30 Mar 2008, 12:48 pm
30 Mar 2008, 1:37 pm
30 Mar 2008, 6:52 pm
30 Mar 2008, 9:43 pm
Griff wrote:
matsuiny2004 wrote:
you believe there is no god
Probably true, but this is a red herring. You are making the insinuation that atheism is an ideology, and it is not. Different people could dismiss the idea of a deity for different reasons. Some of these reasons can be very bad, such as the premise of it being a threat to the state. In much of Western society, it is often based upon enlightened thought. I am sure that some people just find the idea threatening to their ego or simply disturbing.My reason for being an atheist is this: as a child, I was taught two competing ideas as to how I ought to go about forming beliefs. On one hand, I was taught that I should hold one belief over another because something dreadful would happen to me if I did not. This sentiment is strongly attached, in my mind, to Christianity. It is a classic argumentum ad consequentiam, actually, which is a type of red herring.
I don't think that many of you would disagree that this is a horrible reason to have any kind of religious belief. I was a toddler, though, and this is what I was taught religion was. I may well have remained a devout Christian if I had been given a more sophisticated understanding of the religion. There is no unravelling the past, though.
On the other hand, I was taught that I should, above all things, stick by the truth and what I know is right. This didn't have any direct bearing on my belief or disbelief in God. However, it was the most important part of my moral upbringing. When I realized that the threat of Hellfire was a very bad reason for me to adhere to the Christian doctrine, I had to do something to set my conscience right.
In my case, atheism is partially a symbol of my devotion to what I was taught, throughout my lifetime, to believe was right. All that this proves, though, is that I am not just some computing machine that can only be influenced or affected by logical functions. The thing is, though, neither are you. We are people, and, to a large degree, we are a product of our respective upbringings. Atheism is nothing like a religion. However, it can be a factor or consequence of a person's living religion. When I say "living religion," I mean the mores and principles upon which one goes about one's life, not anything necessarily to do with supernatural entities.
I guess that what I really find most offensive about your OP is that it bears the suggestion that my beliefs and way of life are based upon godlessness. It bears the suggestion that, when faced with a moral decision, the first question I ask is, "is there a God to tell me that it is wrong?" It is a premise that small-minded Christians use to argue that atheists are amoral. The statement, "Atheism is a belief," cannot be but true. It is literally the belief that there is not such a thing as God. It is a positive claim by exclusion. I can live with that. What I don't like is what I feel you are insinuating with this remark. If you said it in innocence, then you have my deepest apologies, but, in light of my experiences with Western culture, I see it as a classic statement of Christian bigotry.
If, by "atheism is a belief," you mean only that, I will argue with you no further. However, if you are using this to make the insinuation that atheism is my "religion," then you have made an egregious insult against my character. My atheism is a consequence of my core values, not the basis of them. Don't take my beliefs out of context. On one hand, it makes you look asinine, and, on the other hand, it makes you unpleasant to be around.
I admit I made the incorrect staement that atheism is a religion, but I would still say it is a beleif. I am not insiuating it is a religion by saying it is a belief.
30 Mar 2008, 9:49 pm
30 Mar 2008, 10:58 pm
31 Mar 2008, 12:49 am
31 Mar 2008, 1:32 am
31 Mar 2008, 1:54 am
Legato wrote:
It's very simple why Atheism is not a religion, nor a belief.
Athesim is the lack of a belief in God.
End of story.
Athesim is the lack of a belief in God.
End of story.
Not True. Atheism is the belief that God does not(and in some cases cannot)exist at all. A person who lacks belief in God
but doesnt (necessarily)disbelieve in God is called an AGNOSTIC.
31 Mar 2008, 2:05 am
31 Mar 2008, 2:25 am
31 Mar 2008, 2:29 am
D1nk0 wrote:
Legato wrote:
It's very simple why Atheism is not a religion, nor a belief.
Athesim is the lack of a belief in God.
End of story.
Athesim is the lack of a belief in God.
End of story.
Not True. Atheism is the belief that God does not(and in some cases cannot)exist at all. A person who lacks belief in God
but doesnt (necessarily)disbelieve in God is called an AGNOSTIC.
The problem is that the boundary between atheism and agnosticism isn't as clear cut as you think. After all it's never possible to prove with absolute certainty that something doesn't exists. There are many degrees of doubt.
31 Mar 2008, 2:44 am
gekitsu wrote:
missconstrue: the question people are hanging this whole discussion by is whether it is a belief to hold a clear-cut statement regarding metaphysical matters.
half of the people say that atheism doesnt believe in a god, hence its not a belief, the other half argue that atheism is the belief that there is no god and thus, as much a believing position as a religious persons position - only agnosticism would be truly non-believing.
(on a side note: science is not about proving. ever since karl popper, its about falsification only.)
skafather: i agree that atheism can be a conclusion of visible lack of evidence - but that doesnt take the character of the assumption away, doesnt it? as an atheist, you assume nonexistence of a god despite not having secure evidence for it.
and since lpp refuses to put some bite to his bark, i guess its quite wasted to tell that among scientists, a number of schopenhauerian-influenced positions are widespread, but i thought id drop it nevertheless.
half of the people say that atheism doesnt believe in a god, hence its not a belief, the other half argue that atheism is the belief that there is no god and thus, as much a believing position as a religious persons position - only agnosticism would be truly non-believing.
(on a side note: science is not about proving. ever since karl popper, its about falsification only.)
skafather: i agree that atheism can be a conclusion of visible lack of evidence - but that doesnt take the character of the assumption away, doesnt it? as an atheist, you assume nonexistence of a god despite not having secure evidence for it.
and since lpp refuses to put some bite to his bark, i guess its quite wasted to tell that among scientists, a number of schopenhauerian-influenced positions are widespread, but i thought id drop it nevertheless.
Ummm, I'm confused now
. I just asked why atheism should be considered a belief since they don't believe in anything that can't be conceived or seen. I agree with you on scientific part since at one time the beliefs were switched around. I admit I made an oopsie on my part there. It's just that in science considering now, it's a little hard not to believe in it, but I see what you're saying a little. I guess it's all just philosophical.
31 Mar 2008, 3:18 am
31 Mar 2008, 8:45 am
31 Mar 2008, 8:49 am
