Atheism is NOT a Religion - Accept this, move on.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by Student X
It would appear that way to someone who is not a mythologist, as I am. Mythologists have a different and obviously superior understanding of myth than the man-on-the-street. Especially the atheist-on-the-street, who tend to conflate myths with lies. It comes from years of studying comparative mythology. One learns to rise above myopic insider perspectives and embrace a panoramic cross-cultural view.

Then by all means, explain to us the mythology of atheism, since that is your assertion and you claim to be a mythologist.

Thats tantamount to explaining evolution and geology to a young-earth creationist who doesn't know squat about it and doesn't really want to learn. Thats a huge job and its not the job I signed up for. Most people have too many misconceptions that have to be dealt with first. That can take years. You are more than welcome to begin your own studies of comparative mythology, comparative religion. I recommend starting with the works of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Mircea Eliade, and Karen Armstrong.

Originally posted by Student X
Thats tantamount to explaining evolution to a young-earth creationist who doesn't know squat about it and doesn't really want to learn. Thats a huge job and its not the job I signed up for. Most people have too many misconceptions that have to be dealt with first. That can take years. You are more than welcome to begin your own studies of comparative mythology, comparative religion. I recommend starting with the works of Joseph Campbell, Huston Smith, Mircea Eliade, and Karen Armstrong.

edit on 18-1-2011 by Student X because: (no reason given)

You made the claim. It's up to you to support it. I think there's much in this thread indicating that atheism is in no way a mythology. I might be inclined to believe otherwise if you could make a case for it, but such a claim seems consistent with your earlier claims about atheism which didn't pan out.

Originally posted by The Revenant

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
Thing is, it does get a little loosey-goosey around the fringes. Scientists will acknowledge a certain elegance which is often ascribed to a higher order of some sort. Slap a beard on it and call it God is something else, again.

Indeed - very pertinent. Pattern in the chaos, natures' Mandala's, all that sort of thing yes? Certainly, it could be argued that a higher power designed all of existence - but why ascribe that power to a God? Why not some form of perfectly rational conclusion founded in Quantum Physics etc?

Interestingly enough...there are some who say that's precisely where we will find God. Myself, I don't ascribe to the big bearded guy in the sky...but I sense an order that I believe to be the root of this whole God thing.

So in my view, a lot of this belief stuff does come down to semantics...and scale, I suppose.

But not enough to slay heretics, unbelievers and stuff. Generally.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by strato
Gods cannot exist by definition, so his statement is correct.

That makes even less sense, sorry. What is the definition, what is the basis by which something cannot exist under that definition, and what are the absolute observations that demonstrate that both the definition and basis are true?

You are attempting to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

I agree with you, adjensen. I found his statement a bit puzzling. Gods can exist by definition and really, the definition is the key in establishing the god's existence.

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...but I sense an order that I believe to be the root of this whole God thing.

The question I would have for you is: how would you distinguish a causative "higher order" from the illusion of order as a result of natural laws?

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by strato
Gods cannot exist by definition, so his statement is correct.

That makes even less sense, sorry. What is the definition, what is the basis by which something cannot exist under that definition, and what are the absolute observations that demonstrate that both the definition and basis are true?

You are attempting to prove a negative, which is a logical fallacy.

I agree with you, adjensen. I found his statement a bit puzzling. Gods can exist by definition and really, the definition is the key in establishing the god's existence.

Gods are defined as eternal beings that exists independent of material form and detectable energy, and possess attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.

An object can only be rationally defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either directly, in the form of matter and/or energy, or indirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole. That which can be detected is that which exists.

Also, an eternal being could not have involved since it does not die and reproduce.

So the concept of god is self-contradictory. Saying that they exists is even more self-contradictory.

adjensen

You knew if you sounded off about my religion, I'd show up Nice nick Revenant has chosen, too.

Yes, but knowledge generically, not knowledge of God specifically, which again confuses the issue. Like I said, it was properly applied 2,100 years ago, but misapplied when Huxley used the term agnostic in the 1800s.

Not quite so, Brother. Anti-agnostic polemicist Flint made a great deal about Huxley's confession that he had become attracted to the word through an altogether fanciful etymology.

The crucial moment, however, came when Huxley (1825-1895) realized that his word had no etymology, because it was not yet part of the language. It really was his. So, Huxley wrote about his beliefs, and used the empty vessel to contain them. Many people who agreed with Huxley, whether or not they fully shared his reasons, began to use his word. And so it came to pass that it was Huxley's word no longer, and thus English now has a word for the situation of being neither a theist nor an atheist.

In principle, Huxley might have used the equally unused token angioellipticality instead. I am sure I would today be an angiopellipticalist anyway, but I am just as glad that Huxley chose the empty vessel which he did.

Huxley did not misapply the term, however fanciful his first flirtations with it might have been. In science and engineering, even now, "knowledge" often refers to a witch's brew of necessary truth, heuristic generalization, outright falsehood (two incompatible propositions in the same corpus of "knowledge," sometimes tolerated), beliefs, and even metabeliefs (whether or not confidence has measurable graduations, for example).

If anything, usages distinguishing belief from knowledge may have been even more muddled in the scientific community to which Huxley belonged.

Consider Clifford's (1845-1879) dictum that scientific truth was not that which could be contemplated without error, but acted upon without fear. And, unlike other kinds of belief, scientific belief strictly favors specificity (water freezes at zero degrees) over equally confident, but weaker statements (water freezes somewhere in the single digits). That's preference, not credibility.

Since Huxley's professional identification is an important part of his epistemology, and so of his religious beliefs, it really won't do to say he misapplied a learned synonym for knowledge. All he did was reflect the imprecise, almost figurative, usage of his time and place, which persists today among his professional descendants.

Originally posted by strato
Gods are defined as eternal beings that exists independent of material form and detectable energy, and possess attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.

An object can only be rationally defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either directly, in the form of matter and/or energy, or indirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole. That which can be detected is that which exists.

Also, an eternal being could not have involved since it does not die and reproduce.

So the concept of god is self-contradictory. Saying that they exists is even more self-contradictory.

By that definition, sure, gods are essentially impossible.

But, that is not the only way to define god(s). In fact, everyone you ask for a definition of god will have a different answer. The pantheist/panentheist god is defined differently, as is the god of a remote islander who defines god as the local totem pole. Certain gods could theoretically exist if the definition allows for it.

Originally posted by strato
Gods are defined as eternal beings that exists independent of material form and detectable energy, and possess attributes of omniscience and omnipotence.

That is "A" definition, it is not an all-inclusive description. The Christian God, for example, is believed to have taken material form in the person of Jesus Christ, and he remains in that form today. The Hindu god Shani is not considered omnipotent. I've never seen Thor described as omniscient.

You have developed your own definition, which specifically addresses your beliefs.

An object can only be rationally defined as existing when it can be detected in some manner, either directly, in the form of matter and/or energy, or indirectly, based upon its effects on the objects around it, such as a black hole. That which can be detected is that which exists.

What is rational? What are you using for detection that allows the survey of the entire Universe? If there is a planet 5000 light years from here, too far for you to detect it, does it then not exist, because you cannot detect it?

You are creating requirements of evidence that specifically cater to your beliefs.

Also, an eternal being could not have involved since it does not die and reproduce.

That doesn't even make sense. If "involved" is a misspelling, and you meant "evolved", you are operating under the assumption that evolution is necessary for something eternal to exist. Explain, please, how "pi" evolved. Or the mathematical laws that underlie the Pythagorean Theorem. You are not eternal, you were created, so it is not unreasonable that evolution was involved.

God is eternal, God was not created, so if you can explain how something eternal, like the Second Law of Thermodynamics, "evolved", maybe you'll have something to complain about.

You believe something which lacks sufficient basis in fact. There is no evidence that God does not exist (aka "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence") so you are believing something, and then deluding yourself into thinking that, because you believe it, it becomes a fact.

By creating the conditions and setting out the rules in a manner that supports your beliefs, don't you think that you're wandering a little bit into the field of religion?

Absolute conclusions cannot be drawn from non-absolute observations.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101

Originally posted by The Revenant

Atheism is not belief in one's self. That's called self-confidence, and is a very different thing. You're talking semantics here.

Rev.

See? Even you agree with me that atheism is all about beliefs, even NON beliefs, which in the end, is still a 'belief' system. And within that system will it builds your religion, not semantics - a system of beliefs that you use daily in your interaction with yourself when you look at the mirror and to others.

And within that system of beliefs- religion, is where you find comfort and solace, not from some higher authority that you don't BELIEVE in, but only within yourSELF, as well as to gather adherents to your system of beliefs. Thus, viola! Your religion! :-P

PS: There is nothing wrong in it as some posters had already pointed out. Your religion does not make you any lesser than anyone of us, so long as you hurt or harm no one. It is your gifted free will, and when you truly seeked which is your own personal journey, you will find as billions others before had found.

Cheers!

You are a patronising git on this!

I appreciate the point you're trying to argue here. Purely for entertainment value mind you. The first paragraph you make is so full holes Swiss cheese couldn't do better.

FAIL.

The Rev.

Originally posted by eight bits
adjensen

You knew if you sounded off about my religion, I'd show up

Nice nick Revenant has chosen, too.

Wink wink, nudge nudge! Hello again old friend.

It's an interesting convo this - get stuck right in!

Rev.

Originally posted by SeekerofTruth101
See? Even you agree with me that atheism is all about beliefs, even NON beliefs, which in the end, is still a 'belief' system. And within that system will it builds your religion, not semantics - a system of beliefs that you use daily in your interaction with yourself when you look at the mirror and to others.

Atheism is as much of a religious "belief system" that I use daily for myself as your "belief system" that involves your disbelief in Zeus is used daily for yourself.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...but I sense an order that I believe to be the root of this whole God thing.

The question I would have for you is: how would you distinguish a causative "higher order" from the illusion of order as a result of natural laws?

Why would you feel the need to separate the two?

Originally posted by eight bits
adjensen

You knew if you sounded off about my religion, I'd show up

Nice nick Revenant has chosen, too.

Yes, but knowledge generically, not knowledge of God specifically, which again confuses the issue. Like I said, it was properly applied 2,100 years ago, but misapplied when Huxley used the term agnostic in the 1800s.

Not quite so, Brother. Anti-agnostic polemicist Flint made a great deal about Huxley's confession that he had become attracted to the word through an altogether fanciful etymology.

The crucial moment, however, came when Huxley (1825-1895) realized that his word had no etymology, because it was not yet part of the language. It really was his.

Well, we're getting a bit afield here, but "gnostic" did already exist. "Gnosis" is the transliteration of the Greek word for knowledge. Again, general knowledge, not knowledge specific to God. The Gnostics believed that they did have knowledge that no one else had (divine in nature, but not limited to the divine,) that's what they were on about, and that's the root of their name. My source here claims that "Gnostic" was applied specifically to this belief system in the 16th century via "ecclesiastical Latin" from the Greek.

So, that much, at least, was out there. If "Gnostic" existed, then the antonym could be assumed. Now, perhaps this would not be "agnostic", as "atheist" and "theist" are related, and if the word describing the specific set of beliefs held by the Greeks in 200BC and on wasn't in general circulation, Huxley can be forgiven for appropriating it.

But I still hold to my claim that both he and the Gnostics (or whoever slapped them with that label) are incorrect in the use of the Greek word for "knowledge" or "lack of knowledge" as a replacement for "knowledge of God" and "lack of knowledge of God."

Whatever the case might be, too late to stave it off now, I'm just trying to keep TD from further muddying the waters by proposing the lower case "gnostic" as an antonym of "agnostic".

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by JohnnyCanuck
...but I sense an order that I believe to be the root of this whole God thing.

The question I would have for you is: how would you distinguish a causative "higher order" from the illusion of order as a result of natural laws?

Why would you feel the need to separate the two?

Because you could easily mistake something resulting from natural order as something resulting from a "higher power" or "higher order".

To date, all the order in the observable universe can be attributed to adherence to natural laws. I don't know of anything observed so far that can only be explained by the existence of a "higher order".

adjensen

Whatever the case might be, too late to stave it off now, I'm just trying to keep TD from further muddying the waters by proposing the lower case "gnostic" as an antonym of "agnostic".

Agreed. There are priorities.

We'll tilt again .

Atheism requires you believe there is no God, ok fair enough. Theres no way to prove God doe's not exist, so you need to believe that God does not exist, witch requires faith that he does not exist. Religion or not, you still need to believe He does not exist, because you cant prove that he does or does not. btw wikipiedia is a shill site anyone can write anything and it would seem truthful. Religion or not, you need to believe He does not exist. God made man, man made religion for god. God did not make religion, man did for control over other men/women. I believe in God, but not most of the dogma religions proclaim. Hence "the rapture". Simple.

Originally posted by adjensen
Whatever the case might be, too late to stave it off now, I'm just trying to keep TD from further muddying the waters by proposing the lower case "gnostic" as an antonym of "agnostic".

dictionary.reference.com...

gnos·tic
   /ˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[nos-tik] Show IPA
–adjective Also, gnos·ti·cal.
1.
pertaining to knowledge.
2.
possessing knowledge, esp. esoteric knowledge of spiritual matters.
3.
( initial capital letter ) pertaining to or characteristic of the Gnostics.

----

dictionary.reference.com...

ag·nos·tic
   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA
–noun
1.
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as god, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience.
2.
a person who denies or doubts the possibility of ultimate knowledge in some area of study.
–adjective
3.
of or pertaining to agnostics or agnosticism.
4.
asserting the uncertainty of all claims to knowledge.
-----

I'm good with these definitions if you are

Not sure if this "trolling' but check out this headline

Court Rules Atheism a Religion

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
To date, all the order in the observable universe can be attributed to adherence to natural laws. I don't know of anything observed so far that can only be explained by the existence of a "higher order".

Ahhh..but when you consider the inherent elegance of our observable universe, a higher order...whatever it may be, manifests itself as the laws of nature. If nothing else, it balances out the tendency towards entropy.

Natural laws = higher order. I can work with that.