atheism is a (religious position)

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, no, but for you to state that you are an atheist, is an active brain process. You have actively considered the words gods and atheist for their meaning and actively state you are an atheist. You are not doing nothing with your brain. You are doing something, hence active cognition.

None of your babbling changes anything about the fact that "not believing" is a not a belief.
Just like "not running" is not a sport.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, they are active brain states. You are not passive as an atheist. That is the point, your not believe is an active brain process. "Non-belief" is an active state in your brain.

Your point is irrelevant to the subject matter.

 

[PureX]

I'm not demanding anything. I've never asked anyone to tell me about their god or gods, it is just put out there, often presented as if it were definitive fact. I have a definition of the concept of god (small-g), which is the generic idea that encompasses all such beings people sometimes believe in (or indeed, invent for works of fiction). I can't have my own definition of God (capital-G) since I don't believe in anything I assign that name/title to.

And yet here you are on a site designed to invite religious views and opinions.

That was just an aside, as pretty much all definitions of gods originate from religions. I'm definitely not trying to conflate the two, since that distinction is one of my arguments that atheism (like theism) isn't a religion.

I agree that atheism is not a religion, but it can be and sometimes is practiced similarly. And often in terms of it's dogmatic 'evangelism'.

I see agnostic-atheism as a default.

Most atheist do, but that is not a logically supportable position. And no matter how many times I point out why it's not logical, they ignore me and continue right on believing it. Because in spite of all their claims of "unbelief", they are in fact "true believers" of their atheism.

Any time a person learns of (or, theoretically, convinces of) the concept of a particular god, they may come to the conclusion that god actually exists (and thus become theist) or they may come to the conclusion that god doesn't exist (and thus remain agnostic-atheist). It'd be a different (and much greater) step to conclude that there are definitely no gods of any kind.

If God exists, God's nature and existence is a mystery to us. So we invent ideas and images and characterizations in our minds to represent and 'stand in' for that mystery. And often, people forget that their imaginary representations are imaginary representations. It's just human nature, I guess.

There is no logical reason to presume these imaginary representations should be similar, or agree. Why would they be? And there is no logical reason to confuse them with the actual possibility of God, though people often do.

And the same goes for religion. Religions are just collections of ideas and images and rituals and practices that people can use to help them live life according to their chosen theology (God concept). And again, there is no reason to expect these religions to agree with each other.

They are all different people's solution to the question of the existence and nature of God. And no one knows if any of them are accurate, including the atheist's solution. So they all remain possible. No one gets to be right. All that really matters is what God-question response is the right one for each of us?

Not necessarily. Theist just means that a person believes in a god or gods. It doesn't define any specific reason for that belief. I'm sure there are some theists who say they know their god exists due to some experience they've had (regardless of how rational that conclusion might be).

Theism is not about what anyone believes. Theism is a philosophical proposition. It is the proposition that God/gods exist, and in a way that matters to us. If we accept the validity of that proposition, we call ourselves theists. If we reject that proposition as invalid, we call ourselves atheists. If we neither accept nor reject it because we lack sufficient information to determine the validity of the proposition, we call ourselves agnostic.

Belief really has nothing to do with it. Belief is just a proclamation of our own presumed righteousness. When we say "I believe" all we're really saying is that "I am now convinced that I am right". And that's not really relevant to the question of God's existence or nature, or much of anything else.

You seem to be working on the assumption that any of these labels can be clearly and conclusively defined though (and also that your preferred definitions are they only valid ones). Like most words, they can have different meanings depending on context and intent.

The problem is that people don't bother to recognize the difference between a proposed ideal, and a personal belief system based on the ideal. And because it all becomes personal to them, their egos get involved. And the ego's job is to maintain a sense of righteousness no matter what. So then any discussion become a pointless, endless, battle to be right.

That's why I don't like such labels in the first place (especially when applied to someone else). This area of belief, faith and religion can be especially complex and controversial. I've always felt that if you can define your conclusions on the topic with a single word, you've not thought it through well enough.

We use words to communicate. The more precisely we use them, the better able we will be to understand each other's ideas. But the ego-boxers aren't trying to understand anything. They just want to be right. Making linguistic communication difficult. As they change the meaning of the terms to better support their own views.

I explain and clarify the terms using logic but they don't care. They just want to "win the argument" and if that means bending and changing the definitions and logic of the terms, that's what they'll do.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

And yet here you are on a site designed to invite religious views and opinions.

I agree that atheism is not a religion, but it can be and sometimes is practiced similarly. And often in terms of it's dogmatic 'evangelism'.

Most atheist do, but that is not a logically supportable position. And no matter how many times I point out why it's not logical, they ignore me and continue right on believing it. Because in spite of all their claims of "unbelief", they are in fact "true believers" of their atheism.

If God exists, God's nature and existence is a mystery to us. So we invent ideas and images and characterizations in our minds to represent and 'stand in' for that mystery. And often, people forget that their imaginary representations are imaginary representations. It's just human nature, I guess.

There is no logical reason to presume these imaginary representations should be similar, or agree. Why would they be? And there is no logical reason to confuse them with the actual possibility of God, though people often do.

And the same goes for religion. Religions are just collections of ideas and images and rituals and practices that people can use to help them live life according to their chosen theology (God concept). And again, there is no reason to expect these religions to agree with each other.

They are all different people's solution to the question of the existence and nature of God. And no one knows if any of them are accurate, including the atheist's solution. So they all remain possible. No one gets to be right. All that really matters is what God-question response is the right one for each of us?

Theism is not about what anyone believes. Theism is a philosophical proposition. It is the proposition that God/gods exist, and in a way that matters to us. If we accept the validity of that proposition, we call ourselves theists. If we reject that proposition as invalid, we call ourselves atheists. If we neither accept nor reject it because we lack sufficient information to determine the validity of the proposition, we call ourselves agnostic.

Belief really has nothing to do with it. Belief is just a proclamation of our own presumed righteousness. When we say "I believe" all we're really saying is that "I am now convinced that I am right". And that's not really relevant to the question of God's existence or nature, or much of anything else.

The problem is that people don't bother to recognize the difference between a proposed ideal, and a personal belief system based on the ideal. And because it all becomes personal to them, their egos get involved. And the ego's job is to maintain a sense of righteousness no matter what. So then any discussion become a pointless, endless, battle to be right.

We use words to communicate. The more precisely we use them, the better able we will be to understand each other's ideas. But the ego-boxers aren't trying to understand anything. They just want to be right. Making linguistic communication difficult. As they change the meaning of the terms to better support their own views.

I explain and clarify the terms using logic but they don't care. They just want to "win the argument" and if that means bending and changing the definitions and logic of the terms, that's what they'll do.

Good post.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I see agnostic-atheism as a default.

Agnosticism involves a positive claim (i.e. that the existence of gods is unknowable), so it can't be a default position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Agnosticism involves a positive claim (i.e. that the existence of gods is unknowable), so it can't be a default position.

Atheism is not a default, because you can only know that you are an atheist, if you can compare it with the general idea of a God. You are only an atheist, because you can do that.
If you couldn't that for both atheism and theism, you would be neither as you don't have the states in your brain so state that you are the one, the other of fall outside both.

 

[Nakosis]

Well, they are active brain states. You are not passive as an atheist. That is the point, your not believe is an active brain process. "Non-belief" is an active state in your brain.

How about a lack of belief.
Non-belief is defined as a lack of belief.
It is not disbelief. It is incorrect to treat them as the same word.

So I neither have an active state of belief or disbelief, non-belief.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How about a lack of belief.
Non-belief is defined as a lack of belief.
It is not disbelief. It is incorrect to treat them as the same word.

So I neither have an active state of belief or disbelief, non-belief.

You have to have a state of mind/brain to declare that you are an atheist, unless you claim for that process there is an actual case of real non-existence in your brain as the non-belief is an actual existing case of nothing in toto.

 

[Nakosis]

You have to have a state of mind/brain to declare that you are an atheist, unless you claim for that process there is an actual case of real non-existence in your brain as the non-belief is an actual existing case of nothing in toto.

Sure, that state is lacking any active state of belief or disbelief about a God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sure, that state is lacking any active state of belief about a God.

But that has a physical representation in your brain or you would be unable to state that you are an atheist.

 

[Nakosis]

But that has a physical representation in your brain or you would be unable to state that you are an atheist.

Sure but you started off talking about not believing.
Atheism doesn't require one to not believe.
Or not believing doesn't have to be one's state of mind to be an atheist.

 

[LuisDantas]

Allow me to simplify:

"Having a religion is different from having an opinion about religious subjects"

They are different things

I maintain that Atheism is a religious opinion and not a religion

All people have an opinion about religious things but not all people have a religion: Atheists

Do you understand me now???

Atheism is an opinion about god-beliefs, not about religions. Entirely different things, arguably opposite ones even.

 

[Eddi]

Atheism is an opinion about god-beliefs, not about religions. Entirely different things, arguably opposite ones even.

Yet Atheism dictates a certain stance towards religions based on a certain opinion about the existence/non-existence of God

It is an opinion about God beliefs that causes non-religiousness to be practiced

Hence it is an opinion about religions

 

[Heyo]

I maintain that Atheism is a religious opinion and not a religion

Wrong. You did better in the next sentence.

All people have an opinion about religious things but not all people have a religion: Atheists

Do you understand me now???

Atheism is an opinion about religion, yes.

 

[PureX]

How about a lack of belief.
Non-belief is defined as a lack of belief.
It is not disbelief. It is incorrect to treat them as the same word.

So I neither have an active state of belief or disbelief, non-belief.

"Lack of belief" describes nothing as there in no logical expectation regarding "belief" in the first place, that could then be "lacking". It requires no label at all as it's just meaningless gibberish.

What is actually occurring is the rejection of someone else's (proclaimed) belief. It's not a "lack", it's a rejection (the opposite of acceptance). The terms "disbelief" and "non-believer" both apply, here, but relative to the position, and to the person holding the position, respectively.

"Unbelief" does not. "Unbelief" is the cousin of "lack of belief", neither of which refer to anything. They are meaningless gibberish.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Allow me to simplify:

"Having a religion is different from having an opinion about religious subjects"

They are different things

I maintain that Atheism is a religious opinion and not a religion

All people have an opinion about religious things but not all people have a religion: Atheists

Do you understand me now???

Nobody holds a position on a god they've never heard of.

Someone can hold an opinion on a god that they have heard of, but this isn't what makes the person an atheist.

... and holding opinions on the arguments for a god or on the followers of a god don't mean we automatically form an opinion on the god in question itself.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Atheism is an opinion about religion, yes.

I would say that it isn't.

Atheists can hold opinions about religion, but this isn't what makes them atheists.

 

[Heyo]

I would say that it isn't.

Atheists can hold opinions about religion, but this isn't what makes them atheists.

I agree to an extend.
What I wanted to make clear with the post is that holding an opinion about religion is not a religious opinion.

 

[Nakosis]

"Lack of belief" describes nothing as there in no logical expectation regarding "belief" in the first place, that could then be "lacking". It requires no label at all as it's just meaningless gibberish.

What is actually occurring is the rejection of someone else's (proclaimed) belief. It's not a "lack", it's a rejection (the opposite of acceptance). The terms "disbelief" and "non-believer" both apply, here, but relative to the position, and to the person holding the position, respectively.

"Unbelief" does not. "Unbelief" is the cousin of "lack of belief", neither of which refer to anything. They are meaningless gibberish.

Do you feel your belief is being rejected?

 

[Eddi]

holding an opinion about religion is not a religious opinion.

Would you say that holding an opinion on motor bikes is not a motor bike opinion?

....and why?