That might be true, and like I say, being politically correct and actually being 100% non biased when teaching your kids is another. Maybe for you football and religion is not important, but what if your kids happens to be religious? Wouldn't you be fumming over his decision? What if your kids neglects the importance of education, manners, critical thinking and decided to throw away his life being a secluded budhist monk? Can you really accept that like you accepted if he takes a different path in football or religion?
Religion, what's the point?
- Thread starter TheRedFlag
- Start date
That might be true, and like I say, being politically correct and actually being 100% non biased when teaching your kids is another. Maybe for you football and religion is not important, but what if your kids happens to be religious? Wouldn't you be fumming over his decision? What if your kids neglects the importance of education, manners, critical thinking and decided to throw away his life being a secluded budhist monk? Can you really accept that like you accepted if he takes a different path in football or religion?
First off, I think it's important that anyone reading this understand that the nonsense in bold in the box that is quoted as me, is not written by me.
You keep using the words believe and beliefs and that's what I'm taking issue with. It's equating beliefs in 2000 year old myths with acknowledging testable facts. And as it happens, I don't think the absence of a belief in something counts as a belief in itself. I have no idea what you mean by "political and ratio". I also never claimed everything is explicable through science. There is plenty that science can't explain at the moment.
As for I said, if my child decided to be religious it would not bother me in the slightest. I know hundreds of religious people who live good, kind lives. As it happens, I don't think my children will be religious, as they won't be indoctrinated from birth and will be instilled with the idea to think critically about everything and evidence would show that religion does not thrive in that sort of environment. But if it was their choice to become religious, then that wouldn't bother me.
If my children neglected the importance of education, manners and critical thinking I would be disappointed in the job I had done. If they chose to live as a secluded Buddhist monk then I would be disappointed that I wouldn't get to see him/her very often but if they were happy with their choice, then again, it would be fine by me.
Because you do believe in something. Even if you don't believe in religion you believe in ratio, you believe in kids should be free to decide, you believe in not killing people, you believe in being courteous in a football forum, you believe religion is a hoax, you believe in free think, you believe in everything you want to believe.
It's not about religion vs. science or leprechauns, but the notion that if you don't have a religion means you believe in nothing. So, unless you're brain dead you will always believe in something.
So let me ask you. You don't have a belief?
Last edited:
Of course people have beliefs. In this thread we're talking specifically about the belief in God(s) or lack of.
What's important is the justification for those beliefs. There are good reasons to believe that some of things you listed like being courteous etc. are the right thing to do. As Rex has pointed out several times now, you are attempting to group scientific facts such as evolution with mythology as though they have the same amount of credibility. They don't.
Anyone who thinks that believing in scientific fact is akin to religion needs a reality check. If believing in science was anything like believing in a religion, it would be based on blind faith, rather than scrutiny, evidence, discussion etc. We would basically take everything we have learnt up to this point and then believe in it blindly and nothing else.
You're trying to tie in two different meanings of the word belief. A belief in a god is completely different than a belief in being courteous or a belief in not killing people. This was my point from the very start and was the reason I was hesitant in using the word belief. You are trying to say that my belief that people shouldn't kill each other is on a bar with someones belief in a god and that's just not true.
Of course I have and everyone has beliefs in how we should live our lives or raise our kids etc. But they are completely different to a belief in the supernatural. You're trying to compare the two when they are incomparable. That is what I was saying from the start. A Belief that Darwin's theory of evolution is fact is in no way similar to a belief in a deity. As @The Mitcher said, if you think the two are comparable, you need a reality check.
Sorry, I missed this when I was replying. Exactly this.
So does generalising religions as fairies and leprechauns
Why is everything a doctrine? I think you really do have the wrong word for what you're trying to portray.
As an atheist I don't 'believe' in Big Bang or Evolution either, It's the best and most rational explanation we have at the moment. I don't just believe it to be true, I can read about it and see a lot of evidence of such things. Its a big difference to what religion is based on. Faith.
You're effectively trying to say non-belief is a belief. It isn't. A non-belief in dragons is not a belief in non-belief of dragons. Apply this to anything.
Many Fairy Tales similarly involve Saints and religious figures, so I guess that's where the 'fairytale' generalisation comes from. Look at this passage from the bible.
It's a comparison that's very easy to make, is it not?
Fairy tales are silly if he accepts that religions are like fairy tales then he is accepting that religion is silly. So he has to pretend there are major differences and that normal and understandable positions which we take in every day life are just like having faith in the existence of god. For which there is exactly the same amount of evidence as there is for the existence of leprechauns.
Agree.
Penn Jillette (The Magician) has a great quote about this.
“Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.”
It's still a position a held belief, and a negative assertion.
What atheism lacks is dogma, set of fixed principles and ideology associated with such beliefs. This is where we can say that atheism is not a religion.
Atheism isn't a belief, though some atheists would identify themselves as humanists if a label is needed.
Agreed. Someone could only say they had an absence of belief if they were unaware of the concept in the first place. If you found some tribe from the deepest amazon that had never been in touch with wider humanity before and asked them whether they believed in Dark Matter, they would literally have no belief in it. The concept, and a hundred other concepts needed to understand it, are simply missing. That's a non-belief.
At the end of the day arguing with semantics. Difference between these words are so trivial but I do want to address this:
I do think negative assertion is still a belief if they are aware of the concept. Where the difference is, is that atheists don't have the burden of proof to back up their belief system unlike theists.
As for the reason why "atheism is a belief" cannot translate to "atheism is a religion," I've addressed this already.
Why is it a belief? Why is not just an opinion? I know of all of these religions and in my opinion they are all nonsense. To class it as a belief makes it more than the trivial issue that it is for many atheists. The religious want to class atheism as a belief whereas it's not.
Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god. I have a lack of a belief in Santa Claus, the tooth fairly and the Easter Bunny. My non belief in them are not beliefs. I know the religious take great offence when we use Santa and the Easter Bunny as examples and say we are "generalising religions as fairies and leprechauns" but to an atheist, they are one and the same. Religious take great offence and say you cannot compare religions to myths, but we can because to an atheist, there is no difference.
Well. In that case, it is what you belief. I pray for you my friend, maybe one day you'll have the chance to see Him, and until then, peace be with you
Well. In that case, it is what you believe. I'll think for you my friend, maybe one day you'll have the chance to think for yourself, and until then, peace be with you
I'll have as much chance of seeing Jennifer Lawrence in bed than seeing God.
You're badly confusing agnosticism and atheism.
Atheism is the belief that there are no deities of any kind. That is a "belief. Atheism may well be a correct belief, but it is a belief.
An agnostic, on the other hand, claims to have no certain knowledge that there is or there is not a "god". An agnostic may either be open to the possibility that a god exist or does not exist or he believe that neither answer is ever knowable by a human being.
This statement: "Atheism is the lack of a belief in a god." is not a true statement. Atheists are firm in their belief that there is no god, which is quite different from a "lack of belief in a god", which logically entertains the possibility that evidence may one day arise that a god does indeed exist. There's a massive difference between the two beliefs, Rex.
But you are onto something when you state that since you have a lack of belief in Santa Claus's existence. What you're really trying to say, however, is that you know Santa Claus to be a creation of the human imagination and thus you don't "believe" in him/it as some kind of divine entity or any kind of entity. And even if there were some doubt, it's implausible in the extreme that any physical entity could distribute billions of presents around the world all in one evening. That's a perfectly reasonable conclusion, as the origins of the Santa Claus are well documented and in any event no one seriously claims his/its existence. So that's an easy one put in the can, so to speak. Jesus Christ gets a little trickier -- and I will embrace skepticism toward the Jesus Christ story -- because billions of people around the world sincerely believe in the Jesus Christ story. They may well be wrong, but they may well be right too.
Science cannot prove God's existence, but science cannot prove the nonexistence of God. Those who put the burden of proof on the God-believers are on firmer logical ground, in my judgment, than those who put the burden of proof on the God-deniers.
And what kind of putatively caring God would oversee, with apparent indifference, the suffering of millions of victims of the Holocaust in the 1940s and millions of sufferers today?
I'm badly confusing nothing. Granted, Atheism has a couple of definitions. But in the broadest sense, Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist.
And on your Santa Claus point, the only evidence we have for either Santa or God are people's stories about them. Santa (the image that we have of him now) is a relatively new idea, so we know he is made up. God was made up several thousand years ago though, so people are confused as to whether he is a creation of the human imagination or not. Who knows, in 4,000 years time, maybe people will believe a man with a beard rode a sleigh around the world on Christmas eve delivering presents.
I wonder is this is another manifestation of the American-English divide in the use of the English language.
In the United States, what we mean by "belief" is some kind of certain knowledge. Let's go to an online dictionary:
be·lief
- an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work. - trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
"belief in the value of hard work"
The affirmed atheist truly believes that there is no such thing as "God".
In both cases, what the Christian and the atheist expresses is a belief. In the case of the former, the belief in God's existence. In the case of the latter, the belief in God's nonexistence.
The agnostic, on the other hand, affirms neither the belief in God's existence or God's nonexistence.
Surely this can't be made any more clear.
But it may be the case, Rex, that the use of the word "belief" has a different meaning in the UK than in the US. That's the only logical explanation for this sentence, which otherwise makes no sense whatsoever:
"But in the broadest sense, Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist."
If we accept the word "belief" in what I regard to be the conventional American sense, it would be difficult to find a statement that is more logically incorrect. Unlike the agnostic, who finds an absence of sufficient evidence to support or refute God's existence, the atheist is committed the belief that God does not exist. He does not merely stipulate that there is a lack of evidence, and therefore doubts, the existence of God -- he affirmatively believes that all God-myths, aka religions, are pure creations of human beings and that there is no God of any kind. There are no maybes, ifs, buts, or possiblys -- it is pure truth that God does not exist.
It is not the "absence of belief", but belief itself, admittedly a very honorable belief. But this is not to say that there is anything wrong with being an atheist and holding such a belief. An atheist can look at all the evidence, and witness the absence of actual evidence, and reach the very rational conclusion that God does not exist, that accounts of "God" are pure creations of the human imagination and, most importantly, live perfectly good, decent and honorable life.
The atheist surveys all available evidence and, quite rationally, embrace the belief that God does not exist. But it is a "belief".
We can argue the semantics of what constitutes "belief", but to keep it contemporary, the word belief here is mildly synonymous with "faith" as the religious would say. I'm an Atheist and don't believe there is no God. Its not even a question that I feel warrants much examination, much like Santa or the tooth fairy. Therefore, my view isn't a belief as it doesn't meet the standard of depth required to "believe" in something.
No the 'belief' is in rationality and science. It's a not a mirrored opposite 'belief' to theism to claim gods don't exist, it's merely an outcome of the lack of any evidence or logic - in common with many imaginary things like phlogiston for example.
Raoul, you're one of my favorite posters here on the caf, but if you don't believe there is no God you cannot call yourself an atheist.
Atheism is an affirmative belief, or understanding (if the word "belief" is too closely aligned with "faith"), that there is no God.
But let's discard the word "belief", as it appears to conjure up the image of the faithful flocking to their regular house of worship.
Upon examination of the best available evidence, a man who rejects the notion that there is a "God" is an atheist. A man who has given this some thought and is not sure either way and is open to embracing either any particular theism or embracing atheism -- note the linguistic roots of the words "theism" and "atheism" -- if and when new information comes to light is commonly understood to be an agnostic.
Being curious as to how the word "atheism" could be so misunderstood, I thought I would check out the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, which is understood to be definitive.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/atheism-agnosticism/#1
‘Atheism’ means the negation of theism, the denial of the existence of God.
There's nothing wrong with being open one day to a theism of any kind, but that is exactly what is implied by the alternative, nonstandard definition being proffered here (which is actually pretty interesting stuff) that atheism is merely the lack of belief in God. When we in the US say something like "there is a lack of evidence..." what we mean to say is that while we concede the logical possibility of XYZ ("Gannicus committed the crime") we lack sufficient evidence to prove the point. That's not a problem at all, as a great deal of propositional content in our discourse begins with an unproven hypothesis, "unproven" because there is no sufficient evidence yet to support the hypothesis. The atheist harbors no doubts that the hypothesis (we're avoiding the word "belief" now) that God exists is not a validated hypothesis because, in the considered judgment of the atheist himself, there isn't even a scintilla of evidence to support the hypothesis that God exists. At best, the putative "proof" of God's existence is merely unexplained phenomena.
Knowing that there is no God is the assertion that the atheist holds to be the most warranted and logically supportable hypothesis, which is the best way I can think of putting without saying "The atheist believes that that is no God."
Let's agree to use the word "belief" in the ordinary sense of the word, such as "There is a belief among French intelligence operatives that ISIS is behind the attacks in Paris." and not in the narrower sense for word, such as "Christians hold the belief that Mary was a virgin." or that "Muslims hold the belief that 72 virgins wait in heaven for martyrs. (And presumably satisfy the carnal desires of those martyrs in heaven.)"
The latter two examples (the virgin Mary and the sex-crazed virgins in heaven waiting for martyrs to mount them) is truly just a "belief" that has no empirical basis for support whatsoever. If we have to discard the word "belief" because of its baggage, that's fine with me. The point is that the atheist holds a particular conclusion regarding the existence of a supernatural being.
The scientist can rightly "believe" his hypothesis has been validated by the evidence he and others have gathered. I can't explain this next sentence, but a scientist can believe a hypothesis MUST BE true despite the absence of any evidence to support it whatsoever. (Einstein's general theory of relativity (which I can't possibly understand) which I can't possibly understand.)
You know, you could condense your lengthy argument about the definition of atheism to the simple formula of 'absence of belief' vs 'belief of absence', both of which I'd consider atheism, merely different subsets of it. The difference is on the level of gnosticism.
Top level abstraction you have rationality v irrationality.
Below this you have instances of rational ideas v irrational ideas.
Theism is just one of a massive set of irrational ideas.
Atheism was only coined because of theism's historic cultural significance - it's no more worthy of designation as a 'belief' than ahypnotherapy, amind-reading, acrystals etc etc.
Below this you have instances of rational ideas v irrational ideas.
Theism is just one of a massive set of irrational ideas.
Atheism was only coined because of theism's historic cultural significance - it's no more worthy of designation as a 'belief' than ahypnotherapy, amind-reading, acrystals etc etc.
Since there is so much discussion on semantics, let me throw this statement in: Most people think they practice Religion, but in reality they don't.
Religion is specific: it is an organized collection of beliefs, morality rules, behaviors, clergy, initiation rituals, holy places, scriptures, etc. The practice of a religion includes rituals, sermons, sacrifices, festivals, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, prayer, music, etc.
Religion is not a vague personal belief in some non-identified High Power usually expressed by views like "there are many unexplained things in the world", "there must be some Higher Power", "this can't be a coincidence", "we can't just disappear when we die", etc. This is not Religion - it's best described as Spiritualism.
I see a lot of times posters trying to defend religion by using some vague arguments that have nothing to do with the religion in question. For example if we talk about the Abrahamic religions - in the bible (or tora, or quaran) it says that God created the earth first and then the light, which we now know is completely ridiculous - light existed for billions of years before the earth has formed. The defense is usually either "Have you been there when it happened? No, so you don't know! The bible is right!", or something like "The bible shouldn't be taken literally - it's just a metaphor that God created the universe a long time ago".
The first ones are the hardcore fundamentalists - for them reality doesn't matter, they live in some sort of retarded bubble, where people were riding dinosaurs and the earth is 6000 years old. Nothing good can come from these kind of people - they either blow themselves up in suicide bombings, let their kids die rather than give them antibiotics, or do something equally crazy and destructive.
The second ones are the religious liberals. They are far more progressive and generally more reasonable. I would much rather deal with them, however I question if they should really be described as religious. They are admitting that much of whatever is written in the bible is wrong, but somehow the whole idea of God should still be right - this is no longer religion, it's Spiritualism. Spiritualists are far less crazy and destructive, but there is a problem with them too - if you start treating everything as a metaphor, then you could literally interpret religious texts any way you want and religion itself loses any meaning - whoever spiritual leader is in charge can assign any meaning that suit their agenda. This turns the religious liberals into easily manipulated herd, that could be swayed in any direction.
So basically the only truly religious people nowadays are the hardcore fundamentalists; the religious liberals are no longer practicing Religion, what they practice is some sort of Spiritualism. Clearly the hardcore fundamentalists pose a serious danger to the survival of the human race - if we are to stand a chance, than the role of the hardcore Fundamentalism should be abandoned by the future society (especially in the Muslim world where it has the strongest roots) and be replaced by Spiritualism (or religious Liberalism if you prefer).
Religion is specific: it is an organized collection of beliefs, morality rules, behaviors, clergy, initiation rituals, holy places, scriptures, etc. The practice of a religion includes rituals, sermons, sacrifices, festivals, initiations, funerary services, matrimonial services, prayer, music, etc.
Religion is not a vague personal belief in some non-identified High Power usually expressed by views like "there are many unexplained things in the world", "there must be some Higher Power", "this can't be a coincidence", "we can't just disappear when we die", etc. This is not Religion - it's best described as Spiritualism.
I see a lot of times posters trying to defend religion by using some vague arguments that have nothing to do with the religion in question. For example if we talk about the Abrahamic religions - in the bible (or tora, or quaran) it says that God created the earth first and then the light, which we now know is completely ridiculous - light existed for billions of years before the earth has formed. The defense is usually either "Have you been there when it happened? No, so you don't know! The bible is right!", or something like "The bible shouldn't be taken literally - it's just a metaphor that God created the universe a long time ago".
The first ones are the hardcore fundamentalists - for them reality doesn't matter, they live in some sort of retarded bubble, where people were riding dinosaurs and the earth is 6000 years old. Nothing good can come from these kind of people - they either blow themselves up in suicide bombings, let their kids die rather than give them antibiotics, or do something equally crazy and destructive.
The second ones are the religious liberals. They are far more progressive and generally more reasonable. I would much rather deal with them, however I question if they should really be described as religious. They are admitting that much of whatever is written in the bible is wrong, but somehow the whole idea of God should still be right - this is no longer religion, it's Spiritualism. Spiritualists are far less crazy and destructive, but there is a problem with them too - if you start treating everything as a metaphor, then you could literally interpret religious texts any way you want and religion itself loses any meaning - whoever spiritual leader is in charge can assign any meaning that suit their agenda. This turns the religious liberals into easily manipulated herd, that could be swayed in any direction.
So basically the only truly religious people nowadays are the hardcore fundamentalists; the religious liberals are no longer practicing Religion, what they practice is some sort of Spiritualism. Clearly the hardcore fundamentalists pose a serious danger to the survival of the human race - if we are to stand a chance, than the role of the hardcore Fundamentalism should be abandoned by the future society (especially in the Muslim world where it has the strongest roots) and be replaced by Spiritualism (or religious Liberalism if you prefer).
Last edited:
If you don't believe that God exist, and religion is such a big hoax, why blame bad things that happens on religion?
Good point.
Thus, the formulation goes like this:
- Theism is the belief in a supernatural force, often described as "God", that purports to explain, among other things, the origins of the cosmos.
- Atheism is the belief that that no supernatural force, no "God" of any kind, exists.
The agnostic, for anyone who's interested, is someone who isn't sure whether there is or is not a God and that given the limits of human reason, such knowledge may not be knowable by human beings.
This is real
Because we aren't blaming God, we are blaming the INSTITUTIONS, which preach the religions. Are you taking the piss, or being deadly serious with that question? A brick could work out what we are criticising.
@Gannicus You seem to have this idea agnosticism is this sort of middle ground in between atheism and theism, but atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic theist for example- a person who think's the answer is unknowable but believes in God anyway. The theist is the person making the claim that a God exists, the atheist is rejecting that claim without making their own. This is why the burden proof falls on the theist.
"For a Muslim, the Prophet Muhammad is more important than their own parents,"
This surprised me as a non religious person. How can a person who died thousands of years ago be more important than your own parents?? If people put all their trust, faith and love in something that is not real or dead rather than in their parents, no wonder some are moved to do crazy shit in the name of this non-entity.
This surprised me as a non religious person. How can a person who died thousands of years ago be more important than your own parents?? If people put all their trust, faith and love in something that is not real or dead rather than in their parents, no wonder some are moved to do crazy shit in the name of this non-entity.
Haha. That really doesn't deserve an answer.
Regarding peoples take on terminology on atheist/agnostic its difficult to just use a label without going going deeper as its usually a mix of different terms. I remember Dawkins talking about it in the God Delusion and also had a 7 point scale to try and explain it easier.
I would call myself a Agnostic-Atheist if I had to put a label to it. I don't believe any god exists, but don't know whether this to be the case with 100 percent certainty as it's difficult to prove a negative. I do think the probability of a god or supernatural being existing is extremely low though! So on the 7 point scale I'm as close to a 7 as you can get without being almost certain as I have no evidence to back up that assertion if that makes sense?
The 7 Point Scale.
1.00: Strong theist. 100 per cent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Last edited:
@Gannicus
Since we're arguing semantics and dictionary definitions I just put " Atheism definition" (Try it yourself)into Google and the first result was this.
So, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods. There you have it. Simple as that. No American/Europe divide. It's a lack of belief. Which isn't a belief. It's getting tiresome when the argument is dragged to semantics because the religious know that any argument they make in an actual debate is so easily refutable. But I'm willing to trust the google definition.
Since we're arguing semantics and dictionary definitions I just put " Atheism definition" (Try it yourself)into Google and the first result was this.
So, disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of god or gods. There you have it. Simple as that. No American/Europe divide. It's a lack of belief. Which isn't a belief. It's getting tiresome when the argument is dragged to semantics because the religious know that any argument they make in an actual debate is so easily refutable. But I'm willing to trust the google definition.
Its really difficult to comprehend for non religious people I guess.