Is atheism a religion?

[ecco]

Who cares if gods exist or not?

The people who want school prayers
The people who hope and pray for armageddon
The preachers and churches who make their living positing the existence of gods
The people who need to believe they have a higher moral ground

Oh, wait. You were just kidding. OK.

 

[ecco]

I have heard your rants and your insults.

What rants? I have stated my position clearly and concisely.

What insults? You post ...

Gods may be only the manifestation of a cultural belief, but that in itself does not mean that no Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension. Unless you personally know that no Gods exist on any Universe, or in any dimension, you can't make this assertion. The only claim you can make is that you don't believe that a God(s) exists, because there is no reason to believe that one does. Even I limit my assertion that only the God claim on this earth/universe cannot and does not exist. You can assert anything you want, but you can't prove any of your knowledge claims.

...and I refer to it as theological nonsense. If that insults you, oh well.

So let us be clear. It is your claim that No God(s) Exists, or can exist anywhere?

YES! It is my claim that No God(s) Exist, or can exist anywhere. Clear enough?
It is also my claim that Superman does not and cannot exist anywhere.

Both god(s) and Superman are endowed by their creators with supernatural powers. Both god(s) and Superman are the creations of man's imaginings. What possible reason would you, or any Truly Enlightened person have to believe that god(s) or Superman could exist and violate the laws of nature?

If you really believe that "Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension" you need to ask yourself why you believe that. Then ask yourself the origin of these supernatural entities.

 

[Curious George]

This is the last time I will try to state my position as clearly as I can. You deposited two ideas. Both I disagreed with, and have clearly explained why. The first idea was that Old Atheism and New Atheism are defined differently(not New and Old Atheists). The second idea was that, "Classical Atheism is simply making the claim that no god exists. New atheism is defining atheism as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods". Lets start with the first. Old Atheism, and later New Atheism. Remember you are only talking about someone personal interpretation of Atheism.

Old Atheism:

What is Atheism? | American Atheists (American Atheists)
What is atheism? (Religious Site)
BBC - Religions - Atheism: At a glance (BBC Site)
atheism | Definition, Philosophy, & Comparison to Agnosticism (Encyclopedia Britannica, updated oct. 15, 2018)

It is cute that you gave me contemporary sources to try to establish the new athiests idea of atheism as equivalent with classical atheism.

New Atheism:

New Atheism - Wikipedia (Wikipedia)
The new atheists are not atheist enough (Academic Site)
What is the New Atheism? (Religious Site)

(You tube Site)

Nowhere in any of the sites is Atheism defined as "the psychological state of lacking belief". Nowhere is the difference between Old and New Atheism defined as not being a Theists. Every site describes New Atheism only in its application.

And that is part of the issue. The term new atheist penned in 2006 was used to describe a militant group of athiests who wrote a couple books insisting that theism was dangerous amd harmful. This in itseld was not new. (I can provide you with quotes espousing similar notions if you wish). What was new was the point of view from which their argumemt stemmed. This was the 1970s notion that atheism is to be dedined negatively. In fact, if we were to compare the authors of new atheists with others it is this foundational idea that distinguishes them from anythimg tjat came before. Now, I umderstand your reluctance to want to acknowledge this fact. It both diminishes the relevancy of ypu "friends" by establishing new atheism as a movement from the 70s that was just flourishing in their 2000s and it also takes away from much of their message (which ironically was not new).

New Atheists are described as being militant, insensitive, disrespectful, arrogant, and apathetic. Which clearly supports my logical conclusion, that the Old Atheism was more introverted, and the New Atheism is more extroverted.

But it wasn't. I suppose that is a nice narrative though.

I can't understand why this is so difficult. An Atheist is a person that doesn't believe that a God(s) exists.

That is atheism, negatively defined.

His belief is totally contingent on the absence of objective evidence.
No evidence no God.

The assertion "No god" is not merely not believing.

Since New and Old Atheist are both non-Theists, how is this defined as a difference? This is a belief claim. Making the claim that NO GODS EXISTS is a certainty, truth, and knowledge claim.

no, it is not. It is just a claim. You are attributing knowledge where there is none.

Can you prove or demonstrate this claim? Of course not, no one can. I personally believe that no Gods exist in my reality(Universe),

Then you believe no god exists, contrast this with the theist who believes god exists.

One of you claims(because it is ypur belief) that god exists while the other claims no god exists. This is unrelated to knowledge.

but I don't have a clue if a God exists in another reality(Universe).

That is irrelevant to ypur point, unless using the colloquialism "i don't have a clue" is meant to now contradict your earlier claim that you believe no god exists.

The other problem was your defining New Atheism as a psychological state.

I did not define new atheism as a psychological state. I said that new athiests define atheism as a psychological state. There is a difference.

The problem with characterizing the lack of a belief in a God, as a psychological state, is that you didn't expand on the nature of this state. Is this state stable, well-balanced, delusional, or just messed-up?

I do not need to expand on it. A lack of belief is a psychological state.

Remember, a psychological state is also a mental state. Using words like mind-set, frame of mind, or a personal perspective, all have a less negative connotation than a Psychological/Mental State. If you can't see how having this state can be misinterpreted, then it is deliberate.

If you cannot see how any misinterpretation of psychological state without more to point to some negative intention is an irrational stance. I think your argument here is intellectually dishonest. This is demonstrated by your word hopping. You are using an equivocation. Either you are unaware of you problematic logic or it is deliberate.

psychological state (Free Dictionary)
What does psychological state mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary) (Audio English)
Category:Psychological states - Wikipedia (Wikipedia)

Yes because sleep and wakefulness are so negative in connotation?

In summary, you have NOT presented a clear definition of Atheism itself, and how it differs from this New Atheism.

Because atheism is not what is being contrasted with New Atheism.

New Athiesm is being contrasted with classical or philosophical atheism and the only real that distinguishes the two versions of atheism is how they define atheism.

Both don't belief that a God exists, and both are non-Theists.

Do you agree that there is a difference between:
I don't believe a god exists.
And
I believe no god exists.

That IS the difference: one defines atheism as the former and the other defines atheism as the latter.

You also have not stated the significance of this Psychological State of non-belief.

You must realize how absurd this reads to me. If I said wakefulness was a psychological state and you countered with "but you haven't stated the significance of this psychological state of wakefulness."

The term New Atheism was coined by a journalist, not Flew.

This is true. A journalist unable to understand the difference between the two categories of atheist but nevertheless aware that differences existed. People try to describe things and do a poor job all the time.

Many of the early philosophers put Atheist in jails, and only the slaves were allowed to attend to their needs. Did you know that a man was put in jail for his Atheistic remarks, IN RUSSIA, during a webchat?

Russian atheist faces year in jail for denying existence of God during webchat

If you can't understand my position now, I JUST don't know what else I can say to be more clearer. So can we just agree to disagree? I really don't want to listen to all the upcoming insinuations, denials, or my inability to comprehend.

Lol, sure we can agree to disagree.[/quote]

 

[lukethethird]

Do you agree that there is a difference between:
I don't believe a god exists.
And
I believe no god exists.

I see the difference, the ones that believe no god exists are going straight to Hell in a handbasket.

 

[Curious George]

I see the difference, the ones that believe no god exists are going straight to Hell in a handbasket.

Lol.

No that's not it. But that was funny.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

What rants? I have stated my position clearly and concisely.

What insults? You post ...


...and I refer to it as theological nonsense. If that insults you, oh well.


YES! It is my claim that No God(s) Exist, or can exist anywhere. Clear enough?
It is also my claim that Superman does not and cannot exist anywhere.

Both god(s) and Superman are endowed by their creators with supernatural powers. Both god(s) and Superman are the creations of man's imaginings. What possible reason would you, or any Truly Enlightened person have to believe that god(s) or Superman could exist and violate the laws of nature?

If you really believe that "Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension" you need to ask yourself why you believe that. Then ask yourself the origin of these supernatural entities.

If you really believe that "Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension" you need to ask yourself why you believe that. Then ask yourself the origin of these supernatural entities.

I never said that I believe that a God or Superman exists in another Universe or another dimensions, where the laws of physics and reality may be different. I said, "....but that in itself does not mean that no Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension". How is this a truth or knowledge claim? The question you should have asked first(before this straw man), was if I believed this in the first place. My answer was clear. Unlike you, I don't know, and can't know, because I am not a God.

Both god(s) and Superman are endowed by their creators with supernatural powers. Both god(s) and Superman are the creations of man's imaginings. What possible reason would you, or any Truly Enlightened person have to believe that god(s) or Superman could exist and violate the laws of nature?

You seem so one-dimensional, that your behavior is prompted by only the words, and not the context of the words. It was made very clear that I not only BELIEVE that a God(s) does not exists in the reality(Universe) that I live in, but that that NO GOD(S) can exist in my reality period. This is only because ANY Gods would violate the physical laws of nature, and reality itself would be clearly effected(adversely). But this claim is only Universe-specific. But I am HONEST enough to myself, to admit that I don't know what the physical laws may be in another Universe or another dimension. Therefore, whatever we imagine as God(s), superman, leprechauns, or the FSM, may/may not exist outside of our reality. I am HONEST enough to claim that I just don't know with any degree of certainty. If you claim you do, then you are making a truth and knowledge claim. You are no different than those making truth and knowledge claims about the existence of a God. The same standard of proof also applies to you. So prove/demonstrate your level of certainty, that NO GODS EXISTS anywhere in the multiverse, outside this reality, or in another dimension? And, then demonstrate HOW you know this is true or certain?

Calling my post just a "rant" is insulting. I may be passionate, but I am not angry(as you appear to be). Calling my post "Theological nonsense" is insulting. Nothing in my post relates to the NATURE of God(only existence), or any religious belief. Misrepresenting my comments, "What possible reason would you, or any Truly Enlightened person have to believe that god(s) or Superman could exist and violate the laws of nature?", when I was specifically referring to my LACK of knowledge of the laws of nature outside of our reality, is insulting. In fact the tone of your entire post is insulting and arrogant. You are the only Atheist that sounds like you have a grudge against an imaginary entity, that you don't even believe exists. How's that for a Theological paradox?

So my question again is, HOW DO YOU KNOW? How do you KNOW that no Gods exist in another dimension? What evidence can you present that demonstrates no Gods exist anywhere in the multi-verse? Maybe you can explain why no Gods can exist before time, or after time? Don't mistake my honesty for being un-enlightened. I simply DON'T KNOW, so let's hear how you DO KNOW.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

It is cute that you gave me contemporary sources to try to establish the new athiests idea of atheism as equivalent with classical atheism.

And that is part of the issue. The term new atheist penned in 2006 was used to describe a militant group of athiests who wrote a couple books insisting that theism was dangerous amd harmful. This in itseld was not new. (I can provide you with quotes espousing similar notions if you wish). What was new was the point of view from which their argumemt stemmed. This was the 1970s notion that atheism is to be dedined negatively. In fact, if we were to compare the authors of new atheists with others it is this foundational idea that distinguishes them from anythimg tjat came before. Now, I umderstand your reluctance to want to acknowledge this fact. It both diminishes the relevancy of ypu "friends" by establishing new atheism as a movement from the 70s that was just flourishing in their 2000s and it also takes away from much of their message (which ironically was not new).

But it wasn't. I suppose that is a nice narrative though.

That is atheism, negatively defined.

The assertion "No god" is not merely not believing.
no, it is not. It is just a claim. You are attributing knowledge where there is none.

Then you believe no god exists, contrast this with the theist who believes god exists.

One of you claims(because it is ypur belief) that god exists while the other claims no god exists. This is unrelated to knowledge.

That is irrelevant to ypur point, unless using the colloquialism "i don't have a clue" is meant to now contradict your earlier claim that you believe no god exists.

I did not define new atheism as a psychological state. I said that new athiests define atheism as a psychological state. There is a difference.

I do not need to expand on it. A lack of belief is a psychological state.

If you cannot see how any misinterpretation of psychological state without more to point to some negative intention is an irrational stance. I think your argument here is intellectually dishonest. This is demonstrated by your word hopping. You are using an equivocation. Either you are unaware of you problematic logic or it is deliberate.

Yes because sleep and wakefulness are so negative in connotation?

Because atheism is not what is being contrasted with New Atheism.

New Athiesm is being contrasted with classical or philosophical atheism and the only real that distinguishes the two versions of atheism is how they define atheism.

Do you agree that there is a difference between:
I don't believe a god exists.
And
I believe no god exists.

That IS the difference: one defines atheism as the former and the other defines atheism as the latter.

You must realize how absurd this reads to me. If I said wakefulness was a psychological state and you countered with "but you haven't stated the significance of this psychological state of wakefulness."

This is true. A journalist unable to understand the difference between the two categories of atheist but nevertheless aware that differences existed. People try to describe things and do a poor job all the time.

Lol, sure we can agree to disagree.

[/QUOTE]


At least you didn't disappoint me. I suspect that this sort of spin-doctoring, is fuelled only by pride and ego, and not by any objective logic.

 

[Curious George]

At least you didn't disappoint me. I suspect that this sort of spin-doctoring, is fuelled only by pride and ego, and not by any objective logic.

Lol, I thought you wanted to agree to disagree?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Lol, I thought you wanted to agree to disagree?

I certainly do now.

 

[Audie]

What rants? I have stated my position clearly and concisely.

.

Seekest thou a rant?

Look then, for large solid blocks of text,
sprinkled with bold font and written with
no regard for proper English usage or
any effort to be concise.

Keep good watch for extensive use of
strong adjectives.

Scroll up a few posts. I forgot to mention
ALL CAPS and underlining.

 

[gnostic]

For most atheists, atheism is just their philosophical positions regarding to the existence of god.

Atheism isn’t a philosophy.

A philosophical position doesn’t necessarily mean philosophy.

 

[Altfish]

…. The term new atheist penned in 2006 was used to describe a militant group of athiests who wrote a couple books insisting that theism was dangerous amd harmful.

Is this the same militant atheists who flew into the Twin Towers? Or the militant atheists who attack and kill doctors carrying out terminations?
Oh, wait those are theists.

The militant atheists use 'words' as their weapon of choice.
As my mum always said "Sticks and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me"

 

[ecco]

YES! It is my claim that No God(s) Exist, or can exist anywhere. Clear enough?
It is also my claim that Superman does not and cannot exist anywhere.

Both god(s) and Superman are endowed by their creators with supernatural powers. Both god(s) and Superman are the creations of man's imaginings. What possible reason would you, or any Truly Enlightened person have to believe that god(s) or Superman could exist and violate the laws of nature?

If you really believe that "Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension" you need to ask yourself why you believe that. Then ask yourself the origin of these supernatural entities.

I never said that I believe that a God or Superman exists in another Universe or another dimensions, where the laws of physics and reality may be different.

You clearly implied it ...

I said, "....but that in itself does not mean that no Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension". How is this a truth or knowledge claim? The question you should have asked first(before this straw man), was if I believed this in the first place. My answer was clear. Unlike you, I don't know, and can't know, because I am not a God.

But, to avoid any further confusion...I'll ask...Do you believe that God(s) "can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension".

You seem so one-dimensional, that your behavior is prompted by only the words, and not the context of the words. It was made very clear that I not only BELIEVE that a God(s) does not exists in the reality(Universe) that I live in, but that that NO GOD(S) can exist in my reality period.

This is only because ANY Gods would violate the physical laws of nature, and reality itself would be clearly effected(adversely). But this claim is only Universe-specific. But I am HONEST enough to myself, to admit that I don't know what the physical laws may be in another Universe or another dimension. Therefore, whatever we imagine as God(s), superman, leprechauns, or the FSM, may/may not exist outside of our reality. I am HONEST enough to claim that I just don't know with any degree of certainty.

Good. Now you clearly stated "Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension". All you did there was move the goalposts from within our known universe to outside of it. If you say "I don't know", that's the same as saying "It can be". Earlier you stated that you didn't say "It can be". If I'm confused it's because in just one post you made contradictory claims.

If you claim you do, then you are making a truth and knowledge claim. You are no different than those making truth and knowledge claims about the existence of a God. The same standard of proof also applies to you. So prove/demonstrate your level of certainty, that NO GODS EXISTS anywhere in the multiverse, outside this reality, or in another dimension? And, then demonstrate HOW you know this is true or certain?

You expect proof of a negative.

I ask far less of you and you don't/can't respond? What possible explanation can there be for the origin
of a supernatural entity?
I see two possibilities:

1. It always existed
2. It created itself

In other words, supernatural nonsense.

Calling my post just a "rant" is insulting.

Tut, tut. You are getting so worked up that you cannot keep track of who said what...

Curious George wrote that (at least one of) your posts was a rant.

Your whole rant that I was somehow suggesting--that new atheists choice to define atheism as a psycholigical state implied that it was a mental condition that needed fixing--wasn't there?

Then you childishly accused me of posting rants.

I have heard your rants and your insults. I may be passionate, but I am not angry(as you appear to be).

You are the only Atheist that sounds like you have a grudge against an imaginary entity, that you don't even believe exists. How's that for a Theological paradox?

By your logic, I also have a grudge against Superman. Your comment is really silly, don't you agree?

So my question again is, HOW DO YOU KNOW? How do you KNOW that no Gods exist in another dimension? What evidence can you present that demonstrates no Gods exist anywhere in the multi-verse? Maybe you can explain why no Gods can exist before time, or after time? Don't mistake my honesty for being un-enlightened. I simply DON'T KNOW, so let's hear how you DO KNOW.

How do I know? For one thing, the same way that I know that evolution is a real thing. Accumulated evidence.


BTW: I have no problem reading text on my screen. Is there some reason you keep resorting to using CAPS and BOLDs.

Surely you know that is referred to as shouting. If someone is constantly shouting, it is probably because they are angry and ranting.

Oops, did I just imply you were ranting? How did I come up with that? Oh yeah, a rational evaluation of the evidence in your posts.

 

[Audie]

Is this the same militant atheists who flew into the Twin Towers? Or the militant atheists who attack and kill doctors carrying out terminations?
Oh, wait those are theists.

The militant atheists use 'words' as their weapon of choice.
As my mum always said "Sticks and stones may break my bones, words will never hurt me"

Words are pretty powerful things, but yeah,
there is a big difference between having your
say and setting off explosions.

In the balance of things, a copule of "militant atheists"
who-shudder- write books, give speeches, or even
worse, sue the govt for violating the law by favouring
one religion over another, that is really not much
compared to a couple of militant things we've
heard of the theists doing.

 

[Audie]

BTW: I have no problem reading text on my screen. Is there some reason you keep resorting to using CAPS and BOLDs.

Surely you know that is referred to as shouting. If someone is constantly shouting, it is probably because they are angry and ranting.

Oops, did I just imply you were ranting? How did I come up with that? Oh yeah, a rational evaluation of the evidence in your posts.

Haha musta not even needed Audie's selected pointers
for rant detection.

 

[`mud]

Somehow in all of this comparing of religious or the not,
we seem to lose the value of what is a theist, or not !
From (ASK):
the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm]
NOUN
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (atheism).

Does this make any sense ?

 

[Audie]

Somehow in all of this comparing of religious or the not,
we seem to lose the value of what is a theist, or not !
From (ASK):
the·ism
[thee-iz-uhm]
NOUN
1.
the belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (deism).
2.
belief in the existence of a god or gods (atheism).

Does this make any sense ?

no

 

[`mud]

I agree !!! but why ??? look it up ! on (ASK)

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You clearly implied it ...


But, to avoid any further confusion...I'll ask...Do you believe that God(s) "can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension".



Good. Now you clearly stated "Gods can exist somewhere else in the multiverse, or in another dimension". All you did there was move the goalposts from within our known universe to outside of it. If you say "I don't know", that's the same as saying "It can be". Earlier you stated that you didn't say "It can be". If I'm confused it's because in just one post you made contradictory claims.


You expect proof of a negative.

I ask far less of you and you don't/can't respond? What possible explanation can there be for the origin
of a supernatural entity?
I see two possibilities:

1. It always existed
2. It created itself

In other words, supernatural nonsense.



Tut, tut. You are getting so worked up that you cannot keep track of who said what...

Curious George wrote that (at least one of) your posts was a rant.


Then you childishly accused me of posting rants.




By your logic, I also have a grudge against Superman. Your comment is really silly, don't you agree?



How do I know? For one thing, the same way that I know that evolution is a real thing. Accumulated evidence.


BTW: I have no problem reading text on my screen. Is there some reason you keep resorting to using CAPS and BOLDs.

Surely you know that is referred to as shouting. If someone is constantly shouting, it is probably because they are angry and ranting.

Oops, did I just imply you were ranting? How did I come up with that? Oh yeah, a rational evaluation of the evidence in your posts.

I had no idea that capitalizing meant shouting. I always thought that excitement, emphasize, or surprise were indicated by using an exclamation mark. My generation was the pen to paper generation. I only capitalize to draw your attention to a word or an important phrase. I didn't know that capitalizing would cause this level of excitement, or arrogant sarcasm. But in the future, I will definitely exercise my syntactic due diligence regarding this writing nuance. Also, in the future when someone capitalizes a part of text, don't make the self-serving assumption that they are shouting or ranting, they simply may NOT know. So simply ask them.

I made the comment that Atheism is the belief or claim that a God(s) does not exist, based on the available evidence from our reality. This claim is totally contingent on the evidence. No evidence, no God. The more evidence to support the claim, the more the claim becomes valid. The evidence we use is only from our reality, and is based on the physical laws of the Universe. Therefore, our beliefs or claims only apply to our Universe. Since our knowledge is limited to our own Universe(so far), I can't make a knowledge claim that no God(s) can exist anywhere outside my reality. Hence, claiming I don't know if a God or anything supernatural exists outside of my reality, is an honest and accurate claim. "I don't know" is not the default position of "it can be". It means lacking the knowledge of knowing something for certain, similar to "I don't have a clue". So what I am saying again is, there may be or may not be, there can or cannot be, a God or anything else supernatural existing outside of our reality. I'm saying that I just don't know. Twist that to force-fit whatever narrative you want.

Since you keep making this claim that no God(s) exists anywhere, then how do you know? What evidence supports this knowledge claim? Isn't this just another argument from ignorance? No different than the religious arguments supporting the existence of a God claim within our reality. Just another argument from ignorance. So lets hear it, how do you know that no Gods exists anywhere? You certainly can(how do I highlight the importance of the word "can", without shouting or appearing angry?) prove a negative by,

demonstrating that there is no evidence for the positive, or by
demonstrating an incompatible positive.

In other words, you can prove a negative claim by not proving it, or by demonstrating that the positive version of the claim is incompatible with the negative claim. For example, "Donald Trump is not a reptile". You can demonstrate that there is no evidence to support that Donald Trump is a reptile. Or, you could demonstrate a positive claim that is incompatible with the negative claim(law of non-contradiction). "Donald Trump is a human, therefore he can't be a reptile as well". Also, the negative assertion that you can't prove that cellphones don't cause cancer, has been disproven by science. Since we know nothing with absolute certainty(other than our own existence), then implying/claiming that we are absolutely certain that we can't prove a negative("You want me to prove a negative..."), and not when trying to prove a positive, is unjustifiably inconsistent.

Since your claim is that no God(s) exists anywhere, including outside of our reality, what is your evidence to support that claim? What evidence can you point to outside of reality that is incompatible with the existence of God(s)? So, if you can find your way through your ego-serving posturing, maybe you can demonstrate how you know that your claim is true/certain? Again, the evidence please?

 

[`mud]

And that's all you got !
Pssssiiiiiit !