The trouble with atheism

Atheism is not a belief system. It doesn' t consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas that are used to provide guidance and stability in people' s lives. Atheism implies no further belief system. It implies no beliefs about politics, no philosophy, no beliefs about society, no beliefs about science, no beliefs about religion. If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

How many claim that mere theism, which is nothing more than a belief in the existence of at least one god, is all by itself a religion?

My take is this....

...if Atheists are human beings then there are bound to make mistakes. Just like Religious people.

There I said it....do they have large egos? Yup, they sure do. Just like other people.

The problem that I have with this, I’ve only watched the first episode so far I will watch the rest later but in general is trying to give rules and guidelines to being an Atheist. Just as with any idea or concept someone always want to control it and be the “leader” of the movement and be the face which just adds fuel to the fire, but how can you have rules and guidelines to being an Atheist when there are none?

Originally posted by ThePittman
but how can you have rules and guidelines to being an Atheist when there are none?

There is but one rule to being an atheist:

1) You do not affirm the existence of any deity.

-the end-

Originally posted by Ytse
There is but one rule to being an atheist:

1) You do not affirm the existence of any deity.

-the end-

Originally posted by Alfheim
What do you think of the views of this progam? This program is called The Trouble with Atheism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzLpx2nFTc0

I really don't like how Dawkins has been branded as the "radical" athiest. Honestly, he normally puts many conditions on his statements and in fact, in his "manefesto" of athiesm, conciedes that he can only claim to be scientifically agnostic about the idea of God, a statement many athiests would consider soft on God. The series that the clip is taken from was origionally going to be named something much more benign than "the root of evil", however, BBC, against Dawkins' wishes, named it such, understanding how much controversy it would create. Dawkins is willing to ask people questions to their face, but when you talk about fanatacism, he is way down on the list.

If you want more radical atheism, go look up some of the Marquis de Sade. Or even failing that, look up Sam Harris. He is a modern atheist that is promoting people being "conversationally intollorent" of religion.

Dawkins = scape goat whipping boy

and honestly, he is a REAL soft target for theists

Originally posted by Ytse
There is but one rule to being an atheist:

1) You do not affirm the existence of any deity.

-the end-

😉 that is also acceptable for agnosticism

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, there is a difference.

The religious people do kill because their Religion tells them to.
Communists don't kill because atheism tells them to. Atheism can't tell them, it is just a standard belief that there is no God. They kill because of Communism. And yes, one part of Communism is the Atheism, but, it is not atheism that said to do it.

Ok Christanity is a monothesitic belief system. Do you kill in the name of monotheism....well no because thats bad english but you do kill in the name of god.

Since Atheism is a major part of Communism and they are killing in order to preserve it they are killing in the name of atheism.

Originally posted by Bardock42

You don't see the difference? Honestly?

No im stupid and so is Rod Liddle. Or..maybe...just maybe I dont agree with you. I know its a hard concept to grasp.

Originally posted by Bardock42

And again, that's what you understand, there is an enormous difference between a general belief and a scientific theory.

So a being that created the universe is not a scientific concept?

Originally posted by Bardock42

The Big Bang is hundreds of times more likely, it actually has evidence speaking for itself. It is a theory, just like Gravity. Are you saying that believing in furry little man that always pull you to the center of the earth is no different to the theory of Gravity?

Wow who said anything about furry little men? From what I can remember Rod didnt say anything about that. I think he meant the concept of an intellignet creator. 🤨 Yeah if you put it that way it sounds stupid.

Again it just sounds like arrogance to me and thats exactly what Rod was talking about. I think im Agnostic and I think proof of God is just as good as proof as no God, but of course the atheists think they are right.

Originally posted by Bardock42

I think she is referring to atheism, just like theism not being a religion, but a description of a belief.

Well evangelical athiests think atheism is a religon.

Originally posted by Ushgarak

But atheism isn't. Atheism is an attribute of certain views; it cannot be a belief itself, by definition. It's a lack of a belief.

I see so not believing in something is not a belief? You do realise that doesnt make any sense? If you dont believe in God, you believe that God does not exist....thats a belief.

Originally posted by Storm
Atheism is not a belief system. It doesn' t consist of an integrated system of doctrines, beliefs, and ideas that are used to provide guidance and stability in people' s lives. Atheism implies no further belief system. It implies no beliefs about politics, no philosophy, no beliefs about society, no beliefs about science, no beliefs about religion. If you know that a person is an atheist, then you know that he or she lacks belief in gods. Nothing more, nothing less.

How many claim that mere theism, which is nothing more than a belief in the existence of at least one god, is all by itself a religion?

So evangelical atheists are wrong?

Originally posted by ThePittman
The problem that I have with this, I’ve only watched the first episode so far I will watch the rest later but in general is trying to give rules and guidelines to being an Atheist. Just as with any idea or concept someone always want to control it and be the “leader” of the movement and be the face which just adds fuel to the fire, but how can you have rules and guidelines to being an Atheist when there are none?

Ok so evangelical atheists are wrong.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
No of course it can't. It's an aspect OF a religion.

evangelical athiests disagree.

Originally posted by inimalist
😉 that is also acceptable for agnosticism

Yep. Agnostics are atheists as well. Like squares are rectangles.

If Atheism is a religion, or becoming a religion, what do they [all atheists] believe?

Originally posted by lord xyz
If Atheism is a religion, or becoming a religion, what do they [all atheists] believe?

Theres no god I guess.

Originally posted by Alfheim
Theres no god I guess.

In a way "evangelical atheists" are wrong, there are fanatics on both sides and each having their own agenda and twisting and corrupting an idea to suit their needs.

Originally posted by ThePittman
In a way "evangelical atheists" are wrong,

How are they wrong? Wrong for saying atheism is a religon? Isnt that a matter of opinion?

Originally posted by ThePittman

there are fanatics on both sides and each having their own agenda and twisting and corrupting an idea to suit their needs.

Ok I agree.

Originally posted by lord xyz
So we believe in nothing!

Er yeah you do a belief in no god is a belief. Also evngelical athiests disagree.

Originally posted by Ytse
Yep. Agnostics are atheists as well. Like squares are rectangles.

wow

so, your statement is square = rectangle?

you are arguing that 2 similar things are identical?

I see the connection between atheism and agnosticism, but that only exists if you look at the question from a theistic view.

For instance, as someone with no religious belief who would not call themselves an atheist (I don't think I need a special word to express my disbelief in fairy tales) there is a gulf of difference between an atheist and an agnostic.

Hell, I see huge ideological differences between self identifying and non identifying atheists. The same way any geometrists is going to see differences between a square and a rectangle. They are close when compared to a circle, but different when compared to eachother

Originally posted by Alfheim

So a being that created the universe is not a scientific concept?

yes, that is a correct statement

Originally posted by inimalist
so, your statement is square = rectangle?

In geometry, a rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral where all four of its angles are right angles.

A square meets all the criteria. It's a quadrilateral with four right angles.

To make it more clear:

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Just like all agnostics are atheists but not all atheists are agnostic.

You dig?

Originally posted by Ytse
In geometry, a rectangle is defined as a quadrilateral where all four of its angles are right angles.

A square meets all the criteria. It's a quadrilateral with four right angles.

To make it more clear:

All squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares. Just like all agnostics are atheists but not all atheists are agnostic.

You dig?

no

agnostics do not refute the existance of god, they say either they don't know or that they can't know (two very different schools of agnosticism that should hardly be lumped together).

a self identifying atheist actively denies the existance of God

a non-identifying atheist is only an atheist by strict definition. Colloqually, I am an atheist, but that says absolutly nothing about my belief or behaviour the way it would for a self-identifying atheist.

I guess I see the square/rectangle analogy, and like any good analogy, it falls apart when nuance is introduced. It is a wonderful analogy if you assume that the default truth is "god exists or needs to be disproven". If you view the world from the "God is a fairy tale myth" perspective, it is useless, since someone who thinks their atheism involves disprooving something that is clearly non-existant differs dramatically from those who don't entertain the hypothesis in the first place.

Originally posted by inimalist
yes, that is a correct statement

What that a creator is NOT a scientfic concept?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, there is a difference.

The religious people do kill because their Religion tells them to.
Communists don't kill because atheism tells them to. Atheism can't tell them, it is just a standard belief that there is no God. They kill because of Communism. And yes, one part of Communism is the Atheism, but, it is not atheism that said to do it.

You don't see the difference? Honestly?

Ok ive been thinking this through. You know what you cant say people kill in the name of atheism, you know why because its bad english. You cant say people kill in the name of Monotheism either. What do you say, you say people kill in the name of religon. Whats the opposite of religon a belief system that doesnt believe in God. So you may not say that people kill in the name of atheism but Communism is the athiestic equivalent of a religon.

It seems to me the only reason why you dont say you kill in the name of atheism is semantics.

You dont kill in the name of Monthiesm but Chrisanity is an example of it. You dont kill in the name of atheism but Communism is an example of it.