Theists: Atheism is a Religion?

[PureX]

Lacking a belief in god(s) is actually a perfectly normal, everyday definition of atheism (unlike yours): atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Defining something by what it's NOT is not defining something. And the fact that you keep insisting that it is, and that I am supposed to accept such irrational nonsense simply because you keep repeating it, is even more nonsensical. And the fact that you have to hold onto and tout this nonsense only serves to exemplify the unsound thinking that's generating it.

Look, if, before the formulation and testing of general relativity, somebody had suggested that space and time were aspects of the same thing and that space-time could curve, it would have been perfectly rational to disbelieve it on the basis that there was no evidence that this was the case. Later, when both a rational argument and evidence was available, it was rational to accept it.

Thus, you rationalize that gods do not exist (because you have not been given, nor have you found, sufficient evidence for them existing), otherwise, you would simply be an agnostic, claiming not to be able to know of the nature or existence of any gods. (Note that you demand objective physical evidence for a subjective metaphysical phenomena, which virtually guarantees that such evidence could never occur). But you're not claiming not to know. You're claiming that your not knowing means that you 'logically, then' must presume that they don't exist. And you could not make this presumption without also assuming that if they did exist, YOU would be able to identify the evidence for it, and it would be convincing. These are the IL-logical assumptions that nearly all atheists are making and then trying desperately to avoid admitting to. It's why they keep insisting on spewing this irrational and nonsensical definition of atheism as "unbelief".

 

[PureX]

Atheism very narrowly defines belief systems that are based on physics.

No it doesn't. Many modern atheists are materialists who believe that reality is defined solely by physicality, but that does not define atheism as a whole, because there are many other atheists (probably the majority of them) that reject the assertion of the existence of gods based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL observations and experiences, and not on a lack of physical proof.

 

[ratiocinator]

Lacking a belief in god(s) is actually a perfectly normal, everyday definition of atheism (unlike yours): atheism - Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Defining something by what it's NOT is not defining something. And the fact that you keep insisting that it is, and that I am supposed to accept such irrational nonsense simply because you keep repeating it, is even more nonsensical. And the fact that you have to hold onto and tout this nonsense only serves to exemplify the unsound thinking that's generating it.

This is beyond silly. Is this even a serious comment?

Firstly, take it up with the writers of Oxford Dictionaries (not to mention Collins, Merriam-Webster, and numerous other sources, as opposed to just you, for your defintion). Secondly, it isn't defined by what it's not, it's defined as the absences of something specific. You know, like "alcohol-free", or "vacuum".

Thus, you rationalize that gods do not exist (because you have not been given, nor have you found, sufficient evidence for them existing), otherwise, you would simply be an agnostic, claiming not to be able to know of the nature or existence of any gods.

Given no reason to take some proposition seriously, it is both rational and normal not to take it seriously. Everybody does this all the time with all sorts of baseless claims.

(Note that you demand objective physical evidence for a subjective metaphysical phenomena, which virtually guarantees that such evidence could never occur)

I never mentioned physical evidence. You do like your straw men, don't you?

But you're not claiming not to know. You're claiming that your not knowing means that you 'logically, then' must presume that they don't exist. And you could not make this presumption without also assuming that if they did exist, YOU would be able to identify the evidence for it, and it would be convincing.

You seem to be struggling with a very, very simple idea. I don't know that there are no gods, just as I don't know that the universe isn't a simulation, or that it wasn't created by the equivalent of a spotty teenager, called Kevin, with a new physics set, in some meta-universe. Neither do I think that there would necessarily be any evidence of any of those things if they were true. However, since I have no reason to take any of the ideas seriously, I don't believe that any of them are true.

This really isn't complicated.

 

[PureX]

This is beyond silly. Is this even a serious comment?

Firstly, take it up with the writers of Oxford Dictionaries (not to mention Collins, Merriam-Webster, and numerous other sources, as opposed to just you, for your defintion). Secondly, it isn't defined by what it's not, it's defined as the absences of something specific. You know, like "alcohol-free", or "vacuum".

When all you have to validate your position is a dictionary, you either don't have much of a position, or you don't have much of an understanding of it. "Alcohol-free" defines nothing in and of itself. It has to be attached to SOMETHING to define something. And a "vacuum" defines an existential ideal that exists only as an existential ideal. It does not exist is an actual "lack of everything".

Given no reason to take some proposition seriously, it is both rational and normal not to take it seriously. Everybody does this all the time with all sorts of baseless claims.

See, this is where you slide off the rails. Not being able to legitimize the absurd presumption that if gods did exist, you would be able to ascertain, recognize, and properly assess the evidence of such existence, you have to slide into the mud-slinging of what should and shouldn't be "taken seriously", and throw blind assertions about other people's "baseless claims", because you can't defend your own position as anything other than a blind bias.

I don't know that there are no gods, just as I don't know that the universe isn't a simulation, or that it wasn't created by the equivalent of a spotty teenager, called Kevin, with a new physics set, in some meta-universe. Neither do I think that there would necessarily be any evidence of any of those things if they were true. However, since I have no reason to take any of the ideas seriously, I don't believe that any of them are true.

This really isn't complicated.

You have no reason, I agree, and therefor no defense. All you have is a blind bias that you assert, but cannot defend, the same as any theist does. That's the fatal flaw of atheism ... as opposed to simply remaining agnostic about the theist's proposition of the existence of gods. And that's why so many atheists keep insisting that they're just agnostic, and hiding behind this phony "unbelief" nonsense when they clearly do believe, in spite of their proclaimed agnosticism, that if gods existed, they would somehow know it, and since they don't know it, gods don't exist. It's an irrational belief, but there it is, from the same people who are always telling themselves and anyone who will listen how rational they all are. Yet if they were truly rational, they would not be atheists, they would be agnostics.

 

[lukethethird]

No it doesn't. Many modern atheists are materialists who believe that reality is defined solely by physicality, but that does not define atheism as a whole, because there are many other atheists (probably the majority of them) that reject the assertion of the existence of gods based on CIRCUMSTANTIAL observations and experiences, and not on a lack of physical proof.

You're reading way too much into atheism. Since religion, superstition, supernatural, and theism are synonymous, the rejection of such silly beliefs is just plain sensible for the non believer.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not hard to do your own research...

Church of Satan History: Modern Prometheus | Church of Satan

By the way, why do you expect that I would be able to justify the choices of a group that I am not a part of?

Religion means either belief in a god or gods, or could be something believed in, in a religious manner.

Note how vague you are getting? You are actually saying that religion basically is only defined by if one believes in a god or gods, which is one of the definitions.
•
In other words you need to define theism, and religion, to be arguing this. If atheistic satanism is a religion, obviously is in some manner, then atheism either can be, or often is, a religion. And, I commented my opinion on that.

 

[ratiocinator]

When all you have to validate your position is a dictionary, you either don't have much of a position, or you don't have much of an understanding of it. "Alcohol-free" defines nothing in and of itself. It has to be attached to SOMETHING to define something. And a "vacuum" defines an existential ideal that exists only as an existential ideal. It does not exist is an actual "lack of everything".

We, or rather you, were talking about what atheism means. If you want to know how a word is generally used in the language, then there's nothing wrong with a dictionary.

It also happens to be my position - despite your desperate straw man production line.

The somethings that atheism is defined in reference to are the many, many god-stories.

See, this is where you slide off the rails. Not being able to legitimize the absurd presumption that if gods did exist, you would be able to ascertain, recognize, and properly assess the evidence of such existence, you have to slide into the mud-slinging of what should and shouldn't be "taken seriously", and throw blind assertions about other people's "baseless claims", because you can't defend your own position as anything other than a blind bias.

No matter how many times you set up and ritually slaughter your straw man, it will still have nothing to do with what I and many other atheists believe.

You have no reason, I agree, and therefor no defense. All you have is a blind bias that you assert, but cannot defend, the same as any theist does. That's the fatal flaw of atheism ... as opposed to simply remaining agnostic about the theist's proposition of the existence of gods.

So, do you believe that I have an invisible, supernatural dragon in my garage? Are you going to remain agnostic about it, because you can't prove (know) that I'm wrong?

And that's why so many atheists keep insisting that they're just agnostic, and hiding behind this phony "unbelief" nonsense when they clearly do believe, in spite of their proclaimed agnosticism, that if gods existed, they would somehow know it, and since they don't know it, gods don't exist.

Back to straw man construction and destruction.

It's an irrational belief, but there it is, from the same people who are always telling themselves and anyone who will listen how rational they all are. Yet if they were truly rational, they would not be atheists, they would be agnostics.

Your straw man version would be irrational but atheism is just taking the philosophical burden of proof seriously. The alternative is to remain agnostic with respect to all unsupported claims, including every single god, ancient and modern, ghosts, pixies, vampires, alien abductions, the Loch Ness monster, and my invisible dragon.

 

[Tiberius]

Neither would I. But believing that it's the ONLY possible method of gaining truth, is. Just consider how many theists would say the exact same thing about 'divine revelation'. And yet there are a significant number of atheists that believe this, and quite adamantly, too. They blindly presume that "how the universe works" is the sum total of the truth of existence. Just as some theists believe that their God is the sum total of the 'truth of existence'.

Can you give me an example of a different tool that has been used to find an objective truth about the universe? Please give me the tool used and the truth that was found with it.

 

[Tiberius]

Religion means either belief in a god or gods, or could be something believed in, in a religious manner.

Could be something believed in, in a religious manner? Like a God, for example? Of course, you go on to accuse me of being vague, yet you use here the vague phrase "in a religious manner" to leave yourself plenty of wriggle room to include atheism as a religion...

Note how vague you are getting? You are actually saying that religion basically is only defined by if one believes in a god or gods, which is one of the definitions.

And it seems that you are trying to be circular about it, claiming atheism is a religion because atheism is a belief held religiously.

In other words you need to define theism, and religion, to be arguing this. If atheistic satanism is a religion, obviously is in some manner, then atheism either can be, or often is, a religion. And, I commented my opinion on that.

Avoiding colloquial uses of "religion", such as saying a religious fervour for football (no one seriously considers football fanaticism to be a religion), a religion requires the belief in a deity of some description.

The only way you can argue that atheism is a religion is to expand the definition of atheism so far that it would also include being a Star Wars fan.

 

[lukethethird]

Religion means either belief in a god or gods, or could be something believed in, in a religious manner.

Note how vague you are getting? You are actually saying that religion basically is only defined by if one believes in a god or gods, which is one of the definitions.
•
In other words you need to define theism, and religion, to be arguing this. If atheistic satanism is a religion, obviously is in some manner, then atheism either can be, or often is, a religion. And, I commented my opinion on that.

Believers don't understand how trivial the god notion is for non believers, the supernatural might make for interesting stories but that's as far as it goes for the non believer. The believer wants to play a role in the big story by practicing the rituals and singing hymns of praise to the God character in The Bible. The non believers can only shake their heads and wonder WT...is going on?

 

[Desert Snake]

Could be something believed in, in a religious manner? Like a God, for example? Of course, you go on to accuse me of being vague, yet you use here the vague phrase "in a religious manner" to leave yourself plenty of wriggle room to include atheism as a religion...



And it seems that you are trying to be circular about it, claiming atheism is a religion because atheism is a belief held religiously.



Avoiding colloquial uses of "religion", such as saying a religious fervour for football (no one seriously considers football fanaticism to be a religion), a religion requires the belief in a deity of some description.

The only way you can argue that atheism is a religion is to expand the definition of atheism so far that it would also include being a Star Wars fan.

Again, you need to define theism, then, since that is the definition, you are going by. Need to define god or gods, as well.

For example a religion construct that I have configured, does not have a deity that fits the common idea or 'definition' of deity, in some definitions of theism. Again it's just vague.

Even the common definitions can be abstract, or not a general rule

Believers don't understand how trivial the god notion is for non believers, the supernatural might make for interesting stories but that's as far as it goes for the non believer. The believer wants to play a role in the big story by practicing the rituals and singing hymns of praise to the God character in The Bible. The non believers can only shake their heads and wonder WT...is going on?

^

 

[lukethethird]

Again, you need to define theism, then, since that is the definition, you are going by. Need to define god or gods, as well.

For example a religion construct that I have configured, does not have a deity that fits the common idea or 'definition' of deity, in some definitions of theism. Again it's just vague.

Even the common definitions can be abstract, or not a general rule

^

Who could be bothered to define theism, if someone is that interested they could look it up in the dictionary.

 

[Desert Snake]

Who could be bothered to define theism, if someone is that interested they could look it up in the dictionary.

Great. Is that your definition for religion?

 

[lukethethird]

Great. Is that your definition for religion?

Again, we have dictionaries for that too.

 

[Tiberius]

Again, you need to define theism, then, since that is the definition, you are going by. Need to define god or gods, as well.

For example a religion construct that I have configured, does not have a deity that fits the common idea or 'definition' of deity, in some definitions of theism. Again it's just vague.

Even the common definitions can be abstract, or not a general rule

^

Theism: A belief in a supernatural entity, often worshipped as a god or goddess.

Religion: A systematic theistic belief, centered around a God or gods, and structured with core concepts and beliefs, often accompanied by holy texts, a hierarchical structure of holy people, rituals, guidelines for living a suitable lifestyle and other customs.

God: A powerful entity, usually supernatural, often credited with amazing feats such as the creation of the world, etc.

Atheism: A lack of belief in a supernatural entity, a lack of theistic beliefs.

How's that?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You're reading way too much into atheism. Since religion, superstition, supernatural, and theism are synonymous, the rejection of such silly beliefs is just plain sensible for the non believer.

Those terms aren't synonymous.

 

[PureX]

Can you give me an example of a different tool that has been used to find an objective truth about the universe? Please give me the tool used and the truth that was found with it.

"Objective truth" is a mythical bias that cannot be achieved by any human so long as they remain human. Because it is our humanness that defines everything we can ever claim to know as being "subjective" rather than "objective". We are the subjects of that subjectivism. Logically, there is no such thing as "objective truth" because the truth is simply 'what is'. And that 'what is' includes our inevitably subjective understanding and experience of what it is (of the truth). So that the only truth we will ever know is both subject to, and relative to, our human condition. Truth for we humans will forever remain both relative, and subjective so long as we remain humans, and not all-knowing gods.

The "objective truth" that you imagine yourself pursuing is an illogical, mythical, bias. The only truth science can logically pursue, or gain, is relative physical functionality. That is a part of the 'the truth', to be sure. But so is our human propensity for believing in gods. And both of these endeavors have the capacity to be very helpful to us, which is why we continue to engage in them. But being a scientist, logically, and functionally, is no more 'truthful' than being a priest or shaman. And debating which is more helpful to us is likewise a relative and subjective endeavor.

Perhaps what we should all be seeking, here, is honesty, and humility, rather than these delusions of "objective truth".

 

[ratiocinator]

The "objective truth" that you imagine yourself pursuing is an illogical, mythical, bias. The only truth science can logically pursue, or gain, is relative physical functionality. That is a part of the 'the truth', to be sure. But so is our human propensity for believing in gods. And both of these endeavors have the capacity to be very helpful to us, which is why we continue to engage in them. But being a scientist, logically, and functionally, is no more 'truthful' than being a priest or shaman.

Nonsense. Science reveals facts about the world that are true regardless of people's beliefs about them. For example, you don't have to accept quantum mechanics to use the device you are reading this one (you don't have to search far to find somebody on the internet who doesn't accept it), despite the fact that it was used to produce it. Therefore, science offers truths that are of a totally different order to anything a priest or a shaman will tell you (which you may find personally and subjectively 'useful' but is never going to 'work' for everybody).

Science is intersubjectively verifiable - which is a perfectly good way of defining objectivity:

My use of the terms ‘objective’ and ‘subjective’ is not unlike Kant’s. He uses the word ‘objective’ to indicate that scientific knowledge should be justifiable, independently of anybody’s whim: a justification is ‘objective’ if in principle it can be tested and understood by anybody. ‘If something is valid’, he writes, ‘for anybody in possession of his reason, then its grounds are objective and sufficient.’

Now I hold that scientific theories are never fully justifiable or verifiable, but that they are nevertheless testable. I shall therefore say that the objectivity of scientific statements lies in the fact that they can be inter-subjectively tested.​

-- Karl Popper The Logic of Scientific Discovery​

 

[Tiberius]

"Objective truth" is a mythical bias that cannot be achieved by any human so long as they remain human. Because it is our humanness that defines everything we can ever claim to know as being "subjective" rather than "objective". We are the subjects of that subjectivism. Logically, there is no such thing as "objective truth" because the truth is simply 'what is'. And that 'what is' includes our inevitably subjective understanding and experience of what it is (of the truth). So that the only truth we will ever know is both subject to, and relative to, our human condition. Truth for we humans will forever remain both relative, and subjective so long as we remain humans, and not all-knowing gods.

The "objective truth" that you imagine yourself pursuing is an illogical, mythical, bias. The only truth science can logically pursue, or gain, is relative physical functionality. That is a part of the 'the truth', to be sure. But so is our human propensity for believing in gods. And both of these endeavors have the capacity to be very helpful to us, which is why we continue to engage in them. But being a scientist, logically, and functionally, is no more 'truthful' than being a priest or shaman. And debating which is more helpful to us is likewise a relative and subjective endeavor.

Perhaps what we should all be seeking, here, is honesty, and humility, rather than these delusions of "objective truth".

So you claim that there is no such thing as objective truth because we see everything through the "humanity filter" and thus it is all subjective and we can never achieve any kind of objectivity.

Even if I grant you this (which I don't), it still doesn't prove that there isn't a true objective reality there, it just proves that we can't find it.

In any case, since you seem to be determined to play these games of semantics rather than answer my question, let me rephrase my question for you.

Can you give me an example of a different tool that has been used to find an accurate and reliable truth about the universe? Please give me the tool used and the truth that was found with it.

 

[lukethethird]

Those terms aren't synonymous.

According to the dictionary they are, I checked before posting.