paarsurrey
Veteran Member
atheism is a (religious position)
Yet another one is "I Don't Have to Prove a Negative", right?
Regards
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
atheism is a (religious position)
- Thread starter Eddi
- Start date
Regards
If we agree that atheism is a religion, can our social clubs get the same tax breaks as the theists' do?
I'd even be down with saying that I'm a "priest of atheism" if it meant I could get part of my salary as a tax-free "parsonage allowance."
Atheism is just the absence of theism. It can be part of a religious position and it can be part of a religion, much as some might feel otherwise.
But by itself it is just too little to be an actual religious position.
Then again, it is quite legitimate to disagree with me on this matter and simply say that it is indeed a religious position.
But by itself it is just too little to be an actual religious position.
Then again, it is quite legitimate to disagree with me on this matter and simply say that it is indeed a religious position.
IndigoChild5559
Loving God and my neighbor as myself.
I have never heard an expression in Englihs "one among many."
We igtheists only know of "God" as a generic name for a class of concepts, none of which has a counterpart in reality (the world external to the self). The word "God" in the Abrahamic traditions has neither a real referent, nor even a referent with a coherent, let alone consistent, description appropriate to a real entity.Premise 1: Having a God Concept makes any belief system a religion - if a belief system features a belief about God then it is a religious belief system
Premise 2: Atheists have a God Concept. They have a position on God, an opinion on God that qualifies as a position and an opinion on God, even though Atheists either see no valid reason to believe in God or explicitly reject such a belief. The point is, they still have God-beliefs
You cannot spell "Atheist" without the word "Theist"
The Atheist God Concept is that God is made up by humans who didn't know any better and is nothing more than myth
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion
Edit: I no longer believe Atheism is a religion. But I do maintain that it is a religious position, so is the same type of thing as religions
Oh cool.
Nope, it's a sarcastic reply to a stupid question
What is s negative about atheism, there is no evidence of a god so bof!
You don't have to prove anything unless you make a claim. You have made a claim so yes you need to prove your claim
Or alternatively, "god" is a freestyle concept with no true meaning of its own. We may freely call, say, Haile Selassie a god. But what does that mean?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
It means Rastafarians considered Haile Selassie to be a Messiah. God, who they refer to as Jah, is the Biblical God. The true meaning of which is not that hard to comprehend, but the true nature of which is generally considered ineffable.
I stand corrected.
I should have asked whether that is supposed to have any true meaning that is not entirely arbitrary.
The answer, far as I can honestly make it, is clearly "no".
The bottomline is there is no proof either way.
Of course, atheists do not try to prove the negative. The challenge of proving the negative of X is a form of shifting the burden of proof when one cannot provide proof for X.
The Burden of Proof
www.qcc.cuny.edu
SHIFTING THE BURDEN OF PROOF
The burden of proof is always on the person making an assertion or proposition. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of argumentum ad ignorantium, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion being made. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
The person making a negative claim cannot logically prove nonexistence. And here's why: to know that a X does not exist would require a perfect knowledge of all things (omniscience). To attain this knowledge would require simultaneous access to all parts of the world and beyond (omnipresence). Therefore, to be certain of the claim that X does not exist one would have to possess abilities that are non-existent. Obviously, mankind's limited nature precludes these special abilities. The claim that X does not exist is therefore unjustifiable. As logician Mortimer Adler has pointed out, the attempt to prove a universal negative is a self- defeating proposition. These claims are "worldwide existential negatives." They are only a small class of all possible negatives. They cannot be established by direct observation because no single human observer can cover the whole earth at one time in order to declare by personal authority that any “X” doesn't exist.
I believe the issue with atheists is there is no reason to believe in Gods or the supernatural. This is overwhelmingly justified based on the existence of ancient tribal Gods described in ancient scripture describing an ancient reality that obviously is not in touch with reality, and often rejects contemporary science. I am a Theist and do not believe in the ancient tribal views and Gods described in their scriptures. The fallible human world of the ancients is not relevant today.
Last edited:
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
It doesn’t have any meaning to you. I’m not sure that makes it arbitrary - baseball has no meaning to me, but it does to millions of people around the world.
Audie
Veteran Member
Is " not of interest" the same as " no meaning"
IYE? ( In your estimation)
Audie
Veteran Member
Is translation into plain English possible?
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
It means nothing to me. In plain English
Cultural meaning IS arbitrary. Where any individual is born and raised is what they will learn, and also learn what ideas to assign meaning to by mere consequence of location. If you were born in the Middle East you would likley be Muslim. If born in India you would likely be Hindu. We humans learn the ideas we are exposed to, and where it comes to religious ideas there are so many, and with varying degrees of influence, we might decide to opt for some other framework. But you might not have options in Iran, but would in Austrailia. All arbitrary good luck or bad luck.
Audie
Veteran Member
If plaim ambiguity is your thing you plainly show it.
RestlessSoul
Well-Known Member
Life is ambiguous. Nothing about the human experience lends itself to certainty, and the more we cling to any given position, the less it makes sense.