Is atheism a religion?

[Curious George]

I don't really want to pontificate on this point. Most people know intuitively, and in practice, the difference between asserting claims based on belief, and asserting claims based on knowledge. All certainty and knowledge claims require evidence/proof. All asserted belief clams do not require evidence/proof. Your statement was "I said there was no meaningful difference between saying "I can fix the engine" and "I believe I can fix the engine". You have just created a straw man, to fit your "..no meaningful difference..", assertion. The real assertion was the difference between making a knowledge claim(I know I can fix...), and making a belief claim(..I believe I can...), at a job interview.

Perhaps you were turned around somewhere. It can happen especially with lengthy posts back and forth.

This is where that particular point started to flesh itself out.

So if I make the claim that, "you have no wife and children", or that "you have no job or car", or that "you don't live anywhere", you don't think that these are truth or implicit knowledge claims? I suppose you also don't think there is a difference between the claims, "I don't believe you have a wife and kid, live anywhere, or have a job and car", and the above claims?

That is correct there is no meaningful difference in stating you have no wife and kids vs. I believe you have no wife and kids

As you can see the words "I know" are not found.

In fact given the three example sentences:

1) I believe X is;
2) X is;
3) I know X is.

We were specifically talking about forms 1 and 2. Your assertion was that 2 and 3 were the same. My assertion was that 1 and 2 were the same. There is no straw man.

 

[Curious George]

Again, my statements were never about whether or not a Multiverse, or extra-dimensions exist. They were used only to illustrate why Atheist don't make absurd knowledge and certainty claim like, "No God(s) exists", and "No Gods exists anywhere". Some of the evidence certainly does more than suggest that there is a multiverse. How do you explain the "cold spots" within the fabric of space time, that are thousands of light years across? How do you explain why gravity 10^40 orders of magnitude weaker than the other three forces? What about our understanding of inflation as also a Quantum Field? Inflation doesn't end everywhere at once, but rather in select, disconnected locations at any given time. While the space between those locations will still continue to inflate. This means, there should be multiple, enormous regions of space where inflation ends and the Big Bang begins. In other words, a multiverse. But we can certainly ignore the evidence, and simply claim that there is more to reality than we previously thought. Both are true statements. I simply choose the former.

I am not saying that your statements are abput whether or not a multi-verse exists. You had suggested that there exists something outside of reality. I said that this would be make-believe.

You then offerred ideas of extra dimensions and multi-verses. I understand that you were not using them to assert the truth of these things, but ypu were using them to support the notion that something exists beyond reality that is not make-believe. I am saying if they objectively exist then they are a part of reality, not beyond reality. I am not ignoring any evidence.

Our conception of reality is abstract. It encapsulates all objective existence. To exist outside of this means to not exist objectively.

 

[PureX]

At best, that might mean that some atheists engage in religious practices. That appears true enough.
It doesn't make atheism a religion. Much the same as 'theism' is not a religion.

You're ignoring the basic point that atheist is a theological position. And a religion is a collection of ideals and behaviors that help people express and maintain their theological position.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Perhaps you were turned around somewhere. It can happen especially with lengthy posts back and forth.

This is where that particular point started to flesh itself out.






As you can see the words "I know" are not found.

In fact given the three example sentences:

1) I believe X is;
2) X is;
3) I know X is.

We were specifically talking about forms 1 and 2. Your assertion was that 2 and 3 were the same. My assertion was that 1 and 2 were the same. There is no straw man.

I think that this problem only demonstrates the liberties we take in our use of the language. I simply believe that if I make the claim/assertion that "You don't have a wife, child, or job", that that claim is different than asserting "I believe/think that you don't have a wife, child, or job". Whether "I know" is stated or not in the first is irrelevant, since it is implicitly stated, and explicitly understood. To make the claim that something is not true, it is assumed that you must have knowledge of what is true about something. In the latter, there is no implicit assertion of certainty. There is no assumption of certainty or truth. Therefore the former is a truth and knowledge claim(requiring evidence), and the latter is not. I don't know of any other way to illustrate this. By your logic,

I believe that that I was probed by an Alien
The mark I have is from the probe
I know that I was probed by an Alien

I think you can see the problem with the consistency of this logic, and how it is flawed. You are simply affirming the consequent, which makes your conclusion non-sequitur. I also asserted that premises 1 and 2 were the same, not 2 and 3. Your straw man was not in your premises(although faulty), but in misstating my comments. The statement I deposited was the difference between "I know I can fix...", and "I believe I can fix...", and the one you deposited, was the difference between "I can fix...", and "I believe I can fix..". Since it was not the comparison I stated, it is a straw man.

I'm still not sure of the point I was making about conceptual things not being physical things. Senior moment.

 

[`mud]

hey Truly.....you think that 69 is bad, wait till you're 80 !
There's another poster older, but I can't remember his name !
What to hell was the OP ??

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I am not saying that your statements are abput whether or not a multi-verse exists. You had suggested that there exists something outside of reality. I said that this would be make-believe.

You then offerred ideas of extra dimensions and multi-verses. I understand that you were not using them to assert the truth of these things, but ypu were using them to support the notion that something exists beyond reality that is not make-believe. I am saying if they objectively exist then they are a part of reality, not beyond reality. I am not ignoring any evidence.

Our conception of reality is abstract. It encapsulates all objective existence. To exist outside of this means to not exist objectively.

I think you missed the point entirely. As far as thinking that the Multiverses and extra-dimensions are only make-believe, you may be absolutely right. I simply believe in the consistency of evidence from many different academic sources. However, my point was that you can't make a truth/knowledge claim("I know that No Gods Exists anywhere"), unless you can check off all other possibilities, to increase your level of certainty. All God claims are extraordinary claims. All truth/knowledge claims about God, are unfalsifiable and impossible to support with evidence. I only used the Multiverse and Extra-Dimensions to illustrate just how limited in human understanding is, to make any knowledge claims about a God(s).

I am not using the evidence for the existence of the Multiverse or Extra-Dimensions, as evidence for their existence. The Multiverse or other dimensions all have different properties than our universe. Therefore, they can't be a part of our Universe. Since we can't travel to these realities, or so far can't observe them, they can't be a part of our reality either. But who knows for certain, certainly not me?

 

[Truly Enlightened]

hey Truly.....you think that 69 is bad, wait till you're 80 !
There's another poster older, but I can't remember his name !
What to hell was the OP ??

I've been told that regular naps can stop the process of ageing. Especially, when you take them while driving.

 

[tas8831]

A bit late to the party, forgive me...

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

Ok, I think that some of the initial replies lost that disclaimer due to the length of your post(?).

I have met some atheists that I felt were obnoxious and unnecessarily aggressive. Then, I've met a lot more religious people that were the same (or worse).

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

See above. I think those few atheists that are like what you describe are typically 'new' atheists (just deducing/speculating from experience) - people that have 'seen the light' and are now angry that they were 'deceived' all those years.

A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

The God of Abraham comes to mind.

*snipped most of your post since I generally agree with your sentiments*

I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

I can see that - one of the contributing factors to my rejection of religion was the arrogance and self-absorption of religious zealots.

 

[Curious George]

I think that this problem only demonstrates the liberties we take in our use of the language. I simply believe that if I make the claim/assertion that "You don't have a wife, child, or job", that that claim is different than asserting "I believe/think that you don't have a wife, child, or job". Whether "I know" is stated or not in the first is irrelevant, since it is implicitly stated, and explicitly understood. To make the claim that something is not true, it is assumed that you must have knowledge of what is true about something. In the latter, there is no implicit assertion of certainty. There is no assumption of certainty or truth. Therefore the former is a truth and knowledge claim(requiring evidence), and the latter is not. I don't know of any other way to illustrate this. By your logic,

I believe that that I was probed by an Alien
The mark I have is from the probe
I know that I was probed by an Alien

I think you can see the problem with the consistency of this logic, and how it is flawed. You are simply affirming the consequent, which makes your conclusion non-sequitur. I also asserted that premises 1 and 2 were the same, not 2 and 3. Your straw man was not in your premises(although faulty), but in misstating my comments. The statement I deposited was the difference between "I know I can fix...", and "I believe I can fix...", and the one you deposited, was the difference between "I can fix...", and "I believe I can fix..". Since it was not the comparison I stated, it is a straw man.

You actually said this:

I would strongly suggest that at a job interview for an auto-mechanic, that you don't say that you believe you can repair the engine.

Taken in conjunction with ypur previpus statements where you distinguish the claim "you have no wife" with "I believe ypu have no wife"

I inferred that you were suggesting that I say "I can fix the engine." You never contrasted the I believe x vs I know x because our discussion was whether saying something without declaring it was a belief was the same as declaring knowledge.

 

[Curious George]

I think you missed the point entirely. As far as thinking that the Multiverses and extra-dimensions are only make-believe, you may be absolutely right. I simply believe in the consistency of evidence from many different academic sources. However, my point was that you can't make a truth/knowledge claim("I know that No Gods Exists anywhere"), unless you can check off all other possibilities, to increase your level of certainty. All God claims are extraordinary claims. All truth/knowledge claims about God, are unfalsifiable and impossible to support with evidence. I only used the Multiverse and Extra-Dimensions to illustrate just how limited in human understanding is, to make any knowledge claims about a God(s).

I am not using the evidence for the existence of the Multiverse or Extra-Dimensions, as evidence for their existence. The Multiverse or other dimensions all have different properties than our universe. Therefore, they can't be a part of our Universe. Since we can't travel to these realities, or so far can't observe them, they can't be a part of our reality either. But who knows for certain, certainly not me?

Yes but outside our universe does not entail outside our reality. I think there is a miscommunication that comes down to how we are defining reality.

 

[`mud]

hey Truly
Ahhh...reality...that entity that can touched, smelled, or tasted.
Can we sense the spirit within us, can we know that it is there?
What can be beyond our universe, what does the Cosmos hide.
The dimensions outside of our present realities are invisible.
There might not be any directions there, or spirits, or beginnings,
and even then, no endings.

 

[`mud]

hey Truly and George,
really good posting, from the two of you.
We need more like this, still searching for the answer.
Good luck with your search !

 

[Truly Enlightened]

You actually said this:

Taken in conjunction with ypur previpus statements where you distinguish the claim "you have no wife" with "I believe ypu have no wife"

I inferred that you were suggesting that I say "I can fix the engine." You never contrasted the I believe x vs I know x because our discussion was whether saying something without declaring it was a belief was the same as declaring knowledge.

In the proper context, my statement was:

I would strongly suggest that at a job interview for an auto-mechanic, that you don't say that you believe you can repair the engine. You will soon realize that there is a big difference in making a belief claim, and making a knowledge claim.

Your specific response was partly:

And I wpuld suggest that you do mot merely proclaim that you know you can fix a engine. As you will soon discover there is a difference between stating you know something and actually knowing something.

.

If you don't know something, then why would you state that you do? This response suggest that a person is knowingly lying. This has nothing to do with the differences I was illustrating. But, I agree with your straw man. You should not lie at any job interview, or claim knowledge that you don't have. My point was to illustrate that there was a "meaningful difference" between a knowledge claim(not a lie), and a belief claim. Especially at a job interview. I also stated that all claims that something is not true, assumes that the person knows what is true(knowledge claim). This is implicit in the claim.

I inferred that you were suggesting that I say "I can fix the engine." You never contrasted the I believe x vs I know x because our discussion was whether saying something without declaring it was a belief was the same as declaring knowledge.

Now you are simply changing the goal posts. I'm sure that you are aware that you don't have to specifically state the words "believe" or "know", for a statement to be a belief or knowledge statement. I sincerely hope that this is not your argument. That would be silly. Please look up the meaning of the words explicit, implied, and implicit. Can you see how you can apply their meanings to the two types of claims? Do you think that Trump is making a knowledge claim of a belief claim, when he talks about the invisible F35 Stealth Fighter? And this is the person with access to our nuclear launch codes. Frightening

I think that you are just spinning semantics to fit. If you want to believe that there is no meaningful difference between a belief assertion, and a knowledge assertion, then we will just have to agree to disagree. I don't wish to go down this semantic slippery slope, of positive and negative truth clams, multiple definitions, subjectivity and objectivity, or half truths. I simply think that if you don't have to ask the question, "How do you know?", is intuitive enough for me. However, there was one area that you kind of avoided answering. I asked you to expand on the idea that New Atheists(only one you mentioned, Flew) are describing New Atheism, "as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods". Where is this found in the new definition?

What does psychological state mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary) .

Specifically, what is the nature of this state? Is it good, treatable, bad, delusional, temporary, dysfunctional, or enlightened? Otherwise, others might imply that any disbelief in a God(s), is just a psychological/mental state, that may need treatment. I think in the past, many people actually believed that Atheism itself was a mental condition. I doubt if many New Atheists would agree with you, or Flew's new definition of Atheism. But I doubt many of them would even care.

 

[Curious George]

In the proper context, my statement was:



Your specific response was partly:

.

If you don't know something, then why would you state that you do? This response suggest that a person is knowingly lying. This has nothing to do with the differences I was illustrating. But, I agree with your straw man. You should not lie at any job interview, or claim knowledge that you don't have. My point was to illustrate that there was a "meaningful difference" between a knowledge claim(not a lie), and a belief claim. Especially at a job interview. I also stated that all claims that something is not true, assumes that the person knows what is true(knowledge claim). This is implicit in the claim.



Now you are simply changing the goal posts. I'm sure that you are aware that you don't have to specifically state the words "believe" or "know", for a statement to be a belief or knowledge statement. I sincerely hope that this is not your argument. That would be silly. Please look up the meaning of the words explicit, implied, and implicit. Can you see how you can apply their meanings to the two types of claims? Do you think that Trump is making a knowledge claim of a belief claim, when he talks about the invisible F35 Stealth Fighter? And this is the person with access to our nuclear launch codes. Frightening

I can understand why you would think I was addressing statements that use "I know" if this was the only context. The discussion was about the form "I believe x is y" contrasted with the form "x is y." We accuse someone of lying when we believe there is an intent to deceive. I am not discussing any statements with an intent to deceive.

I think that you are just spinning semantics to fit. If you want to believe that there is no meaningful difference between a belief assertion, and a knowledge assertion, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

*sigh* are we at that point again? I actually thought we were make progress this time. I am content to agree to disagree again, sure.

I don't wish to go down this semantic slippery slope, of positive and negative truth clams, multiple definitions, subjectivity and objectivity, or half truths. I simply think that if you don't have to ask the question, "How do you know?", is intuitive enough for me. However, there was one area that you kind of avoided answering. I asked you to expand on the idea that New Atheists(only one you mentioned, Flew) are describing New Atheism, "as the psychological state of lacking belief of gods". Where is this found in the new definition?

What does psychological state mean? definition, meaning and pronunciation (Free English Language Dictionary) .

Specifically, what is the nature of this state? Is it good, treatable, bad, delusional, temporary, dysfunctional, or enlightened?

I thought you wanted to agree to disagree on that pages ago.

I gave you the quote where Flew suggests that we define atheism negatively instead of positively. The consequence of defining atheism like this makes atheism a psychological state. That is, it describes a state of mind (not believing) as opposed to a belief in a particular proposition. It is not good or bad treatable or untreatable. It is the same as saying someone is awake or asleep. It is a description of them.

Otherwise, others might imply that any disbelief in a God(s), is just a psychological/mental state, that may need treatment. I think in the past, many people actually believed that Atheism itself was a mental condition. I doubt if many New Atheists would agree with you, or Flew's new definition of Atheism. But I doubt many of them would even care.

I suppose many think of atheism this way. They believe that atheists need to be enlightened or shown the way and then they will believe. Perhaps this is a good reason why we should define atheism positively. I would prefer that definition. So, I am probably the wrong person to defend that definition. You could start a thread on the topic, there are plenty of atheists here who prefer the lack of belief definition.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Yes but outside our universe does not entail outside our reality. I think there is a miscommunication that comes down to how we are defining reality.

I'm afraid that the Universe is the only reality we are aware of. But you are correct, reality encompasses everything that was, is, or will be. Everything that we know, don't know, can know, or will know. It includes all dimensions, non-dimensions, the multiverse, time, negative time, and anything that I just can't think of at the moment. But in the general sense, reality is limited to our perception of all things that exist with substance. All things outside of this reality are those things that we are not aware of.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

I can understand why you would think I was addressing statements that use "I know" if this was the only context. The discussion was about the form "I believe x is y" contrasted with the form "x is y." We accuse someone of lying when we believe there is an intent to deceive. I am not discussing any statements with an intent to deceive.

*sigh* are we at that point again? I actually thought we were make progress this time. I am content to agree to disagree again, sure.

I thought you wanted to agree to disagree on that pages ago.

I gave you the quote where Flew suggests that we define atheism negatively instead of positively. The consequence of defining atheism like this makes atheism a psychological state. That is, it describes a state of mind (not believing) as opposed to a belief in a particular proposition. It is not good or bad treatable or untreatable. It is the same as saying someone is awake or asleep. It is a description of them.

I suppose many think of atheism this way. They believe that atheists need to be enlightened or shown the way and then they will believe. Perhaps this is a good reason why we should define atheism positively. I would prefer that definition. So, I am probably the wrong person to defend that definition. You could start a thread on the topic, there are plenty of atheists here who prefer the lack of belief definition.

I take it back. I don't want to know. You are correct. Let's simply agree to disagree. I'm not masochistic enough for this level of obfuscation and semantics gymnastics. It has truly been enlightening.

 

[`mud]

Boy...you people can't make a coin land on any face can you,
it always lands on it's edge.

 

[Truly Enlightened]

Boy...you people can't make a coin land on any face can you,
it always lands on it's edge.

I think that there are those who argue in search of answer, and there are those that only argue to go the distance. Being married for over 35 years, I assure you that I know the difference. One way you may learn something. The other way, you will only learn that you should never have argued in the first place.

 

[ecco]

The other way, you will only learn that you should never have argued in the first place.

And yet you do.

 

[questfortruth]

I realize atheism doesn't claim to be a religion. And I'm only referring to those atheists who feel they must convert God-believers to atheism, or else these God-believers will destroy civilization.

There is an intensity of emotion, an anger, an urgency in these atheists' interactions that remind me of fundamentalist religious adherents. As if the same religious impulses and zeal are operational in both.

That said, I agree that it has bad effects on society when people reject provable knowledge about the physical universe obtained via the scientific method, especially when large groups do so.

Also, the kind of God you believe in matters. A God who commits genocide on innocents, and who commands angels and humans to do likewise; belief in this kind of God will obviously have bad consequences for society. Also, a God who judges small transgressions by torture and execution. Also, a God who promotes an infer role in society for women, for example. Or promotes slavery.

Also, merely claiming that there is intelligent design without demonstrating at least a possible mechanism that the intelligent designer could interact with the physical atoms and molecules to implement his/her design; this is not science, nor is it responsible. For example, you might suppose that the intelligent designer fiddles around with the motions of atoms. But would he/she violate the laws of physics in doing so? There is no known mechanism for this fiddling. And how could anyone, even a super-intellect, possibly know the consequences of doing such a thing? The biochemical systems of life are simply too complex for this kind of predictive power. And why would God even want to micromanage the universe at the atomic level anyway?

Also, claiming that God provides a moral basis for society is false. Especially when the holy books of the revealed religions and revealed spiritual paths are fiction, and clearly and provably contradict science, archaeology, document analysis, and logic.

This world contains pain and suffering. Claiming that God is good but created bad is illogical. Claiming that God is good but he/she allowed for pain and suffering implies God is not so good after all. And claiming that people being tortured to death and animals eating each other alive is desirable for a higher good is an offensive idea. And claiming that God is both good and bad means God is not God.

So within these constraints, atheists should allow for belief in God. But note that such a God has no effect whatsoever on the physical world at all, and his/her influence can only enter into our minds to bring goodness and justice and beauty and joy and peace. Why should anyone object to a God like that?

I would prefer if atheists would limit their critiques of belief in God to critiques of the specific ideas such as I've outlined above. And that they would be calm and rational and polite in their demeanor. I was needlessly a Christian for 30 years because I was offended by the rage of atheists, and so, rejected their views out of hand.

First, atheism talks about gods {the word ``god'' is being used by atheists},
and second, atheism is unscientific:

{because all areas of human knowledge with
God being definition of latter, cry out loud for His glorious return; e.g., there is still
"God of the gaps''
and the gaps (wonders) are proven to be not removable}

Therefore, atheism is
a pseudo-religion. Atheism and theism have nothing in common. Therefore, they
are not options of choice. The choice can only be free. But the choice in
favor of the hell is not a choice, but the harmful craziness. And the atheist
knows that God exists. Can a false and feigned choice be a real choice?