atheism is a (religious position)

[Starise]

There are? The only traits that are statistically more likely in atheists that I know of is that on average they are more intelligent, and they are more moral than the average person. Can you tell me specifically what traits you think atheists have?

They don't believe in a god and they most often found this belief on the theory of evolution.

 

[Starise]

So it's a stabilizing factor as long as you don't count all the cases where it's a destabilizing factor?

60% of the time, it works every time... right?

I left the door open for the societies who originally adopted that system and then moved away from it.

The vast majority of deaths attributed to Stalin were the people who died in the 1932-1933 famine, which was driven by Stalin's push to collectivize farming. What do you think this had to do with Stalin's beliefs about gods?

One small detail is missing here. Death camps. By all accounts Stalin followed no god.

For the whole "people" to adopt one religion takes government control.

And I would argue this will look like the CCP.

The only reason you even know about Christianity is the state-endorsed version of the religion.

In my case, totally not true

Every bad version of religion is "skewed" and every good version is from God?

That about sums it up.

There are? The only traits that are statistically more likely in atheists that I know of is that on average they are more intelligent, and they are more moral than the average person. Can you tell me specifically what traits you think atheists have?

I don't believe they are more moral or intelligent. That really hasn't been shown. I already mentioned the some of the things I associate them with. Mainly science is a sort of god that rationalizes the belief to them.

 

[MikeF]

They don't believe in a god and they most often found this belief on the theory of evolution.

There were atheists long before the theory of evolution was formulated.

History of atheism​

 

[shunyadragon]

You either have a problem understanding my posts or you are engaging in intentional word twisting. If we are discussing atheism as a supposed religion we need to identify if there are traits. Not personal traits but those associated with rationalizing such a belief. Beliefs are not typically held on a whim.

No problem understanding your posts. There is not a problem of atheism having traits. Actually atheism is not a religion as such, Atheists may belong to organizations that may be called religions like Unitarian Universalists. The only specific trait I know of is atheists do not believe in Gods. No beliefs are not held on a whim.

So you do agree with me that evolution is a strong component in rationalizing their belief.

Absolutely not. Religious beliefs including atheism have no relationship to science or the sciences of evolution. The atheists rationalize their belief that there are no Gods.

You also make a pre supposition that I am biased in my scientific thought or opinions when really the burden of proof lays in the one making the claim. So far I have made no claims. It doesn't matter what I believe here. All that matters in this discussion is why they are atheists.

You are disagreeing with the comments of the majority of atheists here. Science is one of their main claims.

Yes, science has nothing to do with the claim of atheists that there are no Gods.

Sure you are. You want to discuss evolution and make this about something you don't agree with about my beliefs instead of the point of the discussion which is to discuss whether we think atheism is a religion and then infer they distance themselves from science. I affirm my stance here that there is an association with atheism and evolution. As a geologist you are severely limited in your understanding of biology which is one of the cruxes of evolution.

Affirming your stance that atheism and evolution are associated has no basis in factor definition of either atheism or the Methodological Naturalism, which be definition makes no claims concerning religious beliefs. Your assertion of association is only grounded in your hostility toward atheism and evolution.

You also made the false assertion that most Christians reject evolution. The fact is that most Christians in th eUSA and Europe believe in Theistic evolution,

Nonsense. I've already shown here what I think. I pointed to one atheist who tortured and killed millions of people because you pointed to religion as the main agressor. I wanted to show some balance here. Common sense tells us that these are mostly exceptions rather than rules.

Showing what you think is not presenting an unbiased argument on facts. Your selective pointing out is based on a biased hostility toward atheism. You have neglected the fact that Christian governments have been equally cruel and killed millions.

In any case neither is this a discussion about who we think was evil and who we make associations to. If there is any take away here, it's that both sides like to demonize the other side to solidify their positions. Mislabeled Christians who rape and kill at the bequest of country rulers still doesn't disprove a god. It simply shows man's behaviors., yet this is a common argument used to justify a belief.

No nothing here can prove or disprove the existence of God, but your selective condemnation of atheism and not acknowledging the whole history of Christian governments and believers persecuting and ethnic cleansing non-believers and Jews reflects your hostile bias against atheists.

Let's pretend for a minute that no atheist believes in evolution. How do they rationalize their position?

Let's not pretend anything, but deal with the facts of science and religious beliefs.

Science is not a rationalized belief. It is based on objective verifiable evidence without consideration of any religious belief.

If God has an agenda I'm on board with that. I told you over and over again I'm not religious. That wasn't some trippy statement.

Not meaningful. Believing in a religion, such as Christianity is in fact being religious,

Ah yes, Google is our friend and any Tom Dick and Harry can write an article and post it there.

I only cite only academically recognized references. You can cite Tom, Dick and Harry if you like.

It is? Let's see here. We have a theist who says his belief is subjective discussing a non belief. What is your definition of foolishness?

Meaningless statements as I referred to.

Or so you sincerely believe. I have more than clarified why I didn't believe all of these groups were Christian but simply extensions of rulers looking to conquer. None of them followed Christian teaching so how could they call themselves Christistians? They were more akin to killer bees.

This can be said of Stalin also. Like the Czars, and Putin today Stalin appealed to the Russian Manifest Destiny over Russian Asia and Eastern Europe, but unlike Stalin the Czars and Putin appeal to Russian Orthodox Christian Manifest Destiny as in Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

I don't think I agree with anything you are attempting to tie me to. I see it clearly as day,

You tie yourself to your own statements and arguments. I just simply cite your statements as you make them.

Even if what you said were true, and it isn't entirely true, it has little or nothing to do with this discussion or if you think it does, please indicate how it does.

It has everything to do with the discussion concerning atheism, and your selective citation of the evils of Stalin supporting your argument against atheism, and by the way associating that with atheists today. It is relevant describing a less biased view of fallible human rulers in history

Again , , ,

The problem remains that in history you cannot single out atheist leaders based on the accusation of ruling cruelly when in the much greater scope of history Christians and Christian governments have been involved in untold Cruelty as in the attempts to persecute and ethnic cleanse Jews from Europe.history and the cruel rule elsewhere in the conversion by the sword. The writings of Martin Luther were great inspiration for Hitler.

Ok describe thoughts in the same context. Science is ever changing.. If we admit this we must also admit there are things science has yet to discover, and if such discoveries are limited to only our time and space and nothing outside of it, how can you be so sure there aren't things there we can't see? You can't.

Your committing the logical fallacy of 'Arguing from Ignorance' to justify your religious bias and intentional ignorance of science based on a religious agenda.

Argument From Ignorance: Can’t Prove A Thing

You’re walking home from school when you hear two people having an argument. It seems to be a very heated debate over the existence of God. Not wanting to get caught up in the age-old argument…

academy4sc.org

An argument from ignorance is an assertion that a claim is either true or false because of a lack of evidence to the contrary. The speaker assumes that their position is true because it has not been or cannot be proven false, or that their opponent's position is false because it has not been or cannot be proven true.

Yes there will always be unknowns and future discoveries and research that will improve the knowledge of science. but hundreds if not thousands of years of the steady confirmed and evolved knowledge of science based on predictive objective verifiable evidence precludes any radical change in the foundation of scientific knowledge.

I find this laughable. I like atheists and evolution is a feature of their beliefs.

No, neither evolution nor atheists share any features of 'beliefs' by definition.

 

[shunyadragon]

One small detail is missing here. Death camps. By all accounts Stalin followed no god.



And I would argue this will look like the CCP.

Not a small detail, Christian governments have practiced ethnic cleansing as with Jews, conversion by the sword and slavery of non-believers for thousands of years since Christian Rome. Colonization, slavery and slave trading dominated European History as well until recently.

 

[shunyadragon]

They don't believe in a god and they most often found this belief on the theory of evolution.

Yes they do not believe in God and no they never ground their belief in the theory of evolution.

Atheists most often find their belief in the lack of evidence for Gods, and the lack of evidence of the supernatural mythical beliefs and the hands on warrior God of ancient scripture. This has a one on one relationship of the definition of atheism.

Can you support this with a reference concerning how atheism is defined and supported?

Again most Christians of Europe and the USA believe in Theistic evolution.

One interesting fact of the polls is that there is a relationship between education level and support of evolution. The higher the education level the more likely people with support of evolution

 

[viole]

@Viola stated - "I personally do not simply lack belief in God. In fact, I claim knowledge that God does not exist, and that is because I do not simply hide behind the "no evidence" thing. So, I know that not because of lack of evidence, but because of the obvious presence of counter-evidence. At least when we restrict ourselves to the Gods we get from mainstream religions."

I don't think I misunderstood. And I will reiterate that debunking religious depictions of God/gods does nothing to negate the actual theist proposition. And there is no knowledge that you, I, or anyone else could possibly possess that could logically do that. The term "God" refers to an ideal that is beyond human ability to verify.

Of course you misunderstood. It is not "Viola". It is "viole".

And how does that defeat my claim to know that there is no god? In fact, it should be pretty clear that there is no god, don't you think so?

Let me ask you this: what makes God more likely than, say, Mother Goose?

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

didn't see anything in viole's comment that suggested she claimed to know there is no God.

Well, you should have. Since that is exactly what I claim to know.

I know there is no god. And I claim that everybody else should know that too.

And that is why I qualify as a gnostic atheist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[PureX]

They don't believe in a god and they most often found this belief on the theory of evolution.

I am not an atheist, but I have had many discussions with them.

The reason they don't "believe in God" is because the only aspect of God that they know about are the images, and the stories, and the irrational statements and behaviors of those that do "believe in God". Irrational, they feel, because logic and observation tells them that these ARE stories and not facts. What facts we do have tell a different story. So we can't really blame them for feeling as they do about it.

Unfortunately that's where they stop. And also unfortunately that's where a lot of theists stop, too. No one bothers to look past the stories and the facts to the real experience of faith in God. To what that means and to what it provides for a person. Because it's hard to express in words. And because it's somewhat unique to everyone.

 

[shunyadragon]

Of course you misunderstood. It is not "Viola". It is "viole".

And how does that defeat my claim to know that there is no god? In fact, it should be pretty clear that there is no god, don't you think so?

Let me ask you this: what makes God more likely than, say, Mother Goose?

Ciao

- viole

Atheism is defined in different sources in different ways from versions from the belief that definitively state no Gods or supernatural realms exist out side the objective physical to versions of belief that reflect the claim of a lack of belief in Gods based on 'There is no reason to believe Gods exist,' The hedge is based on the fact that there is no proof either that Gods exist or not.

I consider the the difference too subtle and ambiguous as to how individuals personally have a degree of certainty defining their belief. In my view atheism is simply atheism as defined and beyond this arguing differences in personal views is splitting frog hairs. I believe the Wiki reference is adequate to define the belief and the variations.

Atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You either have a problem understanding my posts or you are engaging in intentional word twisting. If we are discussing atheism as a supposed religion we need to identify if there are traits. Not personal traits but those associated with rationalizing such a belief. Beliefs are not typically held on a whim.

Atheism isn't a religion.

It's funny how often I run into this chauvinism and conceit from theists: this idea - like you're arguing here - that the presence or absence of a tenet of your beliefs is enough to define someone else's belief system.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Not all atheists and agnostics are simply loners in society, and not affiliated with groups compatible with their beliefs.

I never said that atheists were loners. But come on, they are not usually involved in religious communities!

"In particular, the research suggests that higher levels of religiosity are associated with lower rates of depression, anxiety, substance use disorder, and suicidal behavior."

I suggest you read the whole Psychology Today article. I'm really tempted to quote it quite a bit, but since I hate long posts, I'm loving my neighbor as myself. LOL

Religion and Mental Health: What Is the Link?

A growing body of research indicates that religious belief and practice can promote good mental health, as well as foster recovery from mental illness.

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[viole]

Atheism is defined in different sources in different ways from versions from the belief that definitively state no Gods or supernatural realms exist out side the objective physical to versions of belief that reflect the claim of a lack of belief in Gods based on 'There is no reason to believe Gods exist,' The hedge is based on the fact that there is no proof either that Gods exist or not.

There is no proof that little invisible fairies are not the ones ravaging my garden, either.
So, why should I promote gods to a higher level of invisible garden fairies?

Either I know that both God and the invisible garden fairies do not exist, or I both claim equal levels of agnosticism about them. For the simple reason that they are both equally plausible, given the current evidence.

What would you prefer me to do? I am quite not emotional about that. If you tell me that agnosticism abut God is the same as agnosticism about garden fairies, I am fine with that.

I consider the the difference too subtle and ambiguous as to how individuals personally have a degree of certainty defining their belief. In my view atheism is simply atheism as defined and beyond this arguing differences in personal views is splitting frog hairs. I believe the Wiki reference is adequate to define the belief and the variations.

As someone else said, I disbelief God because I disbelief Mother Goose. And there is nothing subtle between the two beliefs, really, since they both can show the same level of evidence. Zero, unfortunately.

Do you think one deserves more ontological attention than the other, so that claim of knowledge of its not existence need more explanation?

Why, considering they have exactly the same evidence and plausibility?

This is a zero sum game, when it comes to philosophical positions. Namely, between God and Mother Goose, for instance. And I challenge anyone to find an asymmetry between them.

Ciao

- viole

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Do you think one deserves more ontological attention than the other?

Yes, because human beings intuit the Divine. You cannot say the same for Mother Goose. Our intuition has evolved because it helps us survive, because it is selected for. We should not just casually dismiss it.

 

[shunyadragon]

I am not an atheist, but I have had many discussions with them.

The reason they don't "believe in God" is because the only aspect of God that they know about are the images, and the stories, and the irrational statements and behaviors of those that do "believe in God". Irrational, they feel, because logic and observation tells them that these ARE stories and not facts. What facts we do have tell a different story. So we can't really blame them for feeling as they do about it.

Even though I believe in God I do not share your generalization as to the reasons atheists have arrived at their disbelief in Gods. I believe atheists in general do have a deeper logical reasoning than just rejection of the ancient cultural views of God even though these objections are indeed rational.

I have concluded that what is described in the ancient tribal texts are an ancient mythical hands on God or Gods that I do not believe exist. They represent a human ancient cultural perspective and not God. I believe these ancient views of God are indeed irrational today,

Unfortunately that's where they stop. And also unfortunately that's where a lot of theists stop, too. No one bothers to look past the stories and the facts to the real experience of faith in God. To what that means and to what it provides for a person. Because it's hard to express in words. And because it's somewhat unique to everyone.

IF God exists I believe God has to be a more Universal God than reflected in the various ancient cultures as the 'Source' some call Gods as described in the Baha'i Faith and the concept of Panentheism. I do not go beyond this belief to rationalize this belief.

I consider the various versions of atheism to be more reasonable and logical than the ancient tribal worldviews of God.

 

[viole]

Yes, because human beings intuit the Divine. You cannot say the same for Mother Goose. Our intuition has evolved because it helps us survive, because it is selected for. We should not just casually dismiss it.

Are you telling us that belief in Gods, no matter which ones, are functional towards survival?

I might have no quarrel with that, depending on your reply.

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

Yes, because human beings intuit the Divine. You cannot say the same for Mother Goose. Our intuition has evolved because it helps us survive, because it is selected for. We should not just casually dismiss it.

I do not believe this a good reason to believe in and of itself. It is too subjective and circular.

I do believe that IF a 'source' some call gods exists it is a more Universal God than what is believed or not believed in any one religion

 

[shunyadragon]

There is no proof that little invisible fairies are not the ones ravaging my garden, either.
So, why should I promote gods to a higher level of invisible garden fairies?

Either I know that both God and the invisible garden fairies do not exist, or I both claim equal levels of agnosticism about them. For the simple reason that they are both equally plausible, given the current evidence.

What would you prefer me to do? I am quite not emotional about that. If you tell me that agnosticism abut God is the same as agnosticism about garden fairies, I am fine with that.


As someone else said, I disbelief God because I disbelief Mother Goose. And there is nothing subtle between the two beliefs, really, since they both can show the same level of evidence. Zero, unfortunately.

Do you think one deserves more ontological attention than the other, so that claim of knowledge of its not existence need more explanation?

Why, considering they have exactly the same evidence and plausibility?

This is a zero sum game, when it comes to philosophical positions. Namely, between God and Mother Goose, for instance. And I challenge anyone to find an asymmetry between them.

Ciao

- viole

I grew up on a farm with Mother Goose and the little goslings. The papa goose was down right dangerous.

Your response here did not address my post.

 

[viole]

I grew up on a farm with Mother Goose and the little goslings. The papa goose was down right dangerous.

Your response here did not address my post.

How does not that answer your post? I do not claim omniscience here , so I might have really failed here. I am a human, after all.

So, can you make it please explicit how I did not answer that? So that I correct my error. What was it?

Ciao

- viole

 

[shunyadragon]

I never said that atheists were loners. But come on, they are not usually involved in religious communities!

I believe they are involved in communities, ie UU. Defining the organizations that people may belong to as religious or not is ambiguous. There are more types of communities and organizations that are not specifically religious. It is likely true that those who do not affiliate to organzations religious or not regardless of belief may represent the poll you site.

"In particular, the research suggests that higher levels of religiosity are associated with lower rates of depression, anxiety, substance use disorder, and suicidal behavior."

I suggest you read the whole Psychology Today article. I'm really tempted to quote it quite a bit, but since I hate long posts, I'm loving my neighbor as myself. LOL

Religion and Mental Health: What Is the Link?

A growing body of research indicates that religious belief and practice can promote good mental health, as well as foster recovery from mental illness.

www.psychologytoday.com

I read the reference and responded. IF it referred to those who do not affiliate with any organizations OK, but that is not the nature of human relationships as I described, Those not willing to affiliate with a religious or other organization would indeed apply regardless of religious belief,

My referring to the broader concept of organizations atheists and agnostics may belong to. also considering the broader international context of atheism an agnosticism still stands and not responded to,

From your source:

The famous Israeli sociologist Aaron Antonovsky argued that "existential"commitment (including religiosity) can provide a "sense of coherence," imparting deep meaning and an organizing framework to individual life experience. This framework can be especially helpful in times of adversity, distress, and suffering. His research showed that this can even allow Holocaust survivors to live a mentally-healthy life.

Existential commitment in this research would go beyond membership in a Theistic religions.

Note: I believe this research was limited in scope and not the broader reference I described.