Isn’t Atheism a faith-based non-religion?

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

No, I allow for all forms of imaginary companions, not just the Jewish one. It's all epistemologically equal.

 

[Windwalker]

Oh come now. You didn't say 'same atheists believe ' you said 'Atheism believes'(which is actually an incoherent statement...) which is a blanket statement. Let's try not to be disingenuous with our goalposts shall we?

Somebody used the term nitpicky recently. Do you honestly believe I'm so dumb that I assume all atheists think alike? You shouldn't be so literal. But if you want to argue that point, tell me how Atheism does not think the natural world is all there is? Are they atheists who believe in the supernatural? If so, I stand corrected. Please educate me.

There is no 'atheist perspective'. An atheist may believe literally anything about anything, just so long as they lack belief in that one insignificant corner of the realm of almost infinite possibilities of superstition known as 'deities'.

Which is exactly what I said. Everything, no matter how diverse the beliefs may be have a fundamental absence of a theistic perspective. Therefore all beliefs, no matter what they are, have that as the underlying backdrop, invisible as they may be to them. The same applies to theism.

Does a lack of belief in leprechauns influence how I live my life or conduct myself in any meaningful way?

If you lived in a world were everyone else believed in them, your conduct would be different. Yes, it would affect how you conduct yourself in meaningful ways. It does now. You don't go around looking for pots of gold at the end of rainbows every time you see one in the sky. Your conduct is different than if you did believe.

Sure, being bogged down by any superstition will impede your ability to see reality clearly, but that says very little about how those that find such superstition insignificant and extraneous form their worldview.

First of all, not all religious beliefs are magical in nature, which is where superstitions would be a factor. I would hope you are more aware than that. But aside from that, to my point the fact that you don't operate looking for magical creatures, not stepping on cracks in the sidewalk, not making the sign of the cross every time you see a black cat in the road, the lack of all of those things in your life means you live your life differently than if you did. Your atheism lets you live as an atheist, not doing things that are part of that. And it goes a whole lot deeper than that.

An atheist can be anything from a Buddhist to a Satanist to one that thinks following the Bible is the best way to live, but see it as metaphorical.

I find the idea of being a Satanist a curious thing for someone who calls themselves an atheist. Satan is a mythological creature the opposite of God. If one doesn't believe in God, why believe in Satan? But then I suppose it could just be a symbolic way to give the middle finger to Christianity. But that to me is not really living out what Atheism means. That's still being married to religion, like calling yourself a divorcee all the rest of your life after a marriage ended.

But as far as the rest goes, sure, yes I'm all for reclaiming the baby of religion from the bathwater of mythic-literal beliefs. But those who do this, in my opinion, to call yourself an Atheist seems still fixed on what you're not rather than what you are. I think it's entirely possible to be an Atheist Christian, but that person should just say they are a Christian, and they happen to be atheist, incidentally. Wouldn't that be nice? I don't think Buddhists call themselves Atheists, even though they don't include God. They don't exclude it either.

Atheists can believe in ghosts, karma, luck, Bigfoot and Hillary.

That's interesting. So you believe in the supernatural, but just no God? Is this a pantheon of supernatural entities you believe in, but just no "Big Chief" guy in the sky type God running the show? Please explain. This is foreign to me.

Atheists can be fascists or pacifists, naturalists or supernaturalists, socialists or anarchists. For you to say lacking one very specific superstition meaningfully defines anything is nothing short of hubris.

Forgive, I didn't realize there were atheists who literally believe in supernatural beings, but just not one specifically. You'll need to clue me in some more here.

 

[Kirran]

No, I allow for all forms of imaginary companions, not just the Jewish one. It's all epistemologically equal.

An imaginary companion is an entity like us. God as reality itself is not an imaginary companion. You may well think it is a philosophically unjustifiable position, but to call it an imaginary companion is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what's being discussed.

 

[Windwalker]

I had this thought I want to share regarding understanding religious symbols as metaphor. I completely agree with this. Everything is metaphor, actually. Atheism itself is a metaphor about Ultimate Reality. As such, it's the same thing as Theism.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Somebody used the term nitpicky recently. Do you honestly believe I'm so dumb that I assume all atheists think alike? You shouldn't be so literal. But if you want to argue that point, tell me how Atheism does not think the natural world is all there is? .

I try not to deal in assumptions. Perhaps in the future you should say what you mean, rather than something categorically different. To me you are just some random name on a screen, and plenty of random names on screens say things even less intelligent than your patently false blanket statement.

As for what atheism thinks...well, it doesn't. Only people can do that.

Which is exactly what I said. Everything, no matter how diverse the beliefs may be have a fundamental absence of a theistic perspective. Therefore all beliefs, no matter what they are, have that as the underlying backdrop, invisible as they may be to them. The same applies to theism.

More hubris. We are not dealing with equal opposites, we are dealing with one candy in a box of 1000. To someone that doesn't eat candy, not one of those 1000 is relevant in any way. At best, the bag is a tripping hazard to be stepped over carefully.

If you lived in a world were everyone else believed in them, your conduct would be different. Yes, it would affect how you conduct yourself in meaningful ways. It does now. You don't go around looking for pots of gold at the end of rainbows every time you see one in the sky. Your conduct is different than if you did believe.

Thankfully, we don't live in a world where everyone believes in the same religion, or even any religion.

Again you ascribe undue importance to your religious beliefs and the religious beliefs of others. I have no such problem.

First of all, not all religious beliefs are magical in nature, which is where superstitions would be a factor. I would hope you are more aware than that.

Is that so? I certainly can't think of any religions that posit 0 claims to be taken on faith. Name one.

But aside from that, to my point the fact that you don't operate looking for magical creatures, not stepping on cracks in the sidewalk, not making the sign of the cross every time you see a black cat in the road, the lack of all of those things in your life means you live your life differently than if you did.

How do you know I don't? I'm not sure you understand what atheism means.

Your atheism lets you live as an atheist, not doing things that are part of that. And it goes a whole lot deeper than that.

No, it really doesn't.

I find the idea of being a Satanist a curious thing for someone who calls themselves an atheist. Satan is a mythological creature the opposite of God. If one doesn't believe in God, why believe in Satan? But then I suppose it could just be a symbolic way to give the middle finger to Christianity. But that to me is not really living out what Atheism means.

LOL. Ok, I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you about Satanism, nor would this be the place to do so if I were, but just lol.

That's interesting. So you believe in the supernatural, but just no God? Is this a pantheon of supernatural entities you believe in, but just no "Big Chief" guy in the sky type God running the show? Please explain. This is foreign to me.

No, I don't believe in any of those things, what are you talking about?

Forgive, I didn't realize there were atheists who literally believe in supernatural beings, but just not one specifically. You'll need to clue me in some more here.

Well there you have it. You definitely don't know what atheism means. It's really not hard, let me help.

An atheist is anyone that remains unconvinced of the existence of DEITIES. Are all supernatural occurrences deities? Are ghosts deities? Is a unicorn a deity?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

An imaginary companion is an entity like us. God as reality itself is not an imaginary companion. You may well think it is a philosophically unjustifiable position, but to call it an imaginary companion is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of what's being discussed.

Tell that to the billions of Christians and Muslims that speak to their companion everyday. A companion is one who travels with you. Is the Jew god not omnipresent?

There is nothing in the definition of 'companion' that states 'it must be an entity like us '. That's just you, making things up.

 

[Kirran]

Tell that to the billions of Christians and Muslims that speak to their companion everyday. A companion is one who travels with you. Is the Jew god not omnipresent?

There is nothing in the definition of 'companion' that states 'it must be an entity like us '. That's just you, making things up.

Well that would be one particular understanding of God that they'd be speaking to.

OK, I was unclear there - what I meant was that a 'companion' must be an entity, as we are entities. It must be an agent which can be alongside you. It can't be the existence within which you have your being and the true nature of your own self as undivided timeless consciousness.

If I may ask, and this may be the wrong place, are you LaVeyan Satanist?

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

So what?

So the concept of theism is the original thesis,
atheism is the antithesis.

The very word 'atheist' is derived from the original default standpoint historically speaking.
It is in recognition of both that I offer agnosticism as the default, logically speaking.

A good referee assumes neither side has preference, in order to be impartial.
If you consider one as the preferred position a priori to the logical analysis, that shows unreasonable bias.

 

[LuisDantas]

So the concept of theism is the original thesis,
atheism is the antithesis.

Quite on the contrary. Theism was named first because it had to be introduced, because it is not a natural, default state.

The very word 'atheist' is derived from the original default standpoint historically speaking.
It is in recognition of both that I offer agnosticism as the default, logically speaking.

Agnosticism isn't and can't be a default unless one takes the rather unrealistic premise that everyone was somehow instinctively aware of a deity concept that relates to belief.

 

[Kuzcotopia]

I'm not sure how to address your question, but is not what I was getting at. The evidence for a physical world existing is based on circular reasoning, and ultimately faith. This is also true with evidence for a spiritual world/existence. So, I see both positions resting (ultimately) on faith. I think it plausible for any person to have both faiths, but not necessarily at the same time.

Trust is to me as tricky of a word as faith. Faith has the connotation of religious faith, and is I think (and I believe most people think) the far more common usage of the term. Yet it has the denotation (or primary dictionary definition of): complete trust or confidence in someone or something

God/s is also a tricky word. If the term is revealed (and explained) through a comprehensive text, i.e doctrine, it likely has a systematic thought seeking to be consistent in the meaning of the word (God, or gods). Yet, dictionaries make it clear that lots of things observed in the physical world have connotation of god(s). Money as your god. Parents as your god. Rock gods. Athletic gods. I do not see these as supernatural claims, but claims that gods do exist, do influence people in supreme ways, and aren't entirely different than what is at heart of that which spiritual/religious texts are calling for believers to understand.

So an atheist has to maintain consistency in denying those gods. I believe none do, and instead are only going with connotation of particular set of gods. Or like perhaps all that have a positive belief in god(s), they are doubtful in relation to a particular set, and plausibly accepting of other gods. But given the stance that atheism is, it doesn't permit any positive belief of any god. IMO, that actually takes enormous faith to maintain that, but I honestly think it not actually occurring in most to all cases of atheists. Because of the fundamental faiths existing, chances are a conscious person is going to make something into their 'god.' Likely using other terminology. Yet, very likely claiming such thing(s) have profound and supreme influence on their life, daily activity. Quite possibly expressing pride in relation to such thing(s). Those may be abstract 'thing(s).' I think it entirely abstract given how consciousness actually works, but realize that is debatable, or at core of mind-body dilemma.

You're correct technically, but you can't equivocate.

I have a reasonable certainly that the physical world exists, and that I exist. We invented some logical axioms, which I accept. in genreal, most people tend to agree that the world exists. It's a set of claims with enough warrant and demonstrable phenomena for me to accept as most likely true.

There are also limits. You can claim that the sun won't be visible over the eastern horizon tomorrow morning, but you'd be wrong. The phenomena you observe will simply contradict that claim.

The spiritual-metaphysical based claims are ultimately personal. There is no way to verify or demonstrate any of your claims to anyone else, ever. This is a problem for me, because it's nothing but circular. . . The limits of rational thinking, untempered by any empirical common sense.

And with that set of claims, there are a absolutely no limits. You can claim that god told you anything, that god is anything, and justify almost any belief system. With faith, every spiritual claim is justified in itself, and consequently, any morality.

Also, BTW I am not following the stuff about the dictionary and rock gods. I think I get the semantics, but I don't understand what you're trying to say or why it's relevant.

I know you didn't want to answer my question in my last post, but I think you should try to stretch yourself and see if you can give me a genuine example. It may not be what you're getting at, but it's a two way conversation, and I'd like to address it.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

It can't be the existence within which you have your being and the true nature of your own self as undivided timeless consciousness.

Now again, in English?

If I may ask, and this may be the wrong place, are you LaVeyan Satanist?

Naw, those guys are soft. I am, in terms of LHP practice, Autodiabolic.

 

[Desert Snake]

paarsurrey said: ↑
They have faith in doubt. Right? Please


If one cannot provide positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then of course one's ascribes to a "Faith of Atheism" or "Religion of Atheism".
If one can provided positive evidence for "non-existence of G-d", then one can belong to a reasonable "Atheism" non-faith and non-religion.

Right? Please

Regards

Yes, basically. I agree with the thread title& premise.

 

[Segev Moran]

Then why say you are an Atheist? Why not say nothing instead?

What do you mean?

 

[Segev Moran]

"Faith is believing something to be true without sufficient evidence."
Now please provide one's positive evidence of "non-existence of G-d", of the same kind one demands from the believers to provide. Will one, please?
Regards

Dude, I Can't... No one can!
That's why I don't believe there is no God!!!
If I had an evidence there is no God i wouldn't be an atheist!!!

Can you present to me ONE evidence that fairies are not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that Santa are not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that unicorns are not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that dragons are not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that ghosts are not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that chupakabra is not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that aliens are not real?
Can you present to me ONE evidence that toy story is not a real story?

Now, Assuming you can't really "disprove" all these, do you think they are all true???

As you claim, you believe anything that someone tells you if you can't prove him wrong! that's a very dangerous way to lead your life.

So if you are indeed leading your life like that, Can you please hand me 5000$? I Believe I can make it 50M$ in two weeks! You can't really prove me wrong right? so you must know its the truth!

 

[Segev Moran]

"I Have faith that I don't have faith..."
That is exactly one's position.
One doesn't need to admit or declare it. Does one need to? Please
Regards

One cannot declare this!
Its a self contradicting statement...
Its like saying I'm so lucky i have no luck..
or Its like saying You know you don't know anything..

 

[Segev Moran]

The faith part would relate to the trust in the evidence being (currently) insufficient.
Odd that you say "I might be convinced." If sufficient evidence isn't the Reason, then what is, for the atheist to be convinced?



I'm guessing (some) other atheists would disagree with how you worded this.

Again, it is the "not enough evidence" where the faith/trust is placed. How that is actually working with regards to Reason is the ongoing debate.

I'll explain what I mean when I say I Might be convinced..
The fact that someone tells me the moon is orbiting earth, is not enough for me...
Even if this person will tell me that the moon is held by gravitational forces and explain to me all there is to know, I Still would like to see for myself...
I Will not trust someone's statement without studying the subject on my own.
How can I study it? I Go to museums, I Look at the evidence presented, I Read countless of books and dozens of idea that contradict the theory.
I Buy a telescope and look and the sky on my own.
I learn the mathematics behind the theory,
I try and find out as much as i can before i decided whether or not to believe something.
With theism, besides one's Word, you have no evidence what so ever..
There are no evidence to spirits or souls... at least not sufficient evidence.
I Can tell you that I Have a new drug that does wonders to cancer...
Will you use it based on my word? or will you do a research before you consider using it?
If i tell you the earth is flat (There is a Hugh community that actually believes that!), will you take my word for it? (And i assure you the number of evidence that supports this theory is quite big...unfortunately to those who believe it, it bad evidence )
Just go a read a bit on the Flat Earth Society... they have amazing site with endless of theories, calculations, experiments that support their theory..
I still don't find it convincing enough.

So when I say I might be convinced, its assuming that the "Quality" of the evidence will be such that there is no doubt that it is true.
That's in a nutshell is atheism.

A lot of people are atheists for the reason they just don't find religion and spirituality convincing enough thus they find evolution and cosmology to be truth... these people can usually be easily manipulated and abused by confusing theological questions that without proper understanding of the scientific knowledge we have, they can quickly think that the bible really do provide answers that science can't and probably never will.

 

[LuisDantas]

One interesting thing hinted by the OP is the conception of religion that guides it.

It is said that "Islam is a complete way of life", and it is probably fair to assume that to some measure many Muslims equate "religion" with such a "complete way of life".

By that measure, atheism, being an impediment and an adversary to Islam (which it proudly is), yet having neither means nor particular interest in being "a complete way of life" is not really a religion (one of the few Muslim understandings about atheism that is at all accurate).

However, odd as the idea is, atheism must also appear to be somehow "faith-based" at least sometimes to Muslims who are so repeatedly told that Islam is "the natural" belief of human beings and "supported by facts".

 

[Kirran]

Now again, in English?

That was put quite plainly, but if you have never read into this area at all there's no reason you'll know what it's on about. See this, as a mild mind-broadening exercise: http://nisargadatta.net/Ramana_Maharshi_David_Godman_1.html

Naw, those guys are soft. I am, in terms of LHP practice, Autodiabolic.

So Autiodiabolics are harder than LaVeyans? A Google search doesn't show me anything, so guessing by the name does Autiodiabolic practice see the individual self as the Devil?

 

[ArtieE]

So the concept of theism is the original thesis,
atheism is the antithesis.

In the beginning everybody were not theists. Then we started inventing various gods. After a while there were so many theists that we found it useful to have a name for people who are not theists. Atheists.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

That was put quite plainly, but if you have never read into this area at all there's no reason you'll know what it's on about. See this, as a mild mind-broadening exercise: http://nisargadatta.net/Ramana_Maharshi_David_Godman_1.html

Maybe in your head, but according to the rules of the English language what you wrote is grammatically incoherent.

So Autiodiabolics are harder than LaVeyans? A Google search doesn't show me anything, so guessing by the name does Autiodiabolic practice see the individual self as the Devil?

Strange, when I do it I get a full page of results.

Let me help
http://bfy.tw/8J1f