in the non-existance of God.

I consider it to being a religion.

Since it is logically impossible to prove God does not exist. And there are millions of people who have had contact with him. Atheists are out on a broken limb claiming they are SURE there is no God. I have more respect for agnostics, they don't seem so hostile. It seems like atheism is the religion that requires the most faith of all, considering the fact you have the most to lose of all faiths if you are wrong.

Originally posted by Evolution Cruncher
well as an atheist, dont you have to believe that there is no God? there is no way to know that, IMO I would consider is a religion, because you have to believe or have faith in the non-existance of God.

I consider it to being a religion.

It's more like I know there is no god because faith is more of a 'hope' that god doesn't exist, where I know that god doesn't exist period. I believe god doesn't exist but a belief doesn't mean it becomes a religion - simply believing the sun will rise tomorrow is a logical assumption - just as people logically know the sun will rise tomorrow and believing it does not mean it's a shared religion that people believe it - just a belief


[edit on 23-4-2008 by andre18]

reply to post by Seekerof


...we don't consider anyone who isn't an atheist to be crazy and/or stupid
though there are crazy and/or stupid religious people, just like there are crazy and/or stupid atheists
crazy and/or stupid people are to be found in just about any group

on the other hand, christians believe is a book that they claim is 100% objective infallible truth that says that atheists are "fools"

i actually never understand why someone would think that belief in atheism is a matter of faith...

whether they are right or wrong is a different matter, but to say it is a religion pushing it.

religion to me has always included 1.worship, atheists dont worship whats not there. and 2 faith, which atheists dont have any (faith in god)

materialism can be a religion, because you can worship money and have faith in its power

patriotism can be a religion

atheism is pushing it i think

Originally posted by Yosimitie Sam
Since it is logically impossible to prove God does not exist. And there are millions of people who have had contact with him. Atheists are out on a broken limb claiming they are SURE there is no God. I have more respect for agnostics, they don't seem so hostile. It seems like atheism is the religion that requires the most faith of all, considering the fact you have the most to lose of all faiths if you are wrong.

In that case what your saying is that everyone is agnostic. As, as you stated, it is logically impossible to prove the existence of any deity then even theists have to logically conclude that their beliefs may be wrong just as atheists must also conclude.

However this is not the case, we see that theists are 100% in their conviction of their chosen deity (which I would say requires more faith than atheistic views as A) you cannot conclusively prove that any deity exists and B) that even if a deity did exist, that deity would happen to be YOUR deity of choice).

While most atheists I have come across acknowledge the fact that 'we don't know' if a god exists but we find that the non evidence for any god gives us the right to state the non belief in a god.


G

Well, if this guy is correct and atheism is a faith, and baldness is a hairstyle, then I demand the same benefits his faith gets him. I want an organization that can raise money tax free, build on land yet pay no property tax, and make vague promises none of which ever have to come true. Plus 500 years of don't look, don't tell when it comes to any institutional sexual transgressions to which we atheists are entitled.

Fair?

[edit on 24-7-2009 by micktravis]

reply to post by Seekerof


Being anti-religion or being an athiest requires "faith" in a belief system that says their is no God, and these people often blame the world's problems on people who believe in God. They are usually very religious about their faith in evolutionist ideology, and attack anyone who professes to be a creationist.

Therefore, being an atheist and/or anti-religion is in fact a religion.

Originally posted by micktravis
Well, if this guy is correct and atheism is a faith, and baldness is a hairstyle, then I demand the same benefits his faith gets him. I want an organization that can raise money tax free, build on land yet pay no property tax, and make vague promises none of which ever have to come true. Plus 500 years of don't look, don't tell when it comes to any institutional sexual transgressions to which we atheists are entitled.

Fair?

[edit on 24-7-2009 by micktravis]

They already get that. Evolution/atheist scientists get grants and all kinds of funding that creation scientists don't get from the gov.