Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

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


Message 105 of 414 (551670)
03-23-2010 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Woodsy
03-23-2010 4:37 PM


I wonder if we are seeing a trace of the "no-one is allowed to criticise religion" notion in CS's posts.
Bwah? What's that supposed to mean?
Why would I call atheism a religion so as to make it so that it can't be criticized?
I'm pretty sure I've done my fair share of criticizing atheism...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Woodsy, posted 03-23-2010 4:37 PM Woodsy has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 141 of 414 (551828)
03-24-2010 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by Wounded King
03-24-2010 7:38 AM


Re: Why Not Sort By Belief?
As G_d suggests, when you come to a site which people choose to frequent because their hobby is discussing evolution/creation, religion/materialism, theism/atheism then you are likely to find people from the more extreme fringes of adherence to each position, because the moderates who don't really feel they have a horse in the race wouldn't be bothered to find such a site in the first place. And this is only exacerbated since people are specifically going to be more focused on discussing these polarising topics.
If you think that that means that any atheist on this site, let alone most atheists, goes about their day to day life berating people for not embracing rationalism and denying the existence of the supernatural then maybe that says more about you than it does about them.
Spend more time on facebook and youtube in regards to anything religious and notice how these new youthful atheists act and let me know if you think they go about their day to day life berating people. Not that they're the majority, but there does seem to be a trend. Although it could just be a kid thing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2010 7:38 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2010 12:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 143 of 414 (551831)
03-24-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by Wounded King
03-24-2010 12:25 PM


Re: Why Not Sort By Belief?
Well I'd suggest that people who are prepared to put a video of themselves up on youtube discussing religion are also an extreme self selecting population. All you are doing is pointing at an almost exactly equivalent self selecting population and seeing the same thing. Are you suggesting that there isn't at least an equivalent quantity of obnoxious theists posting in these venues?
Of course not, but the theists are certainly religious.
It just bugs me to see all the "obnoxious" atheists going much further than nothing more than disbelief all the while falling back on just that when they're criticized.
Its sanctimonious!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by Wounded King, posted 03-24-2010 12:25 PM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by Taq, posted 03-24-2010 1:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 147 by hooah212002, posted 03-24-2010 3:20 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 149 of 414 (551996)
03-25-2010 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by Granny Magda
03-24-2010 8:59 PM


You'd think that religious folks would see "religious" as being a compliment, but it is often levelled at atheists as if it were an insult.
It seems to me that the neo-atheists want to distance themselves as far from being religious as possible. To them, it could be an insult.
When it is used this way, it often seems to be a synonym for "dogmatic", "zealous", "closed-minded" or "extremist".
And then I see them displaying just those things you mention.
So when I say they're religious, they fall back on:
"Nuh-uh... atheism is just a lack of belief in god and nothing more"
Well, they ARE acting like religious people.
"ZOMG! TEH RELIGUNZ R SOO TERRIBLE. THEY SHOULD ALL VANISH! YEAH ATHEISM!"
--"wow, you guys sure are religious yourselves"
"NO WAY! ATHEISM IS JUST A LACK OF BELIEF. THATS IT!"
I do get that that doesn't make atheism a religion, and in general I don't think it is.
It seems that they use their "pure" atheism to fuel something bigger and then when their hypocrisy is pointed out, they fall back onto the "pure" form. Well I think its bogus.
So when I see the same old claim of atheism being nothing more that non-belief, I can't help but think of all those asshats that use it as more.
Honestly, my only major complaint against religion is that it's too flippin' religious... if that makes sense.
Yeah, it does make sense. That must be an uncomfortable position to be in though. I don't envy you.
That's a great way to put it!
This damn religion is too religious

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Granny Magda, posted 03-24-2010 8:59 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by lyx2no, posted 03-25-2010 7:19 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 151 by Granny Magda, posted 03-25-2010 7:53 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 03-26-2010 1:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 414 (552075)
03-26-2010 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by Granny Magda
03-25-2010 7:53 PM


Re: "Religious" as a Negative Label
What I don't get is why you would use "religious" in such a way as to make it synonymous with all religion's worst qualities. Using "religion" in this sense gives the appearance that religion is primarily characterised by zealotry, dogmatism, intolerance, etc., as if these were its most vital distinguishing features.
Why does it seem like it makes those its primary characteristics instead of just the least desirable ones that the insultee would mostly not want to be associated with?
It seems bizarre that you should be willing to turn the word "religion" into a negative label and yet still apply it to yourself, however tentatively.
I don't consider myself religious.
I think that by arguing this way you are giving adolescent atheists an easy way to avoid legitimate criticism. If they are being childish, or over-zealous, say that. Don't hand them an easy out by using easily equivocated terms.
Saying to someone "You are behaving in the same way as those religious people you criticise" may be a legitimate criticism. "You are religious" is not though, it's never going to be and you are just scoring an own-goal by talking that way.
I think you're right. Maybe its just the troll in me, although usually I just don't give them my time, but a simple one-liner in passing at least gets it off my chest and I just don't care enough to provide them with an adequate explanation that they'd prolly let roll off anyways.
I see where you and Bluejay are coming form here, but again, this implies that "religious" primarily describes negative qualities. You can see why I find this odd.
The qualities that are least appealing to me are the religious ones. All the rituals, and what seems to be somatic components of spells, sit down-stand up-put your left leg in-put your right leg out, the Pentecostals will even literally shake all about. All that stuff in addition to the zealotry, dogmatism, intolerance, etc.
I guess the rituals of the religious atheists are parroting talking points on the internets and bashing theists on facebook and youtube
Acting like, yes. Actually a religion, no.
I went back to see just how this atheism can be a religion thing came about... my original quote on it was:
quote:
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.
With "religion" stipped down to just a belief system, believing that gods do not and/or cannot exist is capable of being a religion.
There's also this:
quote:
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.
Now, I get that being an "actual religion" is a little more than a simple belief system, but I still think that a simple belief system can be called a religion, and too that atheism is capable of being something more than just no belief in god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by Granny Magda, posted 03-25-2010 7:53 PM Granny Magda has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 414 (552102)
03-26-2010 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Taq
03-26-2010 1:28 PM


That is exactly what theists are trying to do when they claim that atheism is a religion, is it not? Theists are trying to insult atheists by trivializing their own beliefs. It's the philosophical equivalent of a suicide bomber. When you claim that atheists are religious you are trying to insult them, are you not? You are trying to project your own perceived weaknesses onto atheists in an attempt to refute their views, are you not? "Atheism is a religion" really means "They are just as bad as us christians" does it not?
Yes and no. First off, the neo-atheists think they're better than the religious, so it doesn't have to be saying they're as bad as us as it could be saying they're not as good as they think.
But its not an attempt to trivialize religion, its an attempt to expose the hypocrisy of being religiously against religion.
Its not so much as projecting my own perceived weaknesses as it it just getting them to acknowledge their own weaknesses. And its not to refute their views, its exposing their hypocrisy.
So atheists are going to cathedrals and worshiping a god? Really? Are atheists sending out missionaries to convince others to believe in a supernatural deity?
Yes, atheist go to cathedrals and try to convince others to believe in a supernatural deities. Oh, and they eat babies too.
"ZOMG! TEH RELIGUNZ R SOO TERRIBLE. THEY SHOULD ALL VANISH! YEAH ATHEISM!"
That's not religion, chief.
Three lines down:
quote:
I do get that that doesn't make atheism a religion, and in general I don't think it is.
It seems that they use their "pure" atheism to fuel something bigger and then when their hypocrisy is pointed out, they fall back onto the "pure" form. Well I think its bogus.
Is there a tenet of atheism that prevents atheists from being passionate in their views? If there is, please reference it.
I'm not talking about atheism in general, but a subset of atheists.
Using atheism as a springboard for religious behavior, and then retreating to atheism being nothing more than a belief, doesn't require atheism to have a tenet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Taq, posted 03-26-2010 1:28 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by Taq, posted 03-26-2010 4:53 PM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 230 of 414 (774653)
12-20-2015 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Tangle
12-20-2015 8:44 AM


'I'm not sure whether I believe in god or not' doesn't make sense, if you're not sure, then you don't believe.
But I think I might!
ABE:
For the coin toss, you don't believe it is either heads or tails.
If you are an a-tails-ist, that doesn't mean that you believe it is heads.
Atheism can mean that you do take the positive belief that god does not exist.
It's not fair to the people who don't take that position to be included in that group just because they don't take the opposing position either.
Now, "atheist" can also be used to mean just not theist, in which case you are correct. But you don't get to decide how other people use words.
It is perfectly acceptable for someone to not believe in god, and not consider themself an atheist because they don't believe that god doesn't exist either.
They stay in-between and withhold judgement. We could use the word "agnostic" to describe that position.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2015 8:44 AM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Tangle, posted 12-20-2015 11:39 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 264 of 414 (774774)
12-22-2015 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 263 by ringo
12-22-2015 11:32 AM


Tangle writes:
The normal usage of the word atheist is a non-belief in god.
I had never even heard your usage before I came to EvC. The common usage is active disbelief in God.
Exactly, and even further:
When someone says "I don't believe in Santa Claus", they are saying that Santa Claus does not exist.
Nobody uses that phrase to say that, while they lack a positive belief in the existence of Santa Claus, they are leaving open the possibility of him existing.
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by ringo, posted 12-22-2015 11:32 AM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 12-22-2015 12:17 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 268 of 414 (774799)
12-22-2015 5:55 PM
Reply to: Message 265 by Tangle
12-22-2015 12:17 PM


"I don't believe in god, but I'm not an atheist - pure Alice in Wonderland. Weird pseudo-intellectual denial.
No, you've misunderstood. Your never going to address my point until you can accept that people can use words to mean different things than what you think the words mean.
For example, the first part: "I don't believe in god,"
This can mean more than one thing:
Meaning What they wrote What they meant What I say they should be called What you insist is the only thing they can be called
1 I don't believe in god I do hold the belief that god does not exist Atheist Atheist
2 I don't believe in god I do not hold the belief that god exist Atheist Atheist
3 I don't believe in god I do not hold the belief that god exist, but I don't mean to say that he doesn't Agnostic Atheist
For me, as I said, when I say that "I don't believe in Santa Claus", I am saying that Santa Claus does not exist - Meaning #1.
If someone uses Meaning #2, then that's fine with me, I'll call them an atheist.
But it's that third group, those people who call themselves an atheist but then later go on to explain that they don't really mean that he does actually not exist, they're just saying that they haven't been convinced that he does so they do actually lack the belief.
That's waffling, you go to the wafflers pile in-between with the rest of them. You're the Agnostics.
The people who are saying that god does not exist, you go to the right. You're the Atheists.
The people who are saying that god does exist, you go to the left. You're the Theists.
That's how the words work best for me over here, and I think you're wrong to insist that your preference is the only one that can be used.
quote:
A person that says I don't believe in god but I accept that I don't know whether there is or there isn't a god, is still an atheist. By definition. You can't not believe in god and not be an atheist.
But you can, there's a better way! Three piles instead of two!
I'll say no more for a while.
I'd love to see an argument for why my way sucks and/or where I'm wrong, but if you're just going to use semantics to say that I can't really use the words that way, then don't bother replying. Not because I won't knock it out with you, but because the boss would rather see constructive criticism over circling semantics, and I can agree to that. I'm sure we'd be welcome to play along in the Free for All. You are wrong on this one
So if you want to adress the topic here, it is:
Does Athiesm = no beliefs?
I'm arguing that "no beliefs" should not equal Atheism. If we're categorizing the responses to the question of the existence of god, then we need to use what is more useful.
You're way, that all the people that reply with "yes" are in one pile and then everyone else is in another, can work. I'm not arguing that.
It's your insistence that your way is the only one that can be considered.
I think my way better covers the spectrum of beliefs out there in a more useful way. The people that reply with "yes" are in one pile, the people that reply with "no" go in another, then the people who don't really answer the question go in-between. If you're only counting yes's and no's then there's that, you can still count all the non-yes's as being no's if you want, but I'm not gonna buy it. I like the two-button version over the one-button one*.
That you're making this disagreement out to be some kinda of American cultural phobia is a bit too ridiculous for me, especially when you accused it upon a Canadian.
And the fact that the OP stemmed from a discussion that occurred five years ago, most likely in an Australian bar between two old guys who are in their seventies by now, is making this all a bit too much for me
*I like the two-button version over the one-button one.
Imagine you appear on a game show stage when the lights go up and you're presented with a button: Press it if you agree that god exists.
Either you do or you don't. That's your way.
In my way, you're presented with two buttons: Press this one if you agree that god exists, or press this one if you agree that god does not exist.
So you can press one, the other, or neither. That's a better representation of the way people are actually using the term, despite any dictionary you'd demand, and even more it helps represent the way that people feel about the question - especially in whether or not they are willing to even answer it.
Edited by Cat Sci, : *

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by Tangle, posted 12-22-2015 12:17 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Tangle, posted 12-23-2015 12:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 295 of 414 (786253)
06-19-2016 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by Diomedes
06-17-2016 2:36 PM


Once again, atheism is not a religion. I can actually easily prove that:
Buddhists have no concept of a personal god in their belief system. Yet they do believe in the concept of reincarnation. So they are technically 'atheists'. Yet they are atheists that have a belief in life after death.
To reiterate, atheism is not a belief system. It is merely a response to a claim.
What do you call a belief system that claims that no gods exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by Diomedes, posted 06-17-2016 2:36 PM Diomedes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2016 12:30 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 328 by Taq, posted 06-22-2016 4:08 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 414 (786354)
06-20-2016 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by Dr Adequate
06-19-2016 12:30 PM


What do you call a belief system that claims that no gods exist?
... Buddhism?
Nope, sure doesn't.
Plus, there's a lot more to Buddhism. If a belief system just included the claim that no gods exist, then what would you call it?
Wiki says:
quote:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
In the strictest sense, atheism is the position that there are no gods. It is not just simply "a response to a claim".
Edited by Cat Sci, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-19-2016 12:30 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by Tangle, posted 06-20-2016 5:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2016 10:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 300 of 414 (786365)
06-20-2016 6:28 PM
Reply to: Message 299 by Tangle
06-20-2016 5:25 PM


if it wasn't for people saying that god's DO exist, it wouldn't occur to an atheist that they did.
A person could come to the question of gods existing on their own, and then later reject the idea and go on to proclaim that they don't.
And if an atheist could never consider a god without another person claiming it, then the first theists could have never come about.
So this idea that it is merely and only a response to a claim cannot possibly be true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 299 by Tangle, posted 06-20-2016 5:25 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2016 3:18 AM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 306 by Diomedes, posted 06-21-2016 10:02 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 302 of 414 (786370)
06-20-2016 11:39 PM
Reply to: Message 301 by Dr Adequate
06-20-2016 10:59 PM


Is there no limit to your pedantry? Consider that the system implies believing itself exists and that the additional claim is that no god exists. Can you bring yourself to call it that then? Why must you so strongly cling to dodging it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 301 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-20-2016 10:59 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 305 by Dr Adequate, posted 06-21-2016 7:36 AM New Cat's Eye has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 313 of 414 (786407)
06-21-2016 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 304 by Tangle
06-21-2016 3:18 AM


quote:
A person could come to the question of gods existing on their own, and then later reject the idea and go on to proclaim that they don't.
  —cS
So someone with no concept of gods could invent gods then dismiss them? Ok he has a hypothesis, a kind of claim I guess, then rejects it for lack of supporting evidence. It's now gone away.
That's different. You omitted the part where they go around proclaiming that gods don't exist. Would that make them not an atheist?
It's only the fact that others make the claim that god(s) exist that the claim still stands and has to be rejected again and again.
No, it's not only that. People can and do proselytize atheism even when others aren't making claims to them.
So this idea that it is merely and only a response to a claim cannot possibly be true.
If you say there is a god and I say there isn't, is that not a response to your claim?
Sure, but proclaiming atheism without a claim to respond to is still atheism despite not being a response to a claim. As I said, atheism is not just a response to a claim.
Again:
quote:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
From wikipedia
Note that in moving to "a response to claim", you have gone from the broadest sense of simply being an absence of belief to the less broad sense of being the rejection of a belief.
And so far, your obstinance has prevented you from being able to admit that the narrowest sense of the word even exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 304 by Tangle, posted 06-21-2016 3:18 AM Tangle has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 314 of 414 (786409)
06-21-2016 2:11 PM
Reply to: Message 306 by Diomedes
06-21-2016 10:02 AM


A person could come to the question of gods existing on their own, and then later reject the idea and go on to proclaim that they don't.
But in this circumstance, the logic stands. It is akin to someone having an idea, attempting to verify the veracity of that idea, realizing that the idea does not hold water, and then moving on to the next idea.
You, too, omitted the part where you go on to proclaim that the idea is wrong. Funny how you guys just remove that part instead of addressing it.
Are you no longer an atheist if you proselytize?
For example, if I have an idea of planting a tree in my backyard. I go to the backyard, perform measurements, do an assessment and then realize that the tree won't fit or its roots would undermine the other plants in my backyard. So I decide against that idea. Have I rejected the idea of planting a tree or have I accepted in the positive that I now have a non-existent tree in my backyard?
You could inform your roommate that you cannot have a tree in the back yard.
Theists came about as humans became self aware and began to hypothesize about their surroundings and how nature functioned. They originally began to consider concepts like 'spirits' that manifested in things like trees, rivers, etc. It was their way of describing the behavior of certain things in nature that they couldn't otherwise quantify because they lacked the baseline understanding of how things work. From there, the concepts of 'spirits' began to transform into ideas regarding pixies, forest folk, and eventually they started to anthropomorphize these things as 'gods'. The end result over thousands of years was a myriad of religious beliefs.
But I can guarantee you that as some of these ideas were being posited, there were individuals in that time frame that didn't believe in spirits, pixies, etc. The rejection of claims requires the claim to exist.
"Only natural beings exist on this planet and none of the extra-things that anybody may come up with are going to be real. None of them exist. Disbelieve them all, son, and go and spread this truth. There are no hidden beings around us."
But I can guarantee you that as some of these ideas were being posited, there were individuals in that time frame that didn't believe in spirits, pixies, etc. The rejection of claims requires the claim to exist. And as such, yes, the concept of atheism merely only being a response to a claim is exactly accurate.
You're wrong to call it merely that. I can be more, there is a narrower sense of the word:
quote:
Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
From wikipedia
It doesn't require a claim to take that position nor to proclaim it yourself.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 306 by Diomedes, posted 06-21-2016 10:02 AM Diomedes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Phat, posted 06-21-2016 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 318 by Diomedes, posted 06-22-2016 10:38 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024