atheism is a (religious position)

[mikkel_the_dane]

Eddi said:


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
A religion usually involves more than just knowing the meaning of "God."

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
No, not necessarily. If an aborigine deep in the jungle has never heard of God, and has no god concept, he is an atheist -- with no god concept, position or opinion.

No, because he can't say that he is an atheist as he doesn't know it.

 

[Eddi]

No, not necessarily. If an aborigine deep in the jungle has never heard of God, and has no god concept, he is an atheist -- with no god concept, position or opinion

He would believe in jungle spirits and ancestors though, which would function as a God Concept

 

[Valjean]

So what is this belief based on if it's not knowledge or faith? It's a simple question.

There Is No Belief! Why is that so hard to understand?

 

[Heyo]

She ignores religious symbols and icons, as well as all the holidays. She'll walk right over a Bible or copy of the Upanishads. If JWs or LDSs knock on the door she hides under the couch. She will occasionally stretch her front legs out and lower her chest to the floor, but rarely in the direction of Mecca.

She doesn't seem to like Abrahamic religions. My guess is she's a kemetist and believes she's a goddess.

 

[Valjean]

I suppose so. I was specifically thinking of those religious orders whose members take a vow of celibacy.

The catholics maintain the original meanings. Some orders take vows of chastity, others of celibacy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

There Is No Belief! Why is that so hard to understand?

Well, if we scan your brain versus the jungle dweller, your brains would respond differently, because your understand yourself as an atheist would show up differently than the jungle dweller's understanding. That you identify as an atheist is in your brain as the belief that you are an atheist. The jungle dweller lacks that.
Belief as per one of the definitions: something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed

 

[ImmortalFlame]

No. Atheism is a very specific term referring to the antithetical position of theism. That is the rejection of the theist's proposition the God/gods exist.

I've provided you with several dictionary definitions which state that, broadly, it is defined as a lack of belief in a God or Gods.

So, you're just being dishonest again. Why are you so dishonest?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No. Atheism is a very specific term referring to the antithetical position of theism. That is the rejection of the theist's proposition the God/gods exist.

No, atheism is the complement to theism: anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

I don't expect you to care, since I know you're weirdly invested in your view of atheists and accepting the reality of the situation would make it harder for you to hate, so this is really just for the lurkers.

 

[Valjean]

Yeah and the verb be has over 10 different defintions.
In fact for the cat is multicolored and you are wrong it is not the same definition of the word be. Go figure.

Yes definitions vary, both colloquially and technically. The trick is to use the definition appropriate to the situation. The atheists here in RF are using the lack of belief definition.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No, atheism is the complement to theism: anyone who is not a theist is an atheist.

I don't expect you to care, since I know you're weirdly invested in your view of atheists and accepting the reality of the situation would make it harder for you to hate, so this is really just for the lurkers.

No, not for all definitions of gods. I am neither an atheist or theist. So you are wrong.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe we could say that you're correct and that celibacy is the position whereby abstinence is the practice?

There were an awful lot of promiscuous but unmarried priests back in the day. ; )

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes definitions vary, both colloquially and technically. The trick is to use the definition appropriate to the situation. The atheists here in RF are using the lack of belief definition.

Well, yes. For one definition. But as far as I know we have at least one gnostic atheist, for which this definition applies: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

So even atheism have several meanings.

 

[Valjean]

Maybe we could say that you're correct and that celibacy is the position whereby abstinence is the practice?

Would that be the missionary position, then?

 

[Valjean]

Evidence that it works for all of the world as being a human.
How do you do this:

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do - Understanding Science

undsci.berkeley.edu

I've read this before, and commented on it. I don't see the relevance, here. It's just reïterating science and religion's non- overlapping magisteria.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I've read this before, and commented on it. I don't see the relevance, here. It's just reïterating science and religion's non- overlapping magisteria.

So how do you do that, which has no evidence? And you can't see relevance, you understand it first person subjectively as it is a process in your brain. Do you understand that?
You are confusing see as see with see as understand. You have no evidence for relevance as you can't see it.

 

[Augustus]

How does a non-opinion affect my life, except inasmuch as I don't act as a belief in God might dictate?
Atheism is not a position. A non-position is not a position.

If you can describe yourself as an atheist, it's certainly not a "non-position", it is a cognitive stance you have taken.

Any stance you hold impacts you, we cannot remain completely unaffected by any stance we take, particularly when that stance comes into frequent contact with information that is impacted by that stance.

In a world significantly shaped by theistic concepts and beliefs, your atheism affects you.

It's not a belief system, but any stance you take is consequential.

If all words were subjective, in the sense of personally defined, communication would be in big trouble.

All words are subjective, it's one of the reasons language works so well.

Poetry, song, humour and slang are simple examples of things that would not be as powerful without this degree of flexibility, but in everyday language the same thing applies.

People overstate how much of meaning comes from a dictionary definition, as the real unit of meaning is the sentence (or perhaps clause) in it's context.

If you have good enough common frame of reference, you can stick completely made-up words into the middle of sentences and still be as perfectly well understood as if you'd used an orthodox term.

In context, atheism can pretty easily be used to cover a range of positions and even ideologies, although these are not intrinsic to the term itself in isolation.

 

[Valjean]

No, because he can't say that he is an atheist as he doesn't know it.

He doesn't need to know it. All that's needed is lack of belief.
You're making this way too complicated.

 

[Valjean]

Well, yes. For one definition. But as far as I know we have at least one gnostic atheist, for which this definition applies: a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods.

So even atheism have several meanings.

Dozens!-- if you include colloquial, traditional and historic examples. I've even seen one medieval European document describing Mahometans as atheists.
Serious, philosophical discussants these days use the term in the preferred, technical sense.

 

[Valjean]

So how do you do that, which has no evidence? And you can't see relevance, you understand it first person subjectively as it is a process in your brain. Do you understand that?
You are confusing see as see with see as understand. You have no evidence for relevance as you can't see it.

Not following.... Do what? Your link distinguished the separate domains of religion and science. Were they in contention?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He doesn't need to know it. All that's needed is lack of belief.
You're making this way too complicated.

Well, that is not how I was taught science.