Originally posted by Red Nemesis
Which?The part where Atheism is not a belief? To recycle an overused argument, it is a belief in the way that bald is a hair color.
The part where he is a belief? It is either very inane or very insightful. Take your pick.
The first one, but I like the second one better now. 😉
Originally posted by Red Nemesisnot believing in another's spiritual belief structure does not mean one is an atheist without their own unique belief system whether it is humanism, naturalism or simply the study of various philosophical systems .. etc etc..
No it is not.[b]you
are a belief [/B]
some ppl get offended and bothered when they are called atheist by certain religious groups and even claim they are not they just believe in something completely different.
I am really beginning to think that you are just trolling the hell out of this board. It boggles the mind that someone could be so incredibly incompetent.
The post that started our exchange:
you
3. being an atheist is a belief.
Now your position is that:
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
not believing in another's spiritual belief structure does not mean one is an atheist without their own unique belief system whether it is humanism, naturalism or simply the study of various philosophical systems .. etc etc..
Do you see how that works? I could say that being American is a political affiliation, but then adjust my position towards the idea that being American gives one the capacity to have a political affiliation and I wouldn't be moving the goalpoasts as much as you. To put it simply, your post is garbage and your ideas are garbage. Learn to think and then get back to me.
some ppl get offended and bothered when they are called atheist by certain religious groups and even claim they are not they just believe in something completely different.
You've answered your own criticism. The "rebuttal" that you've provided is actually the fastest and most effective way to demolish your (own) argument that I can imagine.
You: Atheism is a belief
You: Atheism leads to other ideas
You: Those other ideas are beliefs
You: Thus, because someone has some belief in something, they are not an atheist.
See the problem here? Hint:
Spoiler:
Atheism's co-ideas are not the same as atheism.
facepalm
if you dont want to agree with someone its fine we can discuss it without insulting and name calling ppl b/c they dont agree with you or accept ur concept of whatever it is u believe in.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism
a·the·ism
   /ˈeɪθiˌɪzəm/ Show Spelled[ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
–noun
1.
the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2.
disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Atheism is not a complete religion in the sense that Christianity, Islam, and, Judaism are. Atheism is not generally perceived as offering a complete guideline for living as do most religions. However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point. These factors are generally derived from secular considerations, and not from any "revealed" religious text.
Some Atheists, when asked what their religion is, will answer, simply, "Atheist." Others will say that they "have no religion, they are an Atheist."
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
However, Atheists frequently derive their own ethics and philosophy of life and worldview using their Atheism as a starting point.
Except that atheism doesn't provide any starting point beyond "there is no god" or "there is no evidence for god". You can't build a system of ethics based on atheism because it has nothing to say about ethics at all. Atheists typically build their moral systems on something completely different, often Locke or Hume. More materially minded atheist look at economic philosophers like Marx or Smith or Rand.
Or some, like me, just look at whatever moral system they've been using (lower-upper-middle-class intellectual north-eastern-American liberal Presbyterianism FTW!!!1!11) and decide for themselves what parts make sense and what parts do not.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaosfine.
Except that atheism doesn't provide any starting point beyond "there is no god" or "there is no evidence for god". You can't build a system of ethics based on atheism because it has nothing to say about ethics at all. Atheists typically build their moral systems on something completely different, often Locke or Hume. More materially minded atheist look at economic philosophers like Marx or Smith or Rand.Or some, like me, just look at whatever moral system they've been using (lower-upper-middle-class intellectual north-eastern-American liberal Presbyterianism FTW!!!1!11) and decide for themselves what parts make sense and what parts do not.
all i am trying to say is that not believing in a god or gods is a belief in itself. look at the definition of the word its in there.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is incorrect. In the past most people were part of a religion. It is only recently that Atheism has come into popularity. We are yet to see the destructive power of this belief. I will tell you that the only commonality in the violence of the past are people.
No, it isn't incorrect. A lot of the atrocities in history were created by religion and, more evidently, religious fanaticism. That's not to say all of them were but you get quite a staggering death toll when you start using addition.
Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. What do you mean by we have yet to see it's "destructive power?" Atheism has been around for longer than any of us can probably comprehend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Read the first three sentences. It's not a belief.
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
No, it isn't incorrect. A lot of the atrocities in history were created by religion and, more evidently, religious fanaticism. That's not to say all of them were but you get quite a staggering death toll when you start using addition.Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. What do you mean by we have yet to see it's "destructive power?" Atheism has been around for longer than any of us can probably comprehend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Read the first three sentences. It's not a belief.
It is an anti-god belief. If you are an Atheist, then you believe there is no god or gods. That is a belief in the simplest form. Eventually Atheism will look no different then any other religion.
Is it the hammer that drives a nail into a board? Or is it the person using the hammer? Without people, Christianity, and all religions would not exist. Religion is something we humans made up, just like all the wars and death, that we humans caused. If you wish to blame the hammer for the nail in the board, then be happy in your delusion.
Originally posted by Red Nemesis
I am really beginning to think that you are just trolling the hell out of this board. It boggles the mind that someone could be so incredibly incompetent.The post that started our exchange:
Now your position is that:
You've moved from 'Atheism is a belief' to 'Atheism might mean that someone has a belief in something else.
Do you see how that works? I could say that being American is a political affiliation, but then adjust my position towards the idea that being American gives one the capacity to have a political affiliation and I wouldn't be moving the goalpoasts as much as you. To put it simply, your post is garbage and your ideas are garbage. Learn to think and then get back to me.
Are you really this dense? As I said, that isn't possible. Thus, the only conclusion I can reach is that you are leading us on.
You've answered your own criticism. The "rebuttal" that you've provided is actually the fastest and most effective way to demolish your (own) argument that I can imagine.
You: Atheism is a belief
You: Atheism leads to other ideas
You: Those other ideas are beliefs
You: Thus, because someone has some belief in something, they are not an atheist.See the problem here? Hint:
Spoiler:
Atheism's co-ideas are not the same as atheism.facepalm
😆
Wow.
That's some ownage, right there.
Edit - But he does come backpedal and own you right back.
Originally posted by Ultraviolence
No, it isn't incorrect. A lot of the atrocities in history were created by religion and, more evidently, religious fanaticism. That's not to say all of them were but you get quite a staggering death toll when you start using addition.Atheism isn't a belief. Atheism is the absence of belief. What do you mean by we have yet to see it's "destructive power?" Atheism has been around for longer than any of us can probably comprehend.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Read the first three sentences. It's not a belief.
I agree with what you're getting at, but atheism is a belief.
More on topic, I was told about this militia stuff, communism, socialism, etc. And how it's all on a sliding scale of progressivness and anarachy. I'll explain in a bit.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
fine.all i am trying to say is that not believing in a god or gods is a belief in itself. look at the definition of the word its in there.
however a dictionary chooses to explain the usage of a term is a subjective thing based on the dictionary editors, not a statement of phisophical absolution nor of the truth behind what it means, psychologically, to believe in something.
a) yes, there are atheists who can be said to "believe in" atheism.
b) this is not true of all atheists
c) the main reason for this is that the term 'atheist' is not a clear doctrine in itself, but rather a description of disbelief
so, I would certainly agree with you that there are people who have simply used atheist literature to replace the things in their belief system which religion used to maintain. They normally have very similar beliefs and probably love Richard Dawkins [but only after writing the god delusion].
but, this is not true of all people. For many 'atheists', the idea that some ideological principal unites them is ridiculous. Though I do not believe in God, I don't identify as an atheist because the term seems useless to me, like identifying as an anti-racist or anti-sexist. Because of this, though both Dawkins and I are, taxinomically, atheists, there is little about us that can be ascertained through the usage of that term. In fact, with regard to religion, Dawkins and I disagree on most things there are to disagree with, whether God exists being the few places of agreement.
This might appear to be true of other faiths, but it is not. If two Christians engage in a debate, regardless of interpretation, there is a theoretical way the problem could be solved. They just must discover the proper way to interpret the scripture. Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system. There is a process through which all debates can be settled. For Dawkins and I, there is no such comparison. Theoretically, we could never settle our disagreement, because neither of us need to appeal to the same authority on matters of, well, anything. There is no such closed loop to 'atheism'.
This goes further though. Surely, there must be a difference between believing in something and not believing in that same thing, or else there is no real purpose for the word "believe". To have any use as a symbol, a word has to define something. Belief, as in religious belief, cannot be the same as no religious belief, by definition. If it is, then saying you believe in something is not actually saying anything, because believing could also be non-belief.
While that may not be clear, it is more apparent if put like this: There is a difference between 'belief' defined as in a fact that you believe about the universe versus 'belief' as in a statement you would answer yes or no to. So, today the weather here is awesome, for March in Canada. So, I do believe that the weather is great. However, someone from further south, who is indifferent about the weather, may not think so. If you asked them "do you believe the weather is nice today?", they would say "no". However, that doesn't mean they have a systematic belief that the weahter is not good that is similar to my belief that the weather is good. It means they have an opinion on a question that was asked, not that they have a belief system based on that opinon.
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Except that atheism doesn't provide any starting point beyond "there is no god" or "there is no evidence for god". You can't build a system of ethics based on atheism because it has nothing to say about ethics at all. Atheists typically build their moral systems on something completely different, often Locke or Hume. More materially minded atheist look at economic philosophers like Marx or Smith or Rand.Or some, like me, just look at whatever moral system they've been using (lower-upper-middle-class intellectual north-eastern-American liberal Presbyterianism FTW!!!1!11) and decide for themselves what parts make sense and what parts do not.
thought you might like this 🙂
Originally posted by inimalist
however a dictionary chooses to explain the usage of a term is a subjective thing based on the dictionary editors, not a statement of phisophical absolution nor of the truth behind what it means, psychologically, to believe in something.a) yes, there are atheists who can be said to "believe in" atheism.
b) this is not true of all atheists
c) the main reason for this is that the term 'atheist' is not a clear doctrine in itself, but rather a description of disbeliefso, I would certainly agree with you that there are people who have simply used atheist literature to replace the things in their belief system which religion used to maintain. They normally have very similar beliefs and probably love Richard Dawkins [but only after writing the god delusion].
but, this is not true of all people. For many 'atheists', the idea that some ideological principal unites them is ridiculous. Though I do not believe in God, I don't identify as an atheist because the term seems useless to me, like identifying as an anti-racist or anti-sexist. Because of this, though both Dawkins and I are, taxinomically, atheists, there is little about us that can be ascertained through the usage of that term. In fact, with regard to religion, Dawkins and I disagree on most things there are to disagree with, whether God exists being the few places of agreement.
This might appear to be true of other faiths, but it is not. If two Christians engage in a debate, regardless of interpretation, there is a theoretical way the problem could be solved. They just must discover the proper way to interpret the scripture. Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system. There is a process through which all debates can be settled. For Dawkins and I, there is no such comparison. Theoretically, we could never settle our disagreement, because neither of us need to appeal to the same authority on matters of, well, anything. There is no such closed loop to 'atheism'.
This goes further though. Surely, there must be a difference between believing in something and not believing in that same thing, or else there is no real purpose for the word "believe". To have any use as a symbol, a word has to define something. Belief, as in religious belief, cannot be the same as no religious belief, by definition. If it is, then saying you believe in something is not actually saying anything, because believing could also be non-belief.
While that may not be clear, it is more apparent if put like this: There is a difference between 'belief' defined as in a fact that you believe about the universe versus 'belief' as in a statement you would answer yes or no to. So, today the weather here is awesome, for March in Canada. So, I do believe that the weather is great. However, someone from further south, who is indifferent about the weather, may not think so. If you asked them "do you believe the weather is nice today?", they would say "no". However, that doesn't mean they have a systematic belief that the weahter is not good that is similar to my belief that the weather is good. It means they have an opinion on a question that was asked, not that they have a belief system based on that opinon.
I agree with what you are saying, and when I say that Atheism is a belief, I am only talking about those people who go around saying "I'm an Atheist". To me that is just like saying "I'm a Christian". There are a lot of people who are atheists, who don't go any further. Those people have an opinion on the topic, but not really a Belief.
However, I disagree with "Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system.". I could argue all day with a Zen Buddhist, and we would never be able to come to an agreement. Buddhism is not a closed system.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I agree with what you are saying, and when I say that Atheism is a belief, I am only talking about those people who go around saying "I'm an Atheist". To me that is just like saying "I'm a Christian". There are a lot of people who are atheists, who don't go any further. Those people have an opinion on the topic, but not really a Belief.
indeed. its actually weird talking with them sometimes. One of the profs I talk with a lot totally is, and its weird... like, he is totally a genius and all that, just weird sort of like identity stuff and the generalizations he makes of religious people. Its totally like the "I am a Christian" stuff in that way
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
However, I disagree with "Thus, all religions are a sort of closed logic system.". I could argue all day with a Zen Buddhist, and we would never be able to come to an agreement. Buddhism is not a closed system.
ha, I actually predicted you saying this when I was writing it. Yes, its really complex, but I think my point is still valid even if Zen Buddhism is weird to define. Like, I totally agree and think it is worth mentioning, I was just trying not to ramble all over the place about stuff that, at least to me, is sort of difficult.
Originally posted by inimalist
...ha, I actually predicted you saying this when I was writing it. Yes, its really complex, but I think my point is still valid even if Zen Buddhism is weird to define. Like, I totally agree and think it is worth mentioning, I was just trying not to ramble all over the place about stuff that, at least to me, is sort of difficult.
😱 Have I become predictable? 😂