I believe in Atheism...

[Slytovhand]

Thought I'd start it as a seperate thread, as it comes up occasionally.

But specifically:

Originally Posted by AdminAssistant
(and lack of belief IS a belief - an atheist BELIEVES that there is no God)

No. Not so. Is lack of a steak dinner a different kind of steak dinner? I don't knit quilts. Is "not knitting quilts" a hobby? Is a lack of funds in my wallet actually funds that I can spend at a different store? No. Lack of belief is quite simply lack of belief. Nothing more, no mysticism, no rituals.

I'll tell you what I do believe, though. The similar notions of God as presented by Christianity, Islam, and Judaism present to me a very flawed, very human entity that does not possess the qualities or capabilities of an omnipotent, omniscient being. Instead I see what primitive people thought such a being might be like.

I don't believe He's real in the same way I disregard Santa, the tooth fairy, and the Easter bunny. Do you consider your lack of belief in them to be a belief, or is it simply something you don't believe?

How about... an athiest believes that the creation of the universe can be fully explained using only natural laws and materials still found within the universe itself. There is no need to invoke any form of supernatural or external force of any kind.

Also, they believe that any and all phenomenon that occur within this universe can also be explained by similar laws and forces, again without any recourse to divine intervention. And thus, anything that religious believers would see as a 'miracle' an atheist believes there is always an alternative natural explanation for.

I have to use the term believes in such a way, because they don't actually know, and thus, it forms a belief only.

Also, as a bit of a technicality, we are all atheists. We all have a certain 'non-belief' towards some aspect of the various worlds deities. I'm an atheist towards a Christian, Muslim and Judaic 'God'. They are atheist towards the shamanic spirituality. etc etc.

[Boozy]

I suppose atheism could be considered a belief of sorts, but I wouldn't say it's a belief that there is no God. It's more the belief that information provided by observation with the five senses, and analysis of that information with the logical mind, comprises the totality of being. Ergo, there is no God, because God would be both inaccessible to the five senses and illogical.

I'm not atheist, that's just my understanding of it. I'm quite open to being enlightened if I'm misinformed.

[anriana]

Also, as a bit of a technicality, we are all atheists. We all have a certain 'non-belief' towards some aspect of the various worlds deities. I'm an atheist towards a Christian, Muslim and Judaic 'God'. They are atheist towards the shamanic spirituality. etc etc.

Monotheists believe in only 1 G/god, whether that's Jehovah or Ahura Mazda.

Polytheists believe in 2+ gods.

Atheists believe in 0 gods.

[Sylvia727]

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name. Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

[Pedersen]

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name.

Amoral has the word moral in it, but the definition is the absence of morality. Guess we need a new word for that, too.

Anaerobic has the word aerobic in it, but the definition includes the lack of oxygen. Guess we need yet another new word.

Arrythmia is used to indicate the loss of heart rhythm. But, it includes rhythm in the world. Guess we need yet another new word.

Or, wait, I've got an idea! Why don't we use the prefix "a" for words that start with a consonant, and the prefix "an" for words that start with a vowel, and that way we have an easy way of indicating lack of something! Why, we wouldn't even have to rewrite any dictionaries, then, since that's what already is done!

Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

So, lack of religion is a religion? I think I might have to add to that critical logic failure thread I started. To say that lack of something is simply a form of that something is a way of forcing somebody else to accept your beliefs.

He's an atheist. He doesn't believe in any religion. He doesn't believe in any god. That's not a religion, that's the lack of religion. To say that it is a religion is showing a massive amount of disrespect for atheists. And to think that you are one of the ones asking for respect in other threads, but unwilling to show it here.

[Slytovhand]

Personally (and let's face it, that's all that matters ), I don't see atheism as a religion, but I do think it is a belief (believing in Santa Claus is not religious...).

Anriana - if you don't believe in my god, and my god is the only god, then you are an atheist. That's what it says in all those books, and that's the way it's been for thousands of years, and so many wars and people have died for it. And people who don't believe in *my* god will all die and go to hell - and that's *my* hell, not whatever hell you think you might have....

Since a 'theist'

Theism is a belief system incorporating a god or gods into the lives of humans

is specifically about god and incorporating, it's not merely about some vague concept - it's about a specific variant only.

This compares to a deist -

One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods

.

(quotes from google - define: theist/deist)

[Sylvia727]

Or, wait, I've got an idea! Why don't we use the prefix "a" for words that start with a consonant, and the prefix "an" for words that start with a vowel, and that way we have an easy way of indicating lack of something! Why, we wouldn't even have to rewrite any dictionaries, then, since that's what already is done!

I have always read the prefixes "a/an" as meaning "the loss of something where it should be or is expected to be". All three of your examples indicate this. Language being a living, twisting thing, this may not be a nuance that other people read into it.

In any case, putting the word "god" into it focuses the belief on G/god(s) and the lack thereof. If it is a belief about something else, then it needs a new name. If it is a belief about God, then I fail to see how it is not a religious belief. Perhaps not a "religion", per se, but still a religious belief.

Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake.

So, lack of religion is a religion?

No. That's exactly what I didn't say. If one asks an atheist what religion he is, the answer "atheist" makes sense and fits in context. Even though "atheism" is a lack of belief, I tend to class it as a religion for simplicity's sake. Kind of like how black isn't an actual color. If you ask me what color my shirt is, I'll say "black", not "my shirt doesn't reflect any light and so is colorless". People understand that when I refer to black as a color, I'm not implying that it should get its act together and be more like its big sister red, who is an actual color.

To say that lack of something is simply a form of that something is a way of forcing somebody else to accept your beliefs. <snip> To say that it is a religion is showing a massive amount of disrespect for atheists. And to think that you are one of the ones asking for respect in other threads, but unwilling to show it here.

*cracks up*

I'm just going to assume that your brain operates on a very different wavelength than mine. Nothing in my four sentence post indicated intolerance, force, disrespect, or hypocrisy. If that's what you read, then I apologize for whatever share of the miscommunication is mine. Also, I may be reading too much into your comments on this and other threads, but you seem to be under the impression that I'm an evil theist trying to force others to conform to my mainstream religion. I'm not sure why that might be, but I'd like my posts to be dissected from the correct perspective.

Personally I don't see atheism as a religion, but I do think it is a belief

I like that phrasing.

[Flyndaran]

My lack of superstions is not a belief, dang it!
"You" believe that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and I don't. That does not make me have a belief.

Calling my interpretation of reality that is completely based on rationality and facts a belief is insulting.
"Your" interpretation of reality that is completely based on faith, books, and flies in the face of "normal" reality is a belief.

[Slytovhand]

My lack of superstions is not a belief, dang it!
"You" believe that a black cat crossing your path is bad luck, and I don't. That does not make me have a belief.

Calling my interpretation of reality that is completely based on rationality and facts a belief is insulting.
"Your" interpretation of reality that is completely based on faith, books, and flies in the face of "normal" reality is a belief.

So, what you are saying is that it is absolutely, 100% IMPOSSIBLE, beyond even the merest shadow of a doubt that a) you are not some figment of some entities (not necessarily a 'god') imagination, nor that of a computer simulation, nor that there is some form of mutli/universal creator that brought all of this into existence.

Funny - even the most professional and skilled and knowledgeable scientists - including good old astrophysicists looking at the origins of the universe - don't have that level of .... conviction.

Personally - I believe what I believe. There are things I don't believe. I'm not so arrogant (call it hubris) that I can't possibly be wrong....

[AFPheonix]

No he's saying that the physical evidence for such a being is so vanishingly small as to be insignificant.

Of course there's always a CHANCE that there's a tooth fairy, but it's pretty vanishingly small, so there's no point in dwelling on it.

[Flyndaran]

There is far more evidence for unicorns than there is for an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god.
We have paintings of unicorns and supposed eye-witnesses that weren't considered nuts at the time.
How many people do you know that claim to have seen this god critter and weren't obviously loopy in other ways?
How nearly impossible is it to wrap one's mind around the idea of a loving god that doesn't help people out at all, lets them suffer, and is ultimately responsible for all the good and bad that exists in the universe?
A simple intelligant stealthy horse with a horn that is impervious to poison and can sense virginity isn't even in the same ballpark of illogical-ness.

I am not simply an atheist, for I don't believe in any superstions. Some would call me a rationalist, but others take offense to the implication that they aren't rational so I'm stuck without a proper term to label myself for easy conversation.
I was born this way lacking the ability to have or even understand faith. Most would call this a weakness or even a real form of brain damage. I won't dispute this as in the literal sense of lacking the "god module" as it has been called or some other neural section.
I prefer to call it a strength, or even a furturistic evolution.

Every atheist that I have met started out religious, can understand faith etc., but through introspection and logical analysis came to their present interpretation of reality.
I don't really fit in with these people. They can understand "the other side" of the discussion. I can't. It's not a matter of won't, bigotry, or refusal to study. I've tried. The concept just doesn't fit with my neural architecture the way it does in nearly every other human.

[Jadedcarguy]

Wow. I need to check the front page more often, I totally missed this thread.

"Atheism" has the word "god" in it. If it is not a religious belief, then it needs a new name. Myself, I class it as a religion for convenience's sake. Sure, it's the absence of religion, but zero is a number, too.

I have always read the prefixes "a/an" as meaning "the loss of something where it should be or is expected to be". All three of your examples indicate this. Language being a living, twisting thing, this may not be a nuance that other people read into it.

Amoral has the word moral in it, but the definition is the absence of morality. Guess we need a new word for that, too.

Anaerobic has the word aerobic in it, but the definition includes the lack of oxygen. Guess we need yet another new word.

Arrythmia is used to indicate the loss of heart rhythm. But, it includes rhythm in the world. Guess we need yet another new word.

Quite right. Putting a- or an- in front of a word to signify a lack of something does not imply that "something" was there before and was taken away. It simply states that it isn't there.

Sylvia, Religion requires doctrine, a specific set of beliefs, usually ritualized services or practices, and most importantly it requires faith. Atheism requires none of these things. What I believe is believed for very different reasons than your reasons for your beliefs. Before you tell me I can't know what you believe and why, know this:

I USED TO BE CHRISTIAN.

That's right. I went to church every Sunday for over a decade. I prayed, avoided "immoral" behavior, watched my language, and tried to be a "good" Christian. Then I started to pay attention to the world. My faith started to falter and dwindle for another decade and a half until one day I realized that it was gone. I could fill many pages with specific reasons for my lack of faith but they would fall on deaf ears so I wont waste our time with that.

I will tell you what I believe in, though. I believe in things that can be observed and verified. Science, astronomy, geology, and so forth are things I can believe because their "realness" can be demonstrated. I do not believe in things that require an undue amount of faith and hope. Personal saviors fall into the latter category, I'm afraid. Wanting something to be real because it makes me feel better, even though nothing supports it's existence, does not make it real.

In any case, putting the word "god" into it focuses the belief on G/god(s) and the lack thereof. If it is a belief about something else, then it needs a new name. If it is a belief about God, then I fail to see how it is not a religious belief. Perhaps not a "religion", per se, but still a religious belief.

It is not a religious belief. It is a belief about religion, and they are not one and the same. Allow me to explain.

Religious beliefs require faith in religious doctrine. If you have no faith in a religious belief, then you don't believe it, simple as that. Atheism on the other hand does not require me to have faith. I look at the evidence for a god, and I look at the evidence for a lack thereof, and I come to a decision. There is no need for faith there.

If one asks an atheist what religion he is, the answer "atheist" makes sense and fits in context. Even though "atheism" is a lack of belief, I tend to class it as a religion for simplicity's sake.

Actually, my answer to that question is "none". If I'm answering a questionnaire that asks about my religion, I have seen it listed as "atheist", "none", and "atheist/none". The only one that is correct is "none", since atheism is not a religion. I can't say that enough. Atheists don't have an established church. We don't formally meet to talk about no gods. We may informally go get coffee and discuss it, but that's not a church group. My thoughts, feelings and beliefs can be vastly different from another atheist, but neither one of us believes in any sort of god. In that we are the same, but it could be only that.

If you were to describe an individual atheist to an inquisitive child as "they don't believe in God", you would technically be correct. If that same child had never seen a horse before and they asked you what it was, if you told them "an animal without wings" you'd also be technically correct. You've also told them nothing. But it will do for "simplicity's sake."

If a child asked me what a Christian was and I told them "a person who kills Muslims at the end of a sword and dashes out the brains of Aztec babies after baptizing them" I would be technically correct. I would also be giving a woefully inadequate description, but for simplicity's sake I'll just leave it at that.



Man, I can ramble on!!

[Sylvia727]

If you were to describe an individual atheist to an inquisitive child as "they don't believe in God", you would technically be correct. <snip> If a child asked me what a Christian was and I told them "a person who kills Muslims at the end of a sword and dashes out the brains of Aztec babies after baptizing them" I would be technically correct.

Please, for the love of Mom's apple pie, don't tell me you think lack of belief is anywhere near the same scale as mass murder. Not to mention that every single atheist "doesn't believe in God" but no Christian alive today has ridden on the Crusades or "dashed out the brains of an Aztec baby".

If you need help thinking of a current, hurtful stereotype about Christianity, PM me and I'll help you brainstorm.

What I believe is believed for very different reasons than your reasons for your beliefs. Before you tell me I can't know what you believe and why, know this:

I USED TO BE CHRISTIAN.

Thus giving you valuable insight into the beliefs of many Christians. Persons who believe in another version or denomination of Christianity, or another religion altogether, will have drastically different beliefs and reasons for holding them. Even a Christian from your old congregation might have reasons for their beliefs you never learned about. Two people can read the same novel and come up with two different interpretations. Neither makes the other less valid. Alice may feel that Bob's gushing presentation on the novel's use of the true power of love is absolute drivel, but she can't say with absolute authority that he didn't read some nuance or connotation into the text that she didn't.

Oh, and for the record: you can't know what I believe and why, your insight into another major religion notwithstanding.

Wanting something to be real because it makes me feel better, even though nothing supports it's existence, does not make it real.

True, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to say that every single religious person follows their faith for this reason and only this reason. It would be incredibly arrogant of you...and would presuppose that you possess the supernatural power of mass telepathy. And you've already said that you don't believe in the supernatural.

Actually, my answer to that question [insert: about religion] is "none".

The only answer that I can see remains consistent. Good, this is coming together.

Putting a- or an- in front of a word to signify a lack of something does not imply that "something" was there before and was taken away. It simply states that it isn't there.

To formally end the semantics in my own mind (can't speak for anyone else, of course), I went to the dictionary. Even the first, vaguest description doesn't apply to atheism, as it mentions belief in the purpose of the universe.

So while I had always agreed that atheism isn't a religion in the true sense of the word, I am forced to conclude that there is no way one can batter the definition around to include atheism.

It is not a religious belief. It is a belief about religion, and they are not one and the same.

Thus explaining why the word "god" can be in the definition without making it religious. This may be the first post I've read on this thread that actually made sense to me. Congratulations, Jadedcarguy, I am now changing my position on this topic.

[Jadedcarguy]

Please, for the love of Mom's apple pie, don't tell me you think lack of belief is anywhere near the same scale as mass murder. Not to mention that every single atheist "doesn't believe in God" but no Christian alive today has ridden on the Crusades or "dashed out the brains of an Aztec baby".

If you need help thinking of a current, hurtful stereotype about Christianity, PM me and I'll help you brainstorm.

No no no of course I don't believe that living Christians have done those things. However, Christians in the past most certainly have. My point was that it would be woefully inadequate to describe Christians in that manner as the behavior does not reflect most Christians, or any living today.

Oh, and for the record: you can't know what I believe and why, your insight into another major religion notwithstanding.

I never claimed to. I was simply illustrating that I have been on both sides of religious belief.

True, but I'm sure you wouldn't want to say that every single religious person follows their faith for this reason and only this reason. It would be incredibly arrogant of you...and would presuppose that you possess the supernatural power of mass telepathy. And you've already said that you don't believe in the supernatural.

I wouldn't say that, either. Blanket statements usually backfire so I try to avoid them.

Many people, however do subscribe to some form of Pascal's Wager, which is this:

If you erroneously believe in God, you lose nothing (assuming that death is the absolute end), whereas if you correctly believe in God, you gain everything (eternal bliss). But if you correctly disbelieve in God, you gain nothing (death ends all), whereas if you erroneously disbelieve in God, you lose everything (eternal damnation).

Basically saying it's best to believe because it can't hurt to do so. I say it can hurt, but I wont go into that here for reasons of length.

To formally end the semantics in my own mind (can't speak for anyone else, of course), I went to the dictionary. Even the first, vaguest description doesn't apply to atheism, as it mentions belief in the purpose of the universe.

So while I had always agreed that atheism isn't a religion in the true sense of the word, I am forced to conclude that there is no way one can batter the definition around to include atheism.



Thus explaining why the word "god" can be in the definition without making it religious. This may be the first post I've read on this thread that actually made sense to me. Congratulations, Jadedcarguy, I am now changing my position on this topic.

Woot!!

Glad I could explain it in a manner that made sense.

[Slytovhand]

There is far more evidence for unicorns than there is for an omnipotent, omniscient, all loving god.

Possibly... but that's only 1 interpretation of the term 'god',which from my experience in talking to other atheists, is what they always fall back on - the traditional arguments against god. Either 'He' exists, and allows evil to exist, in which case, he is not all good, or 'He' isn't omniscient... and all of those sorts of arguments.

But... you do nicely back up one of my original arguments - we are all atheists! I have a belief in a definition of 'god' that does not fit your description. Thus, if I took what you just said about 'god', then I too am an atheist!

There is nothing about some sort of creator that popped its/thier/his/her head up, made all of this, and then buggered of to do something more interesting.

See - that's what annoys me about this whole religion thing - the arrogance and ego of humans. If 'my' god doesn't seem to exist, then no god does... Why couldn't you as a human just have it wrong?? There is far more than 1 side to the coin.

Jadedcarguy...

Sylvia, Religion requires doctrine, a specific set of beliefs, usually ritualized services or practices, and most importantly it requires faith. Atheism requires none of these things.

Excellent! You've just said why atheism isn't a 'religion'... you haven't said why it isn't a 'belief'.. and hence my OP.

As you've neatly explained (I suspect without intending to), a religion and a belief are not the same thing, and that's what the 'confusion' is all about.

If you want, we can go into Pascal's Wager (which boils down to - if God is omniscient, He knows that you're only playing the odds, rather than actually having faith... which apparently doesn't cut it!)

BTW - yes, actually, christians living today have participated in crusades... just not the ones given that title! There are those who profess a faith in Jesus Christ as being their saviour, and will go out of their way to persecute and even execute non-christians - such as muslims. (is anyone on here really going to argue that there are a few christian fanatic nutjobs who saw a war going on in 'towelheadland' Iraq and thought to themselves that they need to go over and do 'Gods' work??) (besides, there's all those people who have reincarnated since the original crusades )