It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.

 

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

 

Is Atheism a religious/blind faith belief?

page: 2
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:30 PM
link   
reply to post by brilab45
 


Atheism has nothing to say about what happens after death except nothing called "god" will be waiting and he wouldn't care even if you did meet. Who knows because "you" is not even "you" . Weird but good philosophy on the ego will have to wait for another day




posted on Jul, 23 2010 @ 11:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by IamBoon
 


Both absolute answers *atheism or theism* are logically fallacious as they both run afoul of argumentum ad ignorantiam. So how exactly is that atheism is not a blind faith stance? To look to the borders of human knowledge and to pretend to know what's beyond or not is foolhardy and reliant more on personal opinion than hard fact to say the least.

[edit on 23-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]


Based on what logic exactly... NEVER state something and not explain why. That logic is erroneous and also dry. However to say atheism is blind faith is to be blind yourself of the history of religion , deductive logic , perceptive coherence , and what defines the status "god". I suggest reading some more on it , because most agnostic are really just lazy about the subject but feel authority in stating "I don't know" .


Help us by stating your conception of god and if you do not have one then you must have never even thought about religion to begin with , so can you explain what a "god" would be to you that hasn't been explained by another?


And why would this supposed "god" that you "dunno" about not reveled anything about what it is?


If "god" is "god" then what created "god" as that is the logical inference we suppose when invoking "god"?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:26 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 

I did explain. But since you do not wish to pay attention to that apparently.

Logic (from the Greek λογική logikē) is the study of reasoning. Logic is used in most intellectual activities, but is studied primarily in the disciplines of philosophy, mathematics, and computer science. Logic examines general forms which arguments may take, which forms are valid, and which are fallacies. It is one kind of critical thinking. In philosophy, the study of logic falls in the area of epistemology, which asks: "How do we know what we know?"[citation needed] In mathematics, it is the study of valid inferences within some formal language.

Logic has origins in several ancient civilizations, including ancient India, China and Greece. Logic was established as a discipline by Aristotle, who established its fundamental place in philosophy. The study of logic was part of the classical trivium.

Averroes defined logic as "the tool for distinguishing between the true and the false"; Richard Whately, '"the Science, as well as the Art, of reasoning"; and Frege, "the science of the most general laws of truth". The article Definitions of logic provides citations for these and other definitions.

Logic is often divided into two parts, inductive reasoning and deductive reasoning. The first is drawing general conclusions from specific examples, the second drawing logical conclusions from definitions and axioms. A similar dichotomy, used by Aristotle, is analysis and synthesis. Here the first takes an object of study and examines its component parts. The second considers how parts can be combined to form a whole.

Logic is also studied in argumentation theory.

SOURCE


An argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or appeal to ignorance, is an informal logical fallacy that asserts a proposition to be either true or false merely because it has not been proven or disproven.

General form of the argument:

1) P has never been disproven therefore P is/(must be) true.
2) P has never been proven therefore P is/(must be) false.
Carl Sagan famously criticized the practice by referring to it as "impatience with ambiguity" and pointing out that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

SOURCE

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:40 AM
link   
I've tried to reply this post five times. Whatever it is, it won't let me express myself. Strange.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:16 AM
link   
reply to post by IamBoon
 


No. Atheism isn't even a belief or a belief system. Atheism is merely a lack of belief in gods. It requires no faith and is a default skepticism in theism's claim that there is a god or gods.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by brilab45
I've tried to reply this post five times. Whatever it is, it won't let me express myself. Strange.


Keep trying

Judging by your last post, I'd be interested to read your opinions and conclusions.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 01:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


You didn't answer anything and I know what logic is. thx.

However , stating a god from the source in which "god" is revealed , claims "god" is perfect , yet changes his mind? Is that logical to you or cannot exist?


How about Being "All-Loving" but yet "Hating"? Is that proper to you? Logical?
Like I said it is the GOD that can be proven to not exist . A "being" beyond our perception who only exists has a 50/50 chance. Make it a "god" whatever that means, and then add praise-worthy attributes and things become bad....


Answer me about your concepts of what would constitute a god?



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 04:20 AM
link   

Atheism is not a non-inferred perceptual / blind faith system of belief like other "supernatural" religions.

Atheism is a system of belief like other religions. Agreed, and that much is obviously so.

Of course, that includes the attribute of holding different beliefs than other religions, and being very insistent that those differences make the speaker's belief system "special." After all, members of other religions are wrong. Not all religions have that feature, but atheism certainly does.

Members of other religions besides atheism sometimes deny that theirs is a religion, especially when they perceive a recruiting or rhetorical advantage in doing so. Conversely, religious status is sometimes denied to a religion by members of other religions. Buddhism is large enough, and various enough, that it offers examples of both.

As to the rest of your quoted statement, I am not sure where you're getting that from. You say you are an atheist. So, if you are describing your own thought process, then I am hardly in a position to disagree with you. I could only express doubt that it is typical of atheists as a group.

There is no consensus secular account of belief formation in the absence of evidence. Indeed, there isn't huge consensus about the details of belief formation and change when there is evidence. That "evidence" may sometimes really be arguments doesn't make things any easier.

It is quite clear, however, that people do form opinions in a variety of domains based on what "makes the most sense to them." There's no particular reason that "some god exists" would be different from questions in other domains, at least not that I can see.

Since I am an agnostic, let me add that there is a "third way." I don't know of any persuasive evidence about the existence question, and the arguments on offer seem to me to be a wash. Under the circumstances, I have no opinion one way or another.

I suppose I ought to be amused by the rants of another poster reciting his fantasies about a vengeful god to explain my doubt that he knows whether or not a god exists.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 05:43 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 


It is a belief but explain how it is blind? I use inferrence through history , perception , logical examination, and the concepts themselves. It makes for quite a solid case.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 06:24 AM
link   

It is a belief but explain how it is blind? I use inferrence through history , perception , logical examination, and the concepts themselves. It makes for quite a solid case.

OK, great. Let's hear your case, if you feel like sharing.

You can't be surprised that I don't agree with your case, until I've heard what it is. As to what happens then, who knows?

If your case is in what you've already posted, then I'm not getting how that bears on the quality of religious belief formation in any general way.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by eight bits

It is a belief but explain how it is blind? I use inferrence through history , perception , logical examination, and the concepts themselves. It makes for quite a solid case.

OK, great. Let's hear your case, if you feel like sharing.

You can't be surprised that I don't agree with your case, until I've heard what it is. As to what happens then, who knows?

If your case is in what you've already posted, then I'm not getting how that bears on the quality of religious belief formation in any general way.


It has great bearing on the quality of any form of thought.

It can decide deterministically the logical possibility or impossibility of any claim based on the concepts of the thought and the rational of the subject the concepts are based upon.

Anyways I am not arguing , more like intrigued. What makes Atheism a blind faith?

[edit on 24-7-2010 by IamBoon]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:42 AM
link   

Anyways I am not arguing , more like intrigued. What makes Atheism a blind faith?

OK, then fair enough.

I can't help you with your question, because I don't think that atheism is a "blind faith."



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
 


I had no idea what you were writing about so I looked it up. I thought it is a good point. The big problem is one of behaviourism in that atheists seem to be so emotionally hung up on being atheistic that such philosophical or logical concepts that you mention go out of the window. I think you are absolutely correct in this thinking.

Since on AtS I have become quite interested in PRACTICAL philosophy i.e. using it in our daily lives as we all need to think clearly especially when meeting new paradigms.

Thanks

Tiger

[edit on 24-7-2010 by Tiger5]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:16 AM
link   
it takes more faith to believe species completely changed into a new, different species than it does to believe in some higher power. atheism is a godless religion like la vey satanism.

and i consider myself to be agnostic. the god of the bible, quran and tanakh/talmund books are obviously fake and were created to control the masses.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 08:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Tiger5
 


I do see his point about arguing the unknown , however most ,if not all major religious deities are known by their assigned attributes and supposed actions . There is what is known and the logical belief of a supernatural being or anything else metaphysical depends on the attributes or concepts that comprise it.


For example , in the Torah God is revealed as Benevolent , yet later tortures Job , slaughters infants, promotes bigotry, condemns gays to die (also goes against all-loving/omnibenevolent ), and kills all animals and humans on "earth" because he didn't like them.

Sounds like he cannot be both and if he is then he cannot exist. If you keep doing this in relation to "god" powers it quickly become obvious that a personal god worth worshiping becomes illogical and impossible. It all matter on what you DO KNOW.

LIke a murder scene, You Assume someone murdered this person because the evidence for it... what can be inferred and what is known.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by eight bits
 




Atheism is a system of belief like other religions.


Atheism is a stance on the existence of gods. It is a lack in belief in them.

Theism isn't technically a belief system is it? It merely describes your stance on belief in gods and is not itself a religion or system of belief.

There are atheists with vastly differing belief systems. There are those that believe we were made by aliens, there are Buddhists who are atheists. There is no underlying dogma or system to conform to.

Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods.


[edit on 24-7-2010 by Titen-Sxull]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 11:50 AM
link   
It seems people on this thread are having a hard time understanding what atheism and agnosticism are.

Edit: See above post for what I had said here.


Agnosticism is the view that whether or not deities exist is unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism is not a "third way". To simply say "I don't know" makes you a default atheist, because you lack belief in any deities. There are Theist Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics, you can't just be an agnostic.

[edit on 24-7-2010 by PieKeeper]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 12:30 PM
link   
The following is my opinion as a member participating in this discussion.


I think that I am an atheist.


My position is based on a belief, because I believe that god(s) do not exist, but I cannot be sure of their existence.

I don't think it's a belief system because I don't see anything systematic with it, it's based on a belief but a simple belief, without other thoughts based on that and ending in the creation of organisations that talk about it and try to show to other people that they are right and other people are wrong.

That's why I find it a little strange when I see people that present themselves as atheists "fighting" against religious organisations. What are they fighting against, something that they think doesn't exist? I think those people are more anti-god(s) than atheists, because I see atheism as a "blank vote" on god(s).

I try to accept all religions (real religions, not those fake religions that were organised just to give someone some more power or money) as just another point of view (and I have even been considered as a Catholic defender in some cases
).



As an ATS Staff Member, I will not moderate in threads such as this where I have participated as a member.



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 06:30 PM
link   
TS


Atheism is a stance on the existence of gods. It is a lack in belief in them.

Atheism is the belief that there is no god. That is a different thought from not believing that there is a god. People can find themselves not believing that there is a god, without believing that there is no god.

For example, I am agnostic. I don't believe in any gods, either. But I also don't believe that there is no god. I simply have no information about the subject which persuades me.

There is nothing peculiar to religion about this credal distinction. I neither believe, nor believe the negation of, Goldbach's Conjecture, either. And for pretty much the same reason: there is no currently available evidence nor persuasive argument that even bears on the issue.


Theism isn't technically a belief system is it? It merely describes your stance on belief in gods and is not itself a religion or system of belief.

No, I think we could agree that theism principally names a set of religious beliefs, a category of religions. It is, however, a religious opinion.

Moreover, there are people who believe in a god, but do not believe nor deny any specific attributes of god(s) beyond that. There is some disagreement, not confined to these people, about whether existence is an attribute. Regardless of how that shakes out, I think it would be fair to say that these people's beliefs are theist and nothing else.


There are atheists with vastly differing belief systems.

Quite so. But that would also be true of those who profess the Nicene Creed. One of the things the Nicene Creed asserts is that there is exactly one church.

We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.

There is also nothing unusual about single religions having a diversity of views, the Society of Friends or the Unitarian Universalist Association would be two non-Nicene examples.

If you want to say that atheism is a set of religions rather than a single religion, I won't labor the difference. It is clear that in accepted English usage, "Christianity" is "a religion," its thousands of named denominations notwithstanding.


There are those that believe we were made by aliens, there are Buddhists who are atheists. There is no underlying dogma or system to conform to.

As I say, if it were true, then that is not unheard of among religions. However , atheism does have one dognma, the belief that there is no god. If you deny that, then you are not an atheist.

Dogmas are a lot like sperm. It only takes one.


Atheism is the lack of a belief in gods.

I lack belief in gods, and I am no atheist.

PK


Agnosticism is the view that whether or not deities exist is unknown or unknowable.

So far, so good.


Agnosticism is not a "third way".

Any yes-no question has three responsive possible answers: yes, no, and "I have no opinion." "Does any god exist?" is a yes-or-no question. Theists say yes. Atheists say no, and agnostics say "I have no opinion." At the time the word agnostic was first coined, there already were theists and atheists in existence.

So, let's see. There are one, two, three ways to answer the question, and agnosticism as an identified position came into existence third. Sounds like a third way to me.


To simply say "I don't know" makes you a default atheist,

No. I am not an atheist of any kind, There is nothing about my views on the existence of god that is default (not even historically, I was a kind of theist before I became an agnostic, which change occurred because of conscious deliberation).


There are Theist Agnostics and Atheist Agnostics, you can't just be an agnostic.

Dude, I am doing it before your very eyes.

The word agnostic was coined in the 19th Century by Thomas Huxley. It has always meant "not atheist." That's one of the reasons why I use it to describe my own views. Because I am not an atheist.

Atheist agnostic is a contradiction in terms. Of course, I am not any kind of theist, either. Agnostic has also always meant not that. Theist agnostic is also a contradiction in terms.

It is funny. though. I have yet to encounter any theist who tries to explain away my religion. I have yet to encounter a theist who resorts to name calling, and insists that I am really some kind of theist.

Although now that I think of it, some atheists have said that about me, too.

It really seems to bother some atheists that not everybody who disagrees with them root and branch believes in some god. It's almost as if something like that would violate some tenet of their religion.

Their worldview, certainly.



[edit on 24-7-2010 by eight bits]



posted on Jul, 24 2010 @ 07:28 PM
link   
WHo acres what anyone is really, is Atheism a religion?



new topics

top topics



 
2
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join