Atheism

[Muncey]

scspkr99, nail on the head.. I think the main confusion is due to the vagueness of the definition of Atheism. I treat it, most of the time, as rejecting a claim not making a claim but of course atheism can be seen as claiming there is no God. It's easy to think they're the same but they aren't and to me atheism is simply the rejection of a claim.

Your argument doesn't work because Believing you can fly is a single belief and not a potentially complex arrangement of supportive beliefs. Really, your conclusion would be more like "I believe I can fly". Really, the second premise doesn't factor into the deduction for you.

Okay, well you imposed these rules but I'll carry on anyway... assuming my argument doesn't work because it is a single belief how exactly is theism a complex arrangement of supportive beliefs when fundamentally theism is just the belief of a creator? Its a single notion, it only gets more complex when you add in all the other stuff that differs from religion to religion, but the all share one core idea.. a creator. That's one claim, effectively.. one they don't defend themselves. Just like my one claim, one I don't defend. Your logical progression still doesn't hold true.

[rickyarbino]

I think you got me there Ultra. What does satanism say about the nature, so to speak, of god? I get that they acknowledge the existence of god, but what do they say is god's place in the universe?

[rickyarbino]

You can't claim both p and ~p but there is nothing preventing an atheist from withholding assent from both propositions and remaining consistent.

Okay, how does that work? Examples?

[OGLemon]

If one wants to prove that atheism is a religion, then religion needs to be defined. Next, a definition of atheism will need to be presented. Finally, one must prove that the definition of atheism falls under the definition of religion, for atheism to be considered a religion.

[scspkr99]

You can't claim both p and ~p but there is nothing preventing an atheist from withholding assent from both propositions and remaining consistent.

Okay, how does that work? Examples?

Consider the one I just posted.

A) There is a god
B) There is no god

These are different claims, You can assent to a claim, and consider it true, deny a claim and consider it false or withhold assent from a claim which is to do neither. There is a contradiction in assenting to both A & B you can't coherently claim that both propositions are true nor can you claim that both propositions are false but you can withhold assent from both.

[Muncey]

If one wants to prove that atheism is a religion, then religion needs to be defined. Next, a definition of atheism will need to be presented. Finally, one must prove that the definition of atheism falls under the definition of religion, for atheism to be considered a religion.

Yeah and the way I'd define it is theism makes a claim and atheism rejects a claim. Therefore atheism cannot be a religion because it makes no claims. Atheists do make claims, claim there are no God ect.. but as I said I think that deserves a different label, anti-theism for example. However as I said before, (most) religions are a type of atheism because they inherently reject the claims of other religions, exactly the same as atheism. They even attack other religions on the same grounds and the same way atheism does lol.

[DrGatineau]

If one wants to prove that atheism is a religion, then religion needs to be defined. Next, a definition of atheism will need to be presented. Finally, one must prove that the definition of atheism falls under the definition of religion, for atheism to be considered a religion.

yeah, Bill Maher and the relevant atheists in society need to flip the convo and force theists to prove that atheism is a religion, instead of always being on the defense

but if you spend a big chunk of your time arguing with people that theism/deism is stupid, going around in different countries to tell people off, writing extensively on the matter etc, it's like religion and should be treated as such. at least imo

i'm not so sure i agree with this. yeah yeah i know we all hate the mythical "militant atheist" but how is "going around in different countries" to try spread knowledge a bad thing, or a religion? how is that different from setting up schools in extremely religious countries that teach science? or donating decent textbooks to countries that teach theism?

i guess it all comes down to your attitude, obviously, and how you are perceived really, whether or not you have "charm". but even the most obnoxious, uncharming person that goes to Pakistan and tries to spread the opposite of ignorance ("norance"? knowledge?) is doing the world a big favor and should be applauded imo. religion is responsible or at least complicit in almost everything wrong with the world today imo.

imo, people are judged way to much on whether they're "cool", "charming", "convincing", etc. i've seen so many people that lack persuasion for one reason or another with really good ideas get shot down by people who have shitty ideas but are more charming. add the beauty bias to that and it's just downhill from there...

not that i would ever waste my own time getting in arguments with theists in this or any other country, but i don't call those who do "militant atheists" in an attempt to kill the discourse.

[rickyarbino]

scspkr99, nail on the head.. I think the main confusion is due to the vagueness of the definition of Atheism. I treat it, most of the time, as rejecting a claim not making a claim but of course atheism can be seen as claiming there is no God. It's easy to think they're the same but they aren't and to me atheism is simply the rejection of a claim.

Your argument doesn't work because Believing you can fly is a single belief and not a potentially complex arrangement of supportive beliefs. Really, your conclusion would be more like "I believe I can fly". Really, the second premise doesn't factor into the deduction for you.

Okay, well you imposed these rules but I'll carry on anyway... assuming my argument doesn't work because it is a single belief how exactly is theism a complex arrangement of supportive beliefs when fundamentally theism is just the belief of a creator? Its a single notion, it only gets more complex when you add in all the other stuff that differs from religion to religion, but the all share one core idea.. a creator. That's one claim, effectively.. one they don't defend themselves. Just like my one claim, one I don't defend. Your logical progression still doesn't hold true.

I saw what scspkr99 said, but I do think, and always have thought, that in rejecting one statement you implicitly acknowledge your agreement with it's opposite. But again, what he/she said is new to me and I want to hear more about it.

Please note that I originally defined a belief system as a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs
Theistic religions have the potential to be complex belief systems because they don't just take one thing to be their truth. Really the idea that god exists is more of a consequence of the 'fact' that god created the universe as we did, do, and will, know it. In terms of christianity, it's also a consequence of the fact that god is the father of christ, as well as a consequence of god's decision to send the angel gabriel to mary and many other 'facts' of the religion. Hopefully we can agree that there exists a potentially complex set of 'truths' that support each other in some fundamental way and suggest the existence of god.

[ultraspatial]

I think you got me there Ultra. What does satanism say about the nature, so to speak, of god? I get that they acknowledge the existence of god, but what do they say is god's place in the universe?

well i'm not all that familiar with the subject but the more traditional satanism views god as a creator but chooses to worship satan/lucifer w/e as they view him as the bringer of knowledge - which is common to a few different strains of satanism

there's also groups like mlo who have this weird anti-cosmic belief. more pagan in its nature as they worship more than one deity (extracted from christianity, hinduism, early paganism etc)

also some more gnostic groups - not really satanists, more like christian-satanists ? - like the process church or holy terror which view god/christ/satan as being the same person or different sides of the same person: god - creator, christ - judge, satan - executioner

[rickyarbino]

If one wants to prove that atheism is a religion, then religion needs to be defined. Next, a definition of atheism will need to be presented. Finally, one must prove that the definition of atheism falls under the definition of religion, for atheism to be considered a religion.

Yeah and the way I'd define it is theism makes a claim and atheism rejects a claim. Therefore atheism cannot be a religion because it makes no claims. Atheists do make claims, claim there are no God ect.. but as I said I think that deserves a different label, anti-theism for example. However as I said before, (most) religions are a type of atheism because they inherently reject the claims of other religions, exactly the same as atheism. They even attack other religions on the same grounds and the same way atheism does lol.

All you've established here is that theism and atheism are not the exact same thing.

I think of religion as a set which contains polytheism, monotheism, and atheism (no reason anti-theism can't be in here too).


Honestly, I'd even put science there, especially cosmology, but that might be a different debate.

[DrGatineau]

that's ridiculous.

you can class atheism and science under "irreligion" if you'd like but that's about it.

[rickyarbino]

Do you want to get into it?

[ultraspatial]

but if you spend a big chunk of your time arguing with people that theism/deism is stupid, going around in different countries to tell people off, writing extensively on the matter etc, it's like religion and should be treated as such. at least imo

i'm not so sure i agree with this. yeah yeah i know we all hate the mythical "militant atheist" but how is "going around in different countries" to try spread knowledge a bad thing, or a religion? how is that different from setting up schools in extremely religious countries that teach science? or donating decent textbooks to countries that teach theism?

didn't say it's a good or bad thing. just that it should be treated the same as a religious person going door to door to spread the word of god. if you don't view (any) religion in a positive light, that's on you.

i guess it all comes down to your attitude, obviously, and how you are perceived really, whether or not you have "charm". but even the most obnoxious, uncharming person that goes to Pakistan and tries to spread the opposite of ignorance ("norance"? knowledge?) is doing the world a big favor and should be applauded imo. religion is responsible or at least complicit in almost everything wrong with the world today imo.

wrong thread m8

[rickyarbino]

[scspkr99]

I think of religion as a set which contains polytheism, monotheism, and atheism (no reason anti-theism can't be in here too).

There are a number of reasons I think theists calling atheism a religion are making a mistake.

Firstly we wouldn't call theism a religion, consider that monotheism is generally held to include the Christian Muslim and Jewish religions, the set of these religions isn't a religion, they may have some shared heritage but religions have specific practices and core dogma they use to differentiate themselves from others. It may be still justifiable to consider Christianity a religion, it seems so with Islam but you wouldn't consider them Jewish.

It begs the question of what power the claim they are making seems to hold, religious organisations are claiming that religion is good why would they wish to tarnish their opponents with a badge they proudly wear.

I also think it denigrates the history and ritual of religious organisations, some may say they warrant denigration but for the religious to do it seems self defeating. They are giving atheism the very rituals they claim they uniquely provide.

[rickyarbino]

You can't claim both p and ~p but there is nothing preventing an atheist from withholding assent from both propositions and remaining consistent.

Okay, how does that work? Examples?

Consider the one I just posted.

A) There is a god
B) There is no god

These are different claims, You can assent to a claim, and consider it true, deny a claim and consider it false or withhold assent from a claim which is to do neither. There is a contradiction in assenting to both A & B you can't coherently claim that both propositions are true nor can you claim that both propositions are false but you can withhold assent from both.

But wouldn't someone who withholds assent be agnostic? I would have thought that those statements are what distinguishes theism from atheism.
So would it be in the nature of someone who identifies as atheist to withold assent from either claim? Can you withhold assent without implying that the opposite is potentially reasonable?

[scspkr99]

But wouldn't someone who withholds assent be agnostic? I would have thought that those statements are what distinguishes theism from atheism.
So would it be in the nature of someone who identifies as atheist to withold assent from either claim? Can you withhold assent without implying that the opposite is potentially reasonable?

That there is that distinction between the atheist and the agnostic is a common mistake. Theism is a claim about God's ontological status, agnosticism is a claim about God's epistemic status. Consider that (a)theism is a claim about what does / does not exist, (a)gnosticism is a claim about what we can / can not know.

However when a person withholds assent from both A & B they are atheist on account of withholding assent from A while also agnostic on account of withholding assent from both. When the atheist assents to B they are generally held to be a gnostic atheist. They are making a claim of knowledge.

[Jizz]

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

[rickyarbino]

But wouldn't someone who withholds assent be agnostic? I would have thought that those statements are what distinguishes theism from atheism.
So would it be in the nature of someone who identifies as atheist to withold assent from either claim? Can you withhold assent without implying that the opposite is potentially reasonable?

That there is that distinction between the atheist and the agnostic is a common mistake. Theism is a claim about God's ontological status, agnosticism is a claim about God's epistemic status. Consider that (a)theism is a claim about what does / does not exist, (a)gnosticism is a claim about what we can / can not know.

However when a person withholds assent from both A & B they are atheist on account of withholding assent from A while also agnostic on account of withholding assent from both. When the atheist assents to B they are generally held to be a gnostic atheist. They are making a claim of knowledge.

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?

[Muncey]

I saw what scspkr99 said, but I do think, and always have thought, that in rejecting one statement you implicitly acknowledge your agreement with it's opposite. But again, what he/she said is new to me and I want to hear more about it.

Really? I find that absolutely ridiculous but fair enough, I guess this discussion has reached its course if that's your reasoning. In fact I say this all the time when discussing things, do not assume anything. So many times I've been against one thing and people have assumed that means I must be for the opposite, when normally that is far from the case. I even claimed earlier I don't think there is a creator and reject the idea of any Gods put forward by any religion thus far but I don't claim there is no God because I won't rule out the possibility. Doesn't really make me agnostic though because they're undecided.. I'm pretty decided theres no God, but I can never be 100% certain, just like anything.. its highly probable imo.

Please note that I originally defined a belief system as a potentially complex arrangement of beliefs
Theistic religions have the potential to be complex belief systems because they don't just take one thing to be their truth. Really the idea that god exists is more of a consequence of the 'fact' that god created the universe as we did, do, and will, know it. In terms of christianity, it's also a consequence of the fact that god is the father of christ, as well as a consequence of god's decision to send the angel gabriel to mary and many other 'facts' of the religion. Hopefully we can agree that there exists a potentially complex set of 'truths' that support each other in some fundamental way and suggest the existence of god.

Your arguments tend to have a lot of that. Logical conclusions based on your own definitions.. Its pretty easy to list a bunch of logical statements and come to your own irrefutable conclusions when you create your own axioms. Theres no good reason for you to complicate theism past a single belief into potential complex beliefs.. just like theres no good reason for you to assume my simplistic flying example can't be expanded into potentially complex arrangements of beliefs. Theres no good reason for you to have "potentially complex arrangement of beliefs" in there at all if I'm honest but this is your made up logical statements and conclusions so I went along with it. I did say last time, you made these things up but I'll continue anyway.. I won't now. You're in the driving seat and can manipulate the reasoning as you wish to make your conclusion true, doesn't make it so unfortunately. Doesn't make me right either.