It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is Atheism just a new religion?

page: 2
<< 1   >>

log in


posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 02:52 AM
reply to post by ForkandSpoon

Atheism is not rational, but it's SEMI-rational? That's a new philosophical concept to me. Now, let me illustrate where this new concepts abandons the laws of logic.

In case you haven't heard, a positive statement is a specific statement (proposition) about the nature of reality, and related to the existence of something or someone. For instance, if I say that 'you are a disinfo agent', then I am making a positive statement, which, of course, needs some proof. Now, as long as I don't prove my statement, then it is more than rational to stay on the negative side of the positive statement. That is, a rational person would listen to the above-mentioned positive statement that you are a disinfo agent, and would assume a negative attitude toward it: "For as long as you don't rationally and factually prove that I am a disinfo agent, then I am assuming that I am not a disinfo agent."

Hoping that you grasped the concept, let me point to the issue at hand. If a religious person makes a positive statement, such as 'God exists', then a rational mind cannot accept its truth blindingly. Otherwise they would commit a Reductio ad absurdum fallacy, which has long been proven to be irrational. On the contrary, they would take a negative stand towards that positive statement, by concluding that "For as long as you don't provide rational proof related to you proposition that God exists, then it is logical for a sane, rational mind to take the stand that God does not, in fact, exist."

I have the feeling, all in all, that you got the point. But now that I think of it, I should start a new thread related to positive statements.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 08:43 AM
That is creative.....So saying something CAN NOT exist...simply because YOU Have not experienced it is more rational? Even still rational when a very large number of people have experienced it?

I might point out that that line of reasoning is why people so long held onto the idea that the earth was flat, and the sun revolved around the earth. It is at it's basis a line of reasoning built on the idea that your own ego is the center of the universe.

To say something DOES NOT exist because one personally has not experienced it is not rational, it is in fact a positive egocentric statement.

If you were more intellectually honest you'd have to at least come to the conclusion that agnosticism is the only cold rational view you can defend without putting your ego as the basis of the argument.

Again I point out that you seem to forget about the first hand experiences reported by so much of humanity, all based on YOUR experience...or lack there of.

posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:21 AM
reply to post by ForkandSpoon

Actually, that's not creative - that's factual. Now, you seem to miss the point here. First, saying that atheism is not irrational, does not mean that one excludes the possibility that agnosticism is rational. Also, one does not compare or contrast. Second, you are attempting to equivocate the concept of positive statements as explained by myself, with the concept of positive statements you misunderstand. For instance, the statement "Earth is flat" is a positive statement, and, for as long as one doesn't prove it, I remain on the side of the negation of that statement. Where is the "creative" option here?


posted on Jul, 11 2008 @ 09:59 AM

I don't label myself, and I do not consider religion or spirituality a part of my life.

If you were to ask if I believe that there is a 'higher power', I would say no. Because logically, the idea of an invisible being that makes and breaks everything seems ridiculous to me.

In that context, I guess you could say that I'm Atheist.

However, to say that is my religion would be a stretch.

[edit on 7/11/2008 by vinrock]

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 10:55 AM
Atheists must believe in God. To state you do not believe in God, is by definition of you using the word, accepting the the definition of God exists. Reality of mind, what we see an don't see only exist through the construct of language, experience and collective conscious . The world is bought to manifest through conscious energy. Without observers the world ceases to exist. Without us defining the undefinable ie. god, god would cease to exist. Not only do atheists believe in God, they bring God in very existence.

posted on Jul, 13 2008 @ 11:21 AM

Originally posted by purplemer
Atheists must believe in God.

No, they don't. Belief, any kind of belief, is a purely philosophical stance.

To state you do not believe in God, is by definition of you using the word, accepting the the definition of God exists.

On the contrary. It seems you are adding a little twist to Descartes' "I think, therefore I am" philosophical gem. Use of a particular word does not substantiate existence.

For example, I can state the phrase "pink one-eyed unicorn." By your logic, the mere fact that I placed this string of words together, is by definition acknowledgement of its existence. This is simply not the case.

Without observers the world ceases to exist. Without us defining the undefinable ie. god, god would cease to exist. Not only do atheists believe in God, they bring God in very existence.

Holding a particular philosophical stance, does not necessarily translate into the reality of that stance. People who hold faith in God are entitled to their beliefs. Is their faith evidence that there is a God? In short, no.

The same holds true for atheists. They chose not to believe in God's existence, and are entitled to their beliefs, as well. Does their philosophical stance prove there is not a God? No.

It is impossible to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. To attempt to do so is merely an exercise in futility.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:03 AM
Atheism is just another bs religion; just something for the kids to feel "apart" of something.. more of a trend then anything... joining the ranks of Scientology.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 04:42 AM
reply to post by WishForWings

As an atheist, and an adult one at that, I completely disagree with this.

A standard definition of religion is:
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Unless you are asserting that I have a conscientious devotion to not believe in anything, I don't think the standard definition of "religion" applies. As an open atheist I simply do not believe in a higher power, and I am happy to tell people that if it comes up in coversation, or if I am asked. But I do not belong to any atheist groups, attend meetings, give money to anyone, etc. It is nice to meet like-minded people, but I have friends of just about every faith.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:16 PM
Whats the point of following a "religion" that tells you there is no god, and doesn't give you a lifestyle.. or rules to live by.

I'm no Christian.. etc.

And I have no feelings either way.

I don't believe in God, however I wouldn't LABEL myself a atheist.

posted on Aug, 31 2008 @ 06:28 PM
reply to post by Dany_Barking

Hi Dany_Barking!

I think I understand what you are asking, and I will answer it as far as it relates to me.
I am an atheist, and yes I blame most of the world's turmoil, past and present, on religion. Also, you are correct yet again, in the fact I feel everyone should believe whatever someone understands as 'their truth'.. as long as they are peaceful!
Where the line is crossed, in my opinion, is the actions taken based upon beliefs..
This is the whole crux of the issue. Does that make sense?


posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 05:27 PM
reply to post by Tattoo1377

Surely such a polite answer commands a response. It has been a very long while since I been on here, and last time I checked, this thread had 5 posts, so 20-odd is a vast improvement, so much so I may repost this with a new understanding of the problems my theory poses.

Well, the reason I reply to you and not of the many before me, is I think you feel where I am going with this more than posts agreeing or disagreeing with me. Yes, you understand what I mean by the affects of Atheism as opposed to the complete rejection of it. SO yes it does make sense to me at least, in it is not ones beliefs that lead me to state Atheism as a religion, but more the actions committed by people with the beliefs. Like a coin, there are two sides, each with equal value.

new topics

top topics

<< 1   >>

log in