Should Atheism be a thing????

originally posted by: ParasuvO

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: IAMNOTYOU

If religion does not change, why is there a NEW testament?

You may have noticed that from said NEW testament a new religion spawned... one which the people of the OLD testament disagree with...

Also, religion is about belief, science is filled with theories, you would have to believe in, for the rest of the science to be true, right?

said theories are testable, and repeatable... not all of course, but the ones that are not remain theory

Heres the difference....

IF science had a theory, and something new is discovered to be more truth... the ideas change according to the most widely accepted theory

IF Christianity suddenly discovered a new book written by the very hand of Jesus himself...

NOTHING would change... it would be dismissed by all religious "authorities" and branded "heretical"

Actually that happens in science all the time.

And Christianity is changing all the time.

You are completely wrong...they are one and the same in many areas.

IT CAN be argued..and successfully that Science is a religion.

Right... like i said, by religious fanatics that hate science...

the same people that always believe their arguments are successful regardless of the actual outcome

Fortunately a logical argument can not equate science and religion

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver

No, with respect, I do not accept that idea.

Atheism is a belief, but it requires no faith at all, in the strictest sense. Faith is only properly bought into the picture when dealing with ones relationship to, or indeed the existence of a deity.

Belief however is a more general term. Atheism is, for atheists, a matter of empirical data supporting the absence of a creator God. They believe what the evidence suggests, they have a belief. They have no faith, because in their view, faith has no meaning. For example, when I climb a ladder, I do not require to have faith in its qualities as a load bearing object, because I can examine it using experiments which produce empirical data SHOWING it to be strong enough to bear my weight.

However, I HAVE to have faith in God, because there is no physical experiment I can perform which proves or disproves His existence.

I am prepared to indulge in that faith, and atheists are not.

I have a faith, and ergo a religion. Atheists have a belief and empirical reasoning behind their belief, which is why I can respect it, but they do not have faith that God does not exist, because having to bring faith into it would render atheism a religion, which it most fundamentally is not.

I honestly could not agree more, and i respect your candid acceptance that faith is not a reason to believe, but rather, a choice to believe something for no good reason.

It begs the question though, why believe in something for no good reason?

a reply to: DISRAELI

Because there is no theism ... the idea of a God, is lunacy ... to say the least. Do we "label" people who aren't insane?

No, we don't.

When you start labeling "a-theist" the word being used is "theism". The preposition being used, is that "theism" is the normal state of mind, and "a-theism" is the anti state of mind.

We do not live in 2000 BC, we live in the year of 2017 AD, and in a couple of days we'll eneter 2018.

You want to keep the state of mind, that beliveing in Santa Claus is normal ... hell no. Believing in Santa Claus is lunacy, it's literally being "retarded" to a point of fault. Not because there cannot be a creator, but because any "rabbi" claiming to *understand* the mindset, or the intent of any spernatural being is not just fallacy, it's not just merely a falcehood ... it's arrogance to the point, where that rabbi is claiming to be a God himself. To understand the omnipotent and omniscient, you must be one yourself.

So, the preposition that people who do not believe in lunatic ideology are a-"anything" is not acceptable.

Why don't you start calling people, who believe in "God" or "Allah", as a-normal. Seriously, thats more fitting.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: JoshuaCox

Atheism is not a religion, but is is a belief.

What preposterous nonsense, and dogmatic idiocracy ...

Oh, I don't belive, and that's a belief system.

The word "Science" comes from latin, and means "knowledge". Are you so retarded, that you think "belief" is knowledge?

Let's call "belief" retardism ... because thinking that you are GOD, or godly is retarded.

originally posted by: bjarneorn
Why don't you start calling people, who believe in "God" or "Allah", as a-normal. Seriously, thats more fitting.

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I called myself an atheist when I was one, and most individual atheists are self-identified. In fact they have to be, because non-believers have the popular option of calling themselves "agnostic" instead. Conversely, many Christians are not imposing the name "atheist", but denying it. Anyone who self-identifies as an atheist does not have to go very far before encountering the (rather silly) "Atheists don't exist" argument favoured by such Christians.

Incidentally, "agnostic" is another example of the word-formation you're objecting to, viz. identifying someone by a negation of something else (in this case, "knowing"). Do you see agnostics up in arms claiming to be insulted by the name they have adopted for themselves?
This kind of word-formation is actually quite common. A good classic example is "antidistestablishmentarianism", which used to be called the longest word in the English language. It means, of course, a refusal to believe in the proposition of "disestablishment". You will see that this word-formation involves a double negative.

I would suggest not getting worked up about this issue, because it's artificial.

a reply to: DISRAELI

While I do agree to the word formation to be common, I do not agree to oneself identifying to it ... to oneself.

If I'm in a group of religious people, and they'd ask me what I believe ... I smile, and let them see the "cross" I wear ... and they think I'm "christian" in that sense. I don't even bother telling them, I'm of jewish decent, becuase it's irrelevant ... I'm not of that religion. And the "cross" I wear, doesn't mean what people think it does ... going further down that line, I'd probably say "I'm agnostic".

I do not "object" to there being a "creation" ... I object to "knowing". I object to interpretation of what the meaning of creation is ... and one thing I most certainly oppose, is "Santa Claus". By that I mean, the all good God of Creation ... weather that is through old testament, new testament or any other book. All these books, just reek of Greek and Roman ideology ... the entire belief system is wrong.

Take a look at Judea in the time of the bible ... mountaneously oppressed people. I mean, you have to be literally blind to not comprehend that religion is about control. There is an old saying "cuius solem, eius religio".

I do not accept that we should use the word "agnostic" or "atheist" at all. Because we are people of "knowledge" or "scienta". We observe nature, and reject dogma.

It's not a "thing" ...

a reply to: bjarneorn

I know the sky appears blue. I know why it appears blue. I also believe that the sky appears blue. They are not mutually exclusive concepts, merely parts of a Venn Diagram which overlap or not as the situation allows for.

a reply to: Woodcarver

The question is not "Why believe something for no good reason?"

The question is, why believe something for which there is no empirical evidence, and that is a different thing entirely.

a reply to: JoshuaCox

The problem with atheism being treated as a "group" is that they have a large variety of beliefs. For example, Buddhists are atheists, but agree with Buddhism, which has no god. Shinto is very similar. I think one should classify people based on what they DO believe, rather than what they don't. You don't see people making up categories for folks that don't believe in unicorns or vampires. People lack that belief because of the lack of evidence. Atheism is the same for the most part, but it makes way more sense to focus on what people do believe if you are trying to group people. I personally don't like labels based on what people don't believe. It doesn't really make sense. Atheism isn't a belief, just like not playing basketball isn't a sport. If you are looking for a belief system, you should be talking about secular humanism.

a reply to: TrueBrit

I get what you are saying here and agree with most of it. The atheist position is not really a belief, it's LACK of a belief. It's a belief position, however. Gnostic/Agnostic is a KNOWLEDGE position. This is why it's false to look at it linearly.

It's not THEIST ------------ AGNOSTIC ----------- ATHEIST

It's

THEIST - ATHEIST (belief positions)

and

GNOSTIC - AGNOSTIC (knowledge positions).

That leaves 4 possibilities, not 3.

The large majority of people who call themselves agnostic or atheist are technically agnostic atheists. People constantly misrepresent those positions because theists like to project the atheist position as irrational, claiming they can't say they don't know if god exists. It's a complete false dichotomy. Obviously I'm not saying this to argue with you, I think we are in agreement, I just wanted to illustrate why the classic categorization of atheists as done by theists is very often wrong and your post was a perfect way to lead into that

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: bjarneorn

I know the sky appears blue. I know why it appears blue. I also believe that the sky appears blue. They are not mutually exclusive concepts, merely parts of a Venn Diagram which overlap or not as the situation allows for.

"blue" is a word, it associates the "color" of the sky.

a-something is a word, it associates negative image to the word "something". Like the word "a-ho". Even if people do not comprehend what the prefix "a" is, they do "get it". In such sense, "a" something is a "negative" something.

So, instead of calling me "a-theist", or "a-gnostic", then instead call religious people "a-scienta".

originally posted by: Barcs
a reply to: JoshuaCox
You don't see people making up categories for folks that don't believe in unicorns or vampires. People lack that belief because of the lack of evidence. Atheism is the same for the most part, but it makes way more sense to focus on what people do believe if you are trying to group people. I personally don't like labels based on what people don't believe.

That is exactly my point ... you don't "label" people, because they don't believe in Santa Claus/Unicorn/Fairies.

You label those who DO.

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Woodcarver

The question is not "Why believe something for no good reason?"

The question is, why believe something for which there is no empirical evidence, and that is a different thing entirely.

is there any other reason to accept that something is true?

But you know this and still claim to believe in something which has no empirical evidence to support it?

a reply to: JoshuaCox

Atheist are the biggest religious people I have ever conversed with. They have more faith than most Christians in what they claim to and not to believe.

But then you know my views JoshuaCox.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Hey, I don't believe in Santa Claus, Tooth Fairies, and Easter Bunny. Yet I am one of the biggest believers in God, the Lord Christ Jesus and the preserved word of God in English.

I always wonder why religious people claim atheists have stronger faith than the religious. The main reason atheists don't believe in gods is because there isn't a shred of evidence for their existence, but if there is ever a day that evidence does appear that there are gods it will seriously overturn our worldview.

So basically, by claiming atheists have stronger faith than them they are saying their faith isn't worth fart.

a reply to: Woodcarver

Well, you see, that is why there is a difference between faith, and mere belief.

I believe that science is a useful tool for navigating the physical world, that it can teach us much about how to survive, how to improve, how to best apportion resource, how to manage the difficulties presented by extensive population increase (note, I did not say manage population, because there is no just way to do this), and a whole host of extremely necessary things. It can teach us about the universe, allow us to investigate ever further the origins of matter and energy themselves, and open up new doors to futures we have not yet speculated on the nature of, for the species of which we are a part, and the universe in which we live as well.

However, I have FAITH in God. Faith requires no proof, no empirical data, requires no explanation or justification. I do not require evidence of the divine in order to accept it. I DO require evidence of EVERY other thing, however, in order to accept it. Its the one exception I am prepared to entertain, in my entire life.

You want me to believe that trickle down economics functions, for example? You are going to have to show me the evidence (which, just for the record, would be a miracle of epic, nay biblical proportions, because there is none). You want me to believe that new particles have been discovered? Show me the science, show me the apparatus, give me a run down on how the experiment was performed, so that I can examine it for myself and reach conclusions based on reason, logic and learning, not the faith I reserve for matters of the spirit and the soul.

Faith is reserved for matters of the spirit and the soul, and for EVERY other realm of thought and living, there is logic, reason, Occam's Razor, science and the scientific mindset.

As for why, there is no why. It simply is.

a reply to: Grimpachi

I agree they do have a stronger faith.

a reply to: bjarneorn

Could you clarify for the readers the meaning of A-sceinta.

If it means what you are saying then no-knowledge as from what I could find was, that is basically Agnostic. en.wikipedia.org...

But what I think you are trying to say is no facts which is a-factual or Nothingarians,www.merriam-webster.com... but that could not be applied to Christians, except in that they might not be of any Christian sect or denomination.

As an atheist, I've always just seen it as nothing, literally. My assumption has always been that I don't need to label my belief since there's an inherent lack of in my opinion.