Ambiguity of Atheism

[E. Nato Difficile]

How do you determine a belief is religious. Religions are as different as people are. Any rules you give me to determine the belief is religious. I bet I can apply to atheism as well as area's of science. That is unless you gear it for a specific religion which is discrimination.

Well, like I said, if it depends on appeals to God's law, i.e. Holy Scripture or any presumption of the will of the Almighty, it's probably a religious belief.

-Nato

 

[bobhikes]

Well, like I said, if it depends on appeals to God's law, i.e. Holy Scripture or any presumption of the will of the Almighty, it's probably a religious belief.

-Nato

Lets say scripture says driving cars is wrong. Am I allowed to have that belief because of enviromental concerns or because it is a religious belief do I have to accept that cars should pollute the world. In otherwords how do I prove my beliefs are not based on scripture but are actual worthy beliefs.

 

[Willamena]

Kierkegaard quote seems applicable here: Once you label me you negate me.

My stance on all this remains with idea that we all likely enter into theism, then back to atheism, back to theism, on a very fluid basis, such that we aren't consistently in one area.

Well, yeah... we aren't atheism or theism, and they aren't us. We can wear atheism or theism like a coat, because it's just a set of ideas. And we can discard the coat.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Lets say scripture says driving cars is wrong. Am I allowed to have that belief because of enviromental concerns or because it is a religious belief do I have to accept that cars should pollute the world. In otherwords how do I prove my beliefs are not based on scripture but are actual worthy beliefs.

I've got nothing against hypothetical arguments, but this doesn't even make sense. All I was trying to do was distinguish between a belief with a rational justification and one whose sole justification is that The Bible says so.

-Nato

 

[Willamena]

one wonders if the ambiguity of theism is why this thread exists...

Well, considering how wrong everyone else gets atheism, I think it's a valid topic.

 

[bobhikes]

I've got nothing against hypothetical arguments, but this doesn't even make sense. All I was trying to do was distinguish between a belief with a rational justification and one whose sole justification is that The Bible says so.

-Nato

But it is impossible to do. I did not want to use realistic arguments such as abortion or homosexuality, eating meat.

All have valid rational defences for the pro and con view. How do you determine they are not religious or are you implying there is just one rational view.

 

[Acim]

well then, this only goes to show that we are all subjected to our subjective POV when it comes to the unknowable.

Even subjected to our subjective POV with regards to the knowable.

so really any stance that labels the unknowable is ambiguous, because it hasn't been known.

Same goes for the knowable. If you label the knowable, you erect an ambiguous barrier between awareness and that which is known.

 

[Acim]

We did have a 211-page megathread entitled "Atheism: A Belief?" You have essentially reopened the same debate, which always comes down to the meaning of "atheism".

Intention of this thread is not debate. It is to point out ambiguity and list it as it appears on this site. If there is discussion around that, it seems permissible with regards to this area of the forum. If there is debate on what makes for atheism , then I would think other threads have been set up just for that purpose.

 

[idav]

Well, considering how wrong everyone else gets atheism, I think it's a valid topic.

The ambiguity is with theism not atheism. Theism has a whole set of rules as to what they consider to be god and what they think god is not. Monotheists believe in one god which means they are atheist for a whole slew of gods known or unknown. It isn't ambiguous for the gods they don't believe in, it is simply ambiguous for the one god they believe in which have hard to define variables that may or may not be sensible. Atheists believe in one less god than that of a Monotheist which leaves one less ambiguous term to define. Not theist is as simple as it gets, nothing to define, nothing to fuss over.

 

[Willamena]

The ambiguity is with theism not atheism. Theism has a whole set of rules as to what they consider to be god and what they think god is not. Monotheists believe in one god which means they are atheist for a whole slew of gods known or unknown. It isn't ambiguous for the gods they don't believe in, it is simply ambiguous for the one god they believe in which have hard to define variables that may or may not be sensible. Atheists believe in one less god than that of a Monotheist which leaves one less ambiguous term to define. Not theist is as simple as it gets, nothing to define, nothing to fuss over.

Atheism has its own unique ambiguities --the context of "lack of belief" I brought up earlier is just one.

 

[Acim]

Atheism has its own unique ambiguities --the context of "lack of belief" I brought up earlier is just one.

Pretty much how I was going to respond.

Like if someone came into this thread and said, 'the ambiguity is with Catholicism, but us Lutherans have no ambiguity.' To which a good dozen participants in this thread may chime in with, 'oh yeah.....'

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

But it is impossible to do. I did not want to use realistic arguments such as abortion or homosexuality, eating meat.

All have valid rational defences for the pro and con view. How do you determine they are not religious or are you implying there is just one rational view.

Again, you're making absolutely no sense. You don't think it's possible to distinguish between a belief with rational justification and one whose only justification is The Bible says so?

I guess you're just playing another of your oh-so-amusing word games.

-Nato

 

[idav]

Atheism has its own unique ambiguities --the context of "lack of belief" I brought up earlier is just one.

Thats only because an atheist gets caught up trying to explain "not believing in something that does not exist" to non-understanding theists. "Lack of belief" is merely an attempt at explaining that concept and people with dictionaries, playing semantics, say "lack" isn't appropriate. "Not Theist" is simple and should explain it. Theists are the ones with the definitions that are not believed by their counterpart. Atheists should have nothing to define.

 

[bobhikes]

Again, you're making absolutely no sense. You don't think it's possible to distinguish between a belief with rational justification and one whose only justification is The Bible says so?

I guess you're just playing another of your oh-so-amusing word games.

-Nato

So you believe that those that use the bible will not be smart enough to use rational justifications, because they don't currently use rational justifications.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

So you believe that those that use the bible will not be smart enough to use rational justifications, because they don't currently use rational justifications.

I never said I believed anything of the sort.

You asked how we would determine whether a belief is religious. I answered that if the basis for believing it involved Scripture or the presumption of God's will, it was likely a religious belief.

How do you think the word game is going so far?

-Nato

 

[Acim]

"Not Theist" is simple and should explain it.

And yet it doesn't. Because if any type of theist says something along lines of, "I equate God / deity / divinity with this concept," then some atheists won't simply stick to, "I am without a belief that this is God" but will pretty much venture into territory of, "you can't say that. That's not proven. We have proven that concept to mean something else than how you are using it. You need more proof." As if all of that is on the theist, when as I've explained numerous times, atheists actually have beliefs of what would constitute evidence (for them) and this varies from atheist to atheist. Thus the ambiguity.

Theists are the ones with the definitions that are not believed by their counterpart. Atheists should have nothing to define.

Once evidence is allowed into the picture via strong atheistic position attempting to dictate how the discussion must look, it exposes the atheist position to a plausible string of definitions that will first be placed on theists. But with theist who's not asleep at the wheel, it will become the two way discussion in needs to be, for clearly many atheists aren't actually lacking a belief, they are outright rejecting it. To varying degrees, which are worthy of being defined for sake of argument.

 

[bobhikes]

I never said I believed anything of the sort.

You asked how we would determine whether a belief is religious. I answered that if the basis for believing it involved Scripture or the presumption of God's will, it was likely a religious belief.

How do you think the word game is going so far?

-Nato

It's not a word game your going in circles. You have not shown me anyway of determining if a belief is religious other than the person saying it is quoted in scripture. If this is your sole method than you will never find a religious belief once you outlaw them but I insure you they will still exist and probably grow more powerful.

 

[Willamena]

Thats only because an atheist gets caught up trying to explain "not believing in something that does not exist" to non-understanding theists. "Lack of belief" is merely an attempt at explaining that concept and people with dictionaries, playing semantics, say "lack" isn't appropriate. "Not Theist" is simple and should explain it. Theists are the ones with the definitions that are not believed by their counterpart. Atheists should have nothing to define.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

you will never find a religious belief once you outlaw them but I insure you they will still exist and probably grow more powerful.

 

[idav]

And yet it doesn't. Because if any type of theist says something along lines of, "I equate God / deity / divinity with this concept," then some atheists won't simply stick to, "I am without a belief that this is God" but will pretty much venture into territory of, "you can't say that. That's not proven. We have proven that concept to mean something else than how you are using it. You need more proof." As if all of that is on the theist, when as I've explained numerous times, atheists actually have beliefs of what would constitute evidence (for them) and this varies from atheist to atheist. Thus the ambiguity.



Once evidence is allowed into the picture via strong atheistic position attempting to dictate how the discussion must look, it exposes the atheist position to a plausible string of definitions that will first be placed on theists. But with theist who's not asleep at the wheel, it will become the two way discussion in needs to be, for clearly many atheists aren't actually lacking a belief, they are outright rejecting it. To varying degrees, which are worthy of being defined for sake of argument.

How is an atheist supposed to reject something that doesn't exist. That seems nonsensical. Sure they might debate it and say some strong words but in the end atheists don't have evidence for something that doesn't exist therefore all there is left is not believing. They reject or don't believe lots of things just like rejecting flying spaghetti monster or pink unicorns. Does outright rejecting invisible pink unicorns make a person positively affirm that notion without possibility of evidence coming out? Can a person take a picture of air and prove or disprove invisible pink unicorns?

Here is a short funny clip that comes to mind.

[youtube]zYNF7nUi2-o[/youtube]
Do you believe in Zeus? - YouTube