Atheism

[OGLemon]

what should be thought into is whether an atheist is someone who challenges God, or the human institutions that attempt to represent God

but really, the fundamental cause for conflict here is the power that institutionalised religion holds over peoples; this is what needs to be addressed. what the word atheism means is nowhere near as important. arguing about that is just squabbling over identity

[Muncey]

but really, the fundamental cause for conflict here is the power that institutionalised religion holds over peoples; this is what needs to be addressed. what the word atheism means is nowhere near as important. arguing about that is just squabbling over identity

Don't underestimate arguing over what a word means. I said earlier I think the danger of treating atheism as a belief system like religion is that you put it on a level playing field.. you end up bringing atheism down to religions level to argue against it.. which is as effective as kicking water up hill, you won't win and therefore any "real" conflicts that need to be revised will be argued on a level where you'll never win.

Anyway religious power has very little to do with atheism imo. You don't need to reject the idea of God to be against centralised power, mind control, propaganda ect ect. Likewise just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you're in favour of those things either. Those issues shouldn't be argued in a framework of atheism vs religion, the fact it is probably explains why religion is as powerful as ever.

[rickyarbino]

What is god to you? I don't get how you can reject the notion of a creator without rejecting the notion that god exists. Also, I assumed that you were atheist because of your initial response, aren't you?

....
With those types of assertions the idea is that unless someone finds something obviously wrong with the definition then I can take it as a fact to influence further discussion. At the end of the day, that's just about all anybody can do.
With regards to assuming that your bit on flying couldn't be expanded, I don't think it can be because it is exclusively dependent on your doing so, unless you develop it further I see no need to think of it any further than that. You're the one who made that so simple. The reason I raised the notion of "potentially complex arrangement of beliefs" is because complex things, by definition, consist of many different and connected parts. A belief system, as far as we seem to be discussing it, consists of many different and connected parts.
With that being said, I would like to make it clear that I'd appreciate it if you could revise any axioms I present that you don't agree with and we can go from there to discovering what's true and what isn't. If you don't then I can only assume that you approve of the axioms and scratch my head when you proceed to disagree with them.

....
Sidenote, I think the mathematical notion of complexity also works quite well in that what we are discussing relates to beliefs that have real and imaginary parts.


....
If I were to assert that the earth was created 5 seconds ago, and that we were forced, not by a god, but by nature into existence with our memories etc. intact, as though it were fact, would I be Atheist and religious?

[Muncey]

With regards to assuming that your bit on flying couldn't be expanded, I don't think it can be because it is exclusively dependent on your doing so, unless you develop it further I see no need to think of it any further than that. You're the one who made that so simple. The reason I raised the notion of "potentially complex arrangement of beliefs" is because complex things, by definition, consist of many different and connected parts. A belief system, as far as we seem to be discussing it, consists of many different and connected parts.

"unless you develop it further" well by your own definition I don't need to, it just has to have the potential to.. and it does, it's not difficult to expand on the idea. I can fly, one group claim I'm God, another claim I'm Superman.. the story goes on, you can expand it as far and wide and reach all types of ridiculous beliefs all from that single, unproven belief, of me flying. How does that differ from that single, unproven belief, of a creator creating the whole universe? That single belief has been taken to the extreme in terms of 'complex arrangements of beliefs' throughout human history but it isn't difficult to imagine my statement being expanded in exactly the same ridiculous manner.

If I were to assert that the earth was created 5 seconds ago, and that we were forced, not by a god, but by nature into existence with our memories etc. intact, as though it were fact, would I be Atheist and religious?

Neither, you neither claim there is a God or reject the claim that there is a God.. you just have an alternative theory of our existence. It would imply, because there is no God in your explanation, that you're Atheist but its just that.. implying.

[rickyarbino]

I don't think that's what I meant, or said. Flying, doesn't require you to be god or superman, and on its own it wouldn't prove that you were either. I think the superman thing gets at what I'm saying in that belief that some person, A, is superman is dependent on a number of different but connected beliefs. The beliefs are connected in that they all suggest that A is superman, but none of them directly say so, these beliefs address the observability of traits that can be associated with superman exist in A, flying is one of these beliefs though. You saying that you can fly doesn't require anything other than a test of your ability to prove, it also doesn't strike me as a necessary part of any fact, and thus I don't think it is a belief system. Atheism does though, in saying that god does not exist you take a position that negates a number of claims made by theist beliefs. It's actually the same mechanism which enables us to distinguish one religion from another, which is why I say that Atheism is a religion, because it addresses the same questions posed/discussed by all known religions with respect to a set of given 'truths' which define it. If it isn't a religion, then it is definitely religiously active.

....
I meant to make it clear that I do not believe that god exists. Which would mean that I would be both atheist and religious.

[Jizz]

You don't need to reject the idea of God to be against centralised power, mind control, propaganda ect ect. Likewise just because you believe in a God doesn't mean you're in favour of those things either. Those issues shouldn't be argued in a framework of atheism vs religion, the fact it is probably explains why religion is as powerful as ever.

I agree with what you say here, and that is exactly why im saying that identifying with/against atheism is not what is important. Does it matter what team youre on, when the only football you have is punctured?

[rickyarbino]

Of course it does, it's a football match isn't it?

[Jizz]

Yes, exactly. But how can we play, while the ball is broken?

I dont think the football could ever be fully repaired and ofcourse, buying a new one would only result in similar inevitability at some eventual point. I dont understand why we still want to play so badly, kicking it at each other whilst fully knowing that we're breaking it

[rickyarbino]

You never played football with a flat football? Just forces you to be a better player imo.

[lovelydivot]

I think there is a difference between Belief and Faith…

You can believe in something that's proven…
and I'm sure Athiests do believe in things…

Not sure we can call that a "system" - with no defined manifest


Faith on the other hand - religious faith - requires that element of blindness…


You know - I generally throw things out to the universe
when I have no control over outcomes…


The day that our society is driving so blind in matters of State and Commerce...
that we would need religion to guide us…
Is the day that we have all - failed miserably.

[rickyarbino]

The manifest is that god doesn't exist, isn't it?

[lovelydivot]

That's not a system of beliefs….
That is a singular issue of disbelief.

Maybe that's unifying enough…

It certainly is a position.
And strong enough to push for definite - other directions.

[lovelydivot]

If we are trying to argue the value of disparate belief systems…

Ask NASA to fly their Mom to Mars on faith…
I bet for sure they would prefer to get their math right.

But who's gonna listen to those NASA people
when we have a multitude of contradicting scripture
from ancient everywheres.



...Am I an athiest?

I will be when science can explain all this bizarro stuff.

What if science proves natural magic…like telepathy
or out of body experiences

I know I can see some really weird stuff in my dreams…

would they burn me at the stake - would they circumcise

[lovelydivot]

stop masturbating - you're putting cats in the ceiling

[lovelydivot]

lol-you can tell I'm getting tired - all the weird starts to surface...

[rickyarbino]

That's not a system of beliefs….
That is a singular issue of disbelief.

Maybe that's unifying enough…

It certainly is a position.
And strong enough to push for definite - other directions.

Which alludes to a series of beliefs about god that contradict those posed by theistic religions.

[scspkr99]

They'd also be theist because they withheld assent from B, right?

In their own rights though, aren't atheism and theism claims about what can be known? Can one claim that god exists without claiming to be capable of knowing so?

A theist must assent to A.If you claim that god exists without claiming knowledge then you are an agnostic theist just as if you claim god does not exist without claiming knowledge makes you an agnostic atheist.

[Jizz]

You never played football with a flat football? Just forces you to be a better player imo.

I suppose the fundamental difference between the two of us is how willing we are to play in the first place

But lets forget that, get back to the real question.

The better way to tackle the problems posed by religions would be to disprove the hypocrisies between their theology and their practises in everyday life, as opposed to directly attempting to disprove the possibility of God. I think this is where traditional atheist identity fails, it looks into tackling issues that it simply cannot. therefore when debates revolve around people's identity regarding God (such as being theist/atheist) it does, as muncey said, serve to make religions only more powerful; because the fundamental cause for conflict here is the idea of an individual identity.

Both theists and atheists would agree that the most important thing to be discussed is how to intelligently aid people's morality. In my opinion, this single point is all that really matters, not the whodunit bit (as in whether, atgeists would have more intelligent suggestions or not)

[scspkr99]

Both theists and atheists would agree that the most important thing to be discussed is how to intelligently aid people's morality. In my opinion, this single point is all that really matters, not the whodunit bit (as in whether, atgeists would have more intelligent suggestions or not)

While I agree that morality is the most important question not everyone agrees.

The problem with trying to tackle some theists on specific questions is that they rely on their religion to answer certain moral questions and once they do it becomes impossible to discuss their moral beliefs without reference to their theism.

Consider the question of homosexuality, I do not consider homosexuality a moral issue, there are no specific moral properties that apply to homosexuality that don't apply to heterosexuality but many theists will deny this, when you challenge their claim they will rely on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah or Leviticus or more controversially Jesus reference to Porneia in Mark and Matthew. At this point in order to deny their moral claims you have to deny their epistemic values, what they consider knowledge and how they justify those beliefs. Which unfortunately brings us back to the much less interesting claims about the existence or not of God.

[Jizz]

that is a relevant point actually

its such a tough one though, because I for one would hate to start an argument with someone purely because they believe in God. but its hard to distinctly distinguish between religion and God when the two are associated so heavily with each other, so yes i suppose all arguments inevitably have to touch upon God's existence at some point