Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does Atheism = No beliefs?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 22 of 414 (551315)
03-22-2010 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by CosmicChimp
03-22-2010 10:48 AM


There's also Animism, the belief that everything is animated with a spirit, but not neccessarily that a god exists so it too can be atheistic.
Does Athiem = no beliefs?
No, it doesn't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by CosmicChimp, posted 03-22-2010 10:48 AM CosmicChimp has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 11:36 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 414 (551344)
03-22-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by Theodoric
03-22-2010 11:36 AM


Atheism is no belief in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
Not necessarily, it is capable of being more than that.
I find it hard to think of an animist as an atheist. I am not real familiar with the concept. Maybe others can better enlighten this thought.
The point was that an animist can be an atheist, whilst still being an animist. And animist have beliefs, so being an atheist doesn't necessitate having no beliefs.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 11:36 AM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 31 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 12:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 414 (551349)
03-22-2010 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Theodoric
03-22-2010 12:43 PM


Just because a person that is atheist could have more beliefs, dos not make atheism more.
Just because you are unwilling to accept that atheism can include more, doesn't mean that it cannot.
Atheism is the lack in the belief of a god.
The positive belief that gods do not, or can not, exists is also accurately described as atheism, which could be considered a religion in itself. Too, it could be a way of life, so to speak.
If some atheist believe in something else, that does not affect what atheism is.
Words are defined by the way they are used and the way they came about. Atheism came about as the belief that gods do not exist. It has morphed into today's version of lacking a belief in gods.
I'll am trying not to be an asshole. It is just that you argument is flawed.
What argument?
You're entire first post to me is this:
quote:
Does Athiem = no beliefs?
Atheism is no belief in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
I find it hard to think of an animist as an atheist. I am not real familiar with the concept. Maybe others can better enlighten this thought.
You didn't even quote my whole "argument":
quote:
Does Athiem = no beliefs?
No, it doesn't.
Although, now my argument is that atheism can be more than "no belief in a god".
Where's your support for that?

ABE: reponse to other post that was uneccessary:
His remarks have shown this to be a perfectly valid assessment. He is making a false dichotomy. Show through a valid argument he isn't.
I don't think that assessment is valid at all. You guys both are over reacting to each other.
BS
Your posts have shown that you are a christianist troll.
Also, a valid assessment. I am not the only one to think so.
So if someone says they ain't christian, but you think they are, then you're confident enough in your mind reading abilities to validly assess them?
You have had problems with me in the past. the problem as I see it is that you do not like my arguments.
far from it. You just remind me of the childish neo-atheist anti-religios douchebags I see all over facebook.
I don't resort to name calling and refuse to let others call me names without responding.
Yes you do.
I truly don't care what you think of me, but care what I am called in a post.
I've carefully avoided saying that you actually are an asshole and instead have been explaining to you how you come off to other people.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 12:43 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 1:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 34 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2010 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 414 (551375)
03-22-2010 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Theodoric
03-22-2010 1:06 PM


There are definitions. You are not just allowed to make your own definition and expect others to agree to it.
Of course not, but your definition is the absolute one so its going to be fairly easy to show you are wrong. In fact, your own sources show your wrong so I don't even have to hunt down my own.
Your claim:
quote:
Atheism is no belief in a god.
Nothing more, nothing less.
You source explains:
quote:
Atheism, in general, the critique and denial of metaphysical beliefs in God or spiritual beings...
That is something more than "no belief in god", so there you have it.
Even this one:
quote:
Atheism - disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
Source Random House Dictionary, Random House, Inc. 2010.
Right at the start it has it as an active disbelief and it also can be a doctrine, so there you have it again.
From a previous thread, Message 1:
quote:
The dictionary says that the definition of atheism is the belief that there is no god.
People on this forum have said that this is incorrect. They’ve said that atheist are ‘without a belief in god’ but are not ‘with a belief in no god’. The claim is as follows:
A-: without
Theism: a belief in god.
I couldn’t argue with that because I didn’t really know where the word came from and that claim seemed pretty good.
Then, I saw the following line in the dictionary under the definition of atheism:
quote:
{< Gk athe(os) godless + -ISM}
from The Random House Dictionary of the English Language, The Unabridged Edition, Published in New York by Random House, Inc. 1983 page 93
This says, to me, that the claim that atheism means ‘without a belief in god’ but not ‘with a belief in no god’ is wrong. The word is greek in origin and is actually a belief that god doesn’t exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Theodoric, posted 03-22-2010 1:06 PM Theodoric has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 3:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 40 by dwise1, posted 03-22-2010 3:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2010 4:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 414 (551381)
03-22-2010 3:47 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by hooah212002
03-22-2010 1:13 PM


Re: Definition of religion:
I hardly see how atheism could at all, anywhere, anyhow, be considered a religion.
I agree that a simple lack of belief in something could not be considered a religion.
I'm talking about the positive disbelief atheists, and also the anti-religious, or even militant, types as well.
Your definition includes:
quote:
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly;
Its not hard to imagine a person devoutedly following and believing that god doesn't exist.
We also have:
quote:
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices
Where particular set of beliefs = gods do not exist
quote:
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
That'd be easy to throw together and I think somebody already has:
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
Or sense you said anwhere, anyhow, I offer you The Cult of Reason during the French Revolution
quote:
The Cult of Reason was a creed based on atheism devised during the French Revolution by Jacques Hbert, Pierre Gaspard Chaumette and their supporters and intended as a replacement for Christianity. It was stopped by Maximilien Robespierre, a Deist, who instituted the Cult of the Supreme Being. Both cults were part of the campaign of de-Christianization of French society during the Revolution and part of the Reign of Terror.
The culte de la Raison developed during the uncertain period 1792-94 (Years I and III of the Revolution), following the September Massacres, when Revolutionary France was ripe with fears of internal and foreign enemies. Several Parisian churches were transformed into Temples of Reason, notably the Church of Saint-Paul Saint-Louis in the Marais. The churches were closed in May 1793 and more securely, 24 November 1793, when the Catholic Mass was forbidden.
The Cult of Reason was celebrated in a carnival atmosphere of parades, ransacking of churches, ceremonious iconoclasm, in which religious and royal images were defaced, and ceremonies which substituted the "martyrs of the Revolution" for Christian martyrs. The earliest public demonstrations took place en province, outside Paris, notably by Hbertists in Lyon, but took a further radical turn with the Fte de la Libert ("Festival of Liberty") at Notre Dame de Paris, 10 November (20 Brumaire) 1793, in ceremonies devised and organised by Pierre-Gaspard Chaumette. The Cult of Reason centered upon a young woman designated the Goddess of Reason.
So...
Why can't I consider this stuff to be a religion?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2010 1:13 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 3:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 44 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 4:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 414 (551383)
03-22-2010 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Rahvin
03-22-2010 3:46 PM


The claim was that atheism is no belief in a god and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 3:46 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 3:57 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 414 (551396)
03-22-2010 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Rahvin
03-22-2010 3:57 PM


From Message 41:
Why can't I consider this stuff to be a religion?
Because you're using small subsets of Atheists to qualify the entire group as a religion.
Oh, I see. You've misunderstood. I'm not qualifing the entire group as a religion, just the subset.
The rest of your post is defeating a strawman.
I maintain the the group that holds the positive belief that gods do not, or can not, exist, especially the militant ones, could be considered religious.
From Message 42:
The claim was that atheism is no belief in a god and nothing more.
Because that's all the word means without further qualifiers, CS. An Atheist can have more beliefs, but not necessarily so.
Well I disagree that without further qualifiers that that is all the word means. With its greek origin being atheos, or godless, without further qualifiers it means the belief that gods do not exist.
Modern users have backed off to a more palatable position of simply not believing in god, which is fine, but to say that atheism is no belief in god and nothing more is demonstrably false.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 3:57 PM Rahvin has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 414 (551399)
03-22-2010 4:26 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by dwise1
03-22-2010 3:54 PM


I think we'll find that there are almost as many detailed definitions of atheism as there are atheists.
Sure.
So most atheists have had to define the term for themselves. Fortunately, that's changing with the Internet, but still we pretty much define for ourselves what atheism is and what it means to be an atheist.
Fine.
Can't we just agree to disagree and get along?
Okay.
But there's also these neo-atheists, who are quite anti-religious, and bigoted, and have a holier than thou attitude that anyone who is a theist is some deluded retard. They're just dickheads.
I think its false that atheism can't be something more than a simple disbelief in gods. I've seen it.
But if someone calls out the subset, the mob runs up claiming that there's nothing really uniting them and the dickheads fade away into the shadows.
It is kinda funny how sensitive everyone is about considering that neo-atheist subset to be religious themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by dwise1, posted 03-22-2010 3:54 PM dwise1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2010 5:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 47 of 414 (551400)
03-22-2010 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Granny Magda
03-22-2010 4:04 PM


The only idea that unites all atheists is a lack of belief in deities. Within that group, a range of opinion exists. Some simply lack belief, others actively believe that no gods exist, still others (although very few) are completely certain that no gods could possibly exist. Some are hostile to the idea of gods, others might wish it were true. Some might hate religion, others might think religion a good thing, even if if it mistaken in some respects. And so on...
Yes, and I find that some of those sub-groups of atheism are quite religious, themselves. That is the point I'm making.
Especially the 'rid-the-world-of-religion' ones, quite ironically.
Look for atheist groups on myspace or facebook, and read their discussion and comments. Or take a look at the comments on religious or irreligious videos on something like youtube. Lots of dickheadery about, and a lot of it comes off as religious.
All these people might self-identify as atheists, but the only idea that could be said to unite them all is a lack of belief in deities. That is why many of us see it as being the only central tenet of atheism.
Any time a subset of the group is chastized the whole group comes in to smear away the distinction of the subset by removing all qualifiers of the groups.
Well they're there, and they're atheists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2010 4:04 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Taq, posted 03-22-2010 4:47 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2010 4:54 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 414 (551416)
03-22-2010 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by Granny Magda
03-22-2010 4:54 PM


I think that you are obscuring your point through your choice of terminology. "Religious" is an odd way to describe those who virulently deny deities. It is an absurd way to describe those who have no orthodoxy of belief,no temples, no shared rituals, etc. If you want to criticise the more extreme elements of atheist thought, you would do better to use more precise terms. Try, "overconfident", "dogmatic", "religiose" even, but using the term "religious" is guaranteed to cause only dispute and confusion.
Well I think you're right. Religion/religious is probably not the best word to describe them. But I do see parallels between them and their behavior and those of the extremely religious christians.
Paticularly with the us vs them mentality of demonizing the others.
It's also a bit weird that the atheists who you consider to most resemble your own position, religiosity, are the most objectionable.
Personally, I'm not very religious. And I too am opposed to the extremely religious christians who act the same way as these "religious" atheists that I'm describing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Granny Magda, posted 03-22-2010 4:54 PM Granny Magda has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 5:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 55 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 5:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 414 (551418)
03-22-2010 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by hooah212002
03-22-2010 5:05 PM


So we also, according to you, get to define christianity by Westboro Baptist, right?
I'm not defining atheism by the subset. But yes, those baptists are christians. I'd be wrong to say they weren't and argue that christianity does not include them.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by hooah212002, posted 03-22-2010 5:05 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 414 (551425)
03-22-2010 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by Rahvin
03-22-2010 5:36 PM


Of course you do. Overzealousness for a cause (to the point of a polarized "Us vs. Them" tribalist mentality of conflict) has never been wholly monopolized by religion. You could say that the same parallels exist for certain environmentalists, or even the Tea Party nutjobs.
I just might call them religious too!
I've certainly seen some "religious" environmentalists out there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 5:36 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 6:00 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 57 by lyx2no, posted 03-22-2010 6:26 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 414 (551443)
03-22-2010 6:45 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by AZPaul3
03-22-2010 5:58 PM


You're going to have a hard time backing off this CS, I understand, but, you are conflating the irreligious passion of some atheists with religious zeal. It may seem justified in your mind right now but it is a false comparison. Religion has a well defined connotation in society. Atheist, like evolutionist or numismatist, no matter at what level of passion, does not fit
Okay, fine. Its too conflated and it doesn't fit.
It was just one word in the larger point that there can be more to atheism than just no belief in god and nothing more.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 5:58 PM AZPaul3 has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 414 (551444)
03-22-2010 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Rahvin
03-22-2010 6:00 PM


And yet the term doesn't usually apply. You're using the term "religious" to mean "any group that pursues a specific belief with extreme zeal." That definition is too broad, because it makes almost anything a religion if a subset of supporters are overly enthusiastic.
In the context you're using, Republicanism could count as a religion. I certainly wouldn't say that's an accurate description.
I'll agree that some Atheists (and Republicans, and environmentalists, and Nascar fans...) hold themselves to their beliefs or values or preferences with a zeal that is typically seen only in extremist religious followers. But I don't think that means it's appropriate to identify everything that you see characterized by an overabundance of enthusiasm and opposition for opposing views as "religious."
Well, you're right and that is how I'm using the word. I suppose its too loose and was a poor choice of words.
It seems to fit to me and my tastes. Seriously though, would you really argue against some Nascar fans being called religious!?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Rahvin, posted 03-22-2010 6:00 PM Rahvin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by AZPaul3, posted 03-22-2010 7:01 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied
 Message 99 by Peepul, posted 03-23-2010 1:45 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 414 (551632)
03-23-2010 1:19 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by Den
03-23-2010 1:09 PM


Based our current proven knowledge, perfection and imperfection can only be defined by the human mind, and it is based on a completely subjective decision.
I don't think so. Perfection just mean complete or flawless.
A droplet of water falling could still form a perfect sphere, objectively.
A region of space completely void of light would still be perfectly black, objectively.
So, there are things that exist that are not perfect.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Den, posted 03-23-2010 1:09 PM Den has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024