Agnostics/Atheists and maybe why they support Ron Paul

[Mark]

Is Amonsterism a religion too?

How about AUnicornism?

Awizardry?

In terms of a parody I would say no, if someone truly believes it, yes.

BTW, trying to keep this on an intellectual level somewhat.

 

[Mark]

atheism is a religion in the same way being bald is a hair color

One doesn't believe hair is on their head, they know whether it is or not.

But one does believe in the existence or non-existence of God. Or, they're just not sure one way or the other.

The definition of an Atheist is someone who doesn't believe in the existence of God. It's obviously a belief system.

And if the definition of "religion" is a belief system, then by definition the belief system of Atheism is a religion.

In other words, it's incorrect to define belief in God as a "religious belief", unless you also include non-belief in God as a "religious belief".

 

[DriftWood]

What you describe is simply a simply physical system becoming more complex. It implies nothing about the development of mind, and there is no reason to believe physical feedback has anything to do with self-awareness.

As I tried to point out, any attribute of a physical system must be defined completely by the position and state of its particles. If I say a physical system is conducting electricity, or is reflecting blue light, I am saying that the system has a particular physical state -- electrons are flowing through it, or photons are incident with all frequencies being absorbed other than blue. There should be no attribute that is not defined in these terms -- yet self awareness clearly is not. You may simply assume, because you wish to, that self awareness corresponds to some physical state, but the fact is, the definition of self-awareness is not in those terms at all, but rather concerns what it is like to "be" the mind.

One can further see that the mind is not purely physical by realising that it would be absolutely impossible to prove that any physical system other than one's own experienced self-awareness, without just assuming that it corresponded to a physical state. The attribute itself is unprovable, despite even perfect physical knowledge (one would have to "be" the mind, to prove it to be self aware).

Logically as well, if individual physical particles are not self aware, no complex combination of them can make them so -- just as one cannot combine any number of shapes in a two dimensional plane to somehow reach the third dimension. The concept of "Self consciousness" is of an entirely different nature than attributes like "mass" or "charge" (which are observable through the senses), and while complex physical systems may cause complex physical behavior, attributes with no physical definition cannot magically jump into existance for a bunch of inanimate particles.

You repeatedly state that our minds are only a collection of particles, with no evidence or logical basis, apparently because you wish it to be true -- you wish the universe to be reduced to the sensually percievable, because you have assumed that is all that exists. With a little thought it is apparent that our own minds are of a different nature, yet naturalism wishes us to ignore the elephant in the living room and simply assume that minds must be physical -- for no better reason than so that it will fit into its preconcieved notions of reality.

What is the basis for making this assumption about reality, that what we can observe physically comprises all that exists? You are pretending that what is a rather arbitrary assumption about the universe is somehow based on evidence or reason, when the assumption is made far before evidence is observed or reason is applied. I see no reason to not accept both what we observe through the senses and what we percieve about the mind as legitimate evidence.

I can only speak for myself, but I percieve myself to be a self-aware mind able to cause changes in nature (e.g. I can move my body at will). I think a reasonable conclusion is that "mind" should be accepted as a cause or force of nature in certain cases, along with deterministic causes like gravity, and random ones as in QM. Please show how this conclusion is unreasonable, without starting from the assumption that the physical is all that exists (or at least show a reasonable basis for your assumption).

I reject the idea that what I percieve through the senses is somehow legit, but what I percieve about my own mind is totally inadmissable.



The motivation to survival and reproduction would be ideal for survival and reproduction -- there is no clear reason why muddling concepts like "beauty" would assist in survival. That is, one would expect that optimal survival in nature would be achieved by concepts in nature (and indeed, some ideas about sacrifice or nobility would be more likely to hinder survival than help).

However, I am not trying to show that these concepts could not be adventagous. My point is, these concepts could never have arisen. What I am saying is that we develop ideas in one way: Observation, and distortion and extrapolation from that observation. Name for me one concept about a physical universe that does not fit this definition (since the non-physical is what is under discussion). Or, since you state that you believe ideas like "purpose" and "beauty" could be arrived at by concepts derived from the physical observation of nature, please describe for me what physical concepts could be combined to produce these ideas.

In a physical universe, all our ideas would concern the physical, since we would have no experience or perception on which to base anything else. The fact that non-physical ideas exist -- and indeed are among the most descriptive of and important to our nature, suggests that our experience or observations are not purely physical.



Sure, I agree with your definition that everything that can interact with each other is part of the same reality, I've been using this same definition.

You then state, "physical means things that can interact". I do not agree with this definition. Mirriam Webster defines physical as: "of or relating to natural science b (1): of or relating to physics (2): characterized or produced by the forces and operations of physics". This is the definition I assume that we are using. I am arguing that there are things that interact with our reality which are not defined or characterized by the operations of physics (e.g. you), and therefore are not physical.

You then state, "All interacting things can be observed (directly or indirectly), the interactions can be understood and predicted". Firstly, only things that interact with you are observable by you. I am arguing that we observe interactions with our minds, as well as our senses, and that there are some things that are observable with our minds that are not observable through our senses. Secondly, it is not true that everything that can be observed can be predicted. Let alone the mind, what about even random QM effects? We observe the collapsing of a wavefunction, but cannot predict in any way what the position and velocity of the particle will be. Clearly this second part of your statement is not true.

Again, you state "The force behind these these interactions, the nature of the causing thing can be understood, predicted and proved." There is no reason this must be true, indeed we know we cannot predict certain things. And, what do you mean by "proved" exactly? All we can do is observe, and theorize as to the explanation for what we observe. What we observe may fit our explanation, but that does not constitute a proof. Morover, "causes" really are never explained anyway. "Gravity" just means we observe that masses tend to attract each other -- no explanation is given as to why this is, only a label. QM says particles tend to exhibit particular kinds of random behavior, but again, only a label, no explanation. Why can I not say that my body tends to behave according to the dictates of my mind? Imaginary forces to explain what we observe are ok, but recognizing the mind as a cause (which we actually observe directly, unlike natural forces) is somehow unacceptable?



Care to provide any logic or evidence to support this, rather than just saying it's impossible? This is rather the point of the discussion. I'd prefer not to get bogged down in semantics, but what I'm saying is that we theorize deterministic forces which are not explained (e.g. gravity), and random forces which are not explained (QM), and I am arguing that there is a third force, of the mind, which I myself do observe, and which obviously interacts with the physical since I am currently able to type this message ...

Please show me where the contradiction is here, without starting from your assumption that only the deterministic or random exists. Why could the fundamental particles in my brain not be effected by the mind as well as by QM and deterministic forces?




The effects of gravity are observed, but gravity itself is not observable through the senses. Similarly, the effects of the mind are observed, but the mind is not observable directly through the senses. The only difference is, I am a mind, and can observe myself directly, not through the senses.

Your mistake comes when you assume that observation can only occur through the senses. You are self aware, and you know what you're thinking about. Please tell me which of the five senses told you this? None did -- thus, something observed, but not through the senses.




No, all it proves is that they can interact. How on earth does this prove that they operate according to physics?



There ya got it, I'm with you again . Definitely part of the same reality.



I disagree, as I've stated -- I'm saying reality is made up of the physical and the non-physical.



I am saying the physical and "spiritual" if you like, are part of the same reality.



Yep! All part of the same reality



Yep, the non-physical can be observed, but not through the senses. The effects of the non-physical can however be observed through the senses (although it is easy to write them off to randomness or determinism). You then state that all things that can be observed can be predicted, which we know not to be true -- seriously, study your QM, it will blow your mind (specifically for this case, the double slit experiment with electrons sent one at a time). In any case, the assumption that everything is predictable is unfounded, and is only based on the earlier baseless assumption that everything must necessarily be physical and deterministic. You can't start by assuming that what you're trying to show is true.



Agreed . We're definitely sticking with things that interact with what we observe (through the senses or otherwise). And if you still think that that we can only observe through the senses, I'm looking forward to you explaining to me which sense enables you to observe your current thoughts.



But, you're just re-stating what you have assumed, that the mind is purely physical, which apparently you take on blind faith. Apparently you have just assumed a-priori that all that could possibly exist is the physical, and therefore concluded your mind must fit into that box. How about examining your reasons for making the assumption that everything must be physical, or observable through the senses in the first place?

Oh, and you should be careful of your wording, I am pretty sure you don't believe we "send" electrons around -- rather, you are saying you believe that all of the activities of our brain are dictated by physical effects -- that electron did not get sent by any imaginary "you" but merely because a particular photon hit your retina in just the right way. (I'm the one that believes your mind "sent" the electron in some sense).

I'll write a quick one (i lost a longer post i wrote)

The assumption that the mind is anything more than physical does not help us predict anything that the assumption that the mind is just physical. So adding the extra assumption of the unphysical to the theory of reality, just complicates the theory without explaining anything more. (The way one proves that one understands something about reality, is by predicting reality). Thats why that extra assumption is "useless".

We know that our self consciousness behavior is caused by our self consciousness. We therefore assume that other things that have self consciousness behavior, also have self consciousness of the same type we have. This is not an baseless assumption. Its based on inference. We know not of any other way that self consciousness behavior could exist. We do not know how it could be "faked".

Also if something behaves as a apple its an apple. Behavior is property. Behavior is the whole thing, what else is there? A thing is its behavior. So if something acts as if it is self conscious, then it is self conscious.

We and some other animal have self conscious behavior because it helps us solve problems and survive. Survival is a very physical thing. Our mind and it urges, and concept are biased to things that help us survive. That is no accident. We dont like the taste of poison, we don't find sickly people beautiful, we seek happiness in reproduction and family building, we usually don't seek happiness under a train. Concepts that hurt our survival simply do not survive in nature.. thats why our mind has a bias for survival. There is a physical driving force that limits and stears the "design" of our mind. That physical driving force is survival and reproduction.

Okay, our senses are passive but our thinking is not. Its something else. It cas the capacity to affect itself. This does not mean its not physical, or [not] deterministic. It just means its a self feedback system. You just give it one initiual input and it can spin around on its own forever. The initial input of the universe could be said to be the big bang. That everything (natural laws, and physcial configurations) just followed from that. That nothing could be different from how things are now. If there are random things then things could be different, but thats another story. Some people might see the face of god in randomness. I think its just more of the same, seeing god in the gaps. The more we see patterns in the random, the more we can explain away and need for a god as an explanation. Also if there is randomness, it does not do much good for religion. Imagine a praying to a random force of nature, much like gravity. It does no good.

Some people accept determinism but say that god plan can be seen in the big bang. That he designed the explosion so that things would turn out as they did, automatically threw mechanical means. That is not a very satisfactory explanation for the big bang, or the first movement because that is explaining something simple with something more complicated. Thats pretty much the opposite of an explanation.

Saying that the mind is something more than physcial is saying that the mind is a connection between the physical reality and some other reality (call it the methaphysical). There is a bridge there that makes interaction between the two realities possible. If things interact this interaction can be observed. This interaction means that one reality can be observed and changed from the other. So this methaphysical reality can be observed and changed thru the physical reality by purely physical means. If there are gods and souls in this other reality.. and they affect our physical world. Then we should also be able to affect the gods by shooting bullets at them.. or by throwing pizzas at them or something. Interaction does not just work in one direction (i mentioned that in some previous post)

Well thats what i have this time.. sorry if i missed some of your points. But i think I'd just be repleting myself answering those.

I guess my key point is that the assumption that our thinking is anything else than physical is a useless assumption because it does not help us predict anything (that we can observe) about reality.

Cheers

 

[Kade]

In terms of a parody I would say no, if someone truly believes it, yes.

BTW, trying to keep this on an intellectual level somewhat.

It is.

I truly believe their are no monsters, which would be the definition of Amonsterism.

Does that make Amonsterism a religion?

 

[AzNsOuLjAh27]

I support him for the freedom, my religion plays no part in my voting. Because my religion is not followed by every american and thats there right.

 

[acptulsa]

It is.

I truly believe their are no monsters, which would be the definition of Amonsterism.

Does that make Amonsterism a religion?

I guess it depends on whether or not you know anyone who worships monsters. I, just for the record, do not.

 

[Kade]

I guess it depends on whether or not you know anyone who worships monsters. I, just for the record, do not.

So, you are defining atheism as a religion, as long as other people worship a god?

That makes no sense...

The non-belief of something is not a religion.

This is a simple concept, one that is easily illustrated by our previous understanding of Awizardry and the like...
*******************************************

I do not believe in wizards, also called Awizardry.

Johnson worships wizards.

Awizardry is a religion.

Not valid.

 

[acptulsa]

So, you are defining atheism as a religion, as long as other people worship a god?

That makes no sense...

The non-belief of something is not a religion.

The obvious difference between awizardry and athiesm is the difference between wizardry and theism.

And as far as I am concerned, agnosticism is non-belief and athiesm is serious belief in non-existence.

 

[Kade]

The obvious difference between awizardry and athiesm is the difference between wizardry and theism.

And as far as I am concerned, agnosticism is non-belief and athiesm is serious belief in non-existence.

No.

Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism.

I am an agnostic atheism.

I do not believe in god, but I do not know with 100% certainty.

The more defined "god" becomes, the more of purist I become.

If for instance, we are talking about a male "son of god" named Jesus, then I am 100% Strong Atheist.

If you are talking about the "god of the gaps", most atheists are also agnostic.

This is very simple, and it is called Tea Pot Agnosticism, or Russell's Teapot:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

It is not a religion.

 

[acptulsa]

No.

Agnosticism is not mutually exclusive to atheism.

I am an agnostic atheism.

Pleased to meet you. I'm a human.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your definitions. I lack faith in them, you see.

 

[Kade]

Pleased to meet you. I'm a human.

Sorry, but I cannot accept your definitions. I lack faith in them, you see.

No problem. Whatever gets you through your day man...

 

[tremendoustie]

I'll write a quick one (i lost a longer post i wrote)

The assumption that the mind is anything more than physical does not help us predict anything that the assumption that the mind is just physical. So adding the extra assumption of the unphysical to the theory of reality, just complicates the theory without explaining anything more. (The way one proves that one understands something about reality, is by predicting reality). Thats why that extra assumption is "useless".

Gah! I hate it when I lose posts! Sorry bout that.

I am not suggesting that the mind being non-physical should be assumed because of it's usefulness at predicting physical behaviors, I am saying that what we observe about our own consciousness shows it to not be purely physical. I am saying that we need to accept all of our observations as evidence, both through the senses and otherwise (there is no rational basis for excluding, as evidence, our own experience of self-awareness). While naturalism can do a decent job at explaining evidence gathered through the senses (as it would be expected to, since the senses observe only the physical), it cannot explain what we observe about our own minds, for reasons which I outlined, and just by common sense. The deterministic interaction of inanimate particles is of an entirely different nature than self-awareness, which is clearly a nonphysical attribute. Again, all attributes in a physical universe should describe the physical configuration of a system, and self-awareness cannot be defined in these terms.

We know that our self consciousness behavior is caused by our self consciousness. We therefore assume that other things that have self consciousness behavior, also have self consciousness of the same type we have. This is not an baseless assumption. Its based on inference. We know not of any other way that self consciousness behavior could exist. We do not know how it could be "faked".

While this assumption may be useful, it is still an assumption. There is no way to observe behavior from outside, and conclusively prove that a being is experiencing self awareness. If an attribute cannot be conclusively proved despite perfect physical knowledge, it is not a physical attribute.

Also if something behaves as a apple its an apple. Behavior is property. Behavior is the whole thing, what else is there? A thing is its behavior. So if something acts as if it is self conscious, then it is self conscious.

You assume physical behavior is all that exists, because you have decided that you will only accept what the senses observe as legitimate evidence, and they can only sense physical behavior.

What of your own self-awareness? This is not a physical behavior, in itself. Are you going to pretend that you and I do not experience this? Are you honestly going to tell me that as humans, our experience is solely defined by our behaviors? It seems to me you wish to ignore a significant portion of the human experience simply because it is not convenient to your theory.

We and some other animal have self conscious behavior because it helps us solve problems and survive. Survival is a very physical thing. Our mind and it urges, and concept are biased to things that help us survive. That is no accident. We dont like the taste of poison, we don't find sickly people beautiful, we seek happiness in reproduction and family building, we usually don't seek happiness under a train. Concepts that hurt our survival simply do not survive in nature.. thats why our mind has a bias for survival. There is a physical driving force that limits and stears the "design" of our mind. That physical driving force is survival and reproduction.

Do you mean only "self consciousness behavior" (whatever that means) or actual "self consciousness"? The one is the observable behavior of an animal or person, the other is only defined in terms of the actual experience of that being. All of these behaviors you descrive could reasonably be ascribed to evolution, but self-awareness itself has no definition in physical terms.

Okay, our senses are passive but our thinking is not. Its something else. It cas the capacity to affect itself. This does not mean its not physical, or deterministic. It just means its a self feedback system.

My chair has the capacity to affect itself, when the ball bearings scrape against each other. This trivializes the definition of consciousness, and comes nowhere close to expressing what we experience.

You just give it one initiual input and it can spin around on its own forever. The initial input of the universe could be said to be the big bang. That everything (natural laws, and physcial configurations) just followed from that. That nothing could be different from how things are now. If there are random things then things could be different, but thats another story.

I think I'm pretty aware of what naturalism supposes.

Some people might see the face of god in randomness. I think its just more of the same, seeing god in the gaps. The more we see patterns in the random, the more we can explain away and need for a god as an explanation. Also if there is randomness, it does not do much good for religion. Imagine a praying to a random force of nature, much like gravity. It does no good.

Well, of course if you pre-suppose that all there is is determinism and randomness, the idea of God doesn't make much sense .

We have deterministic forces, which are not explainable by nature, but dictate how nature will behave. Likewise, we have QM, which also determines the behavior of natural systems. I wonder why the resistance to the inclusion of the mind as a causal force, when we observe it more directly than anything else.

And it's funny, you seem to think that people are seeing patterns in randomness. I would say the acceptance of the mind, along with deterministic and random forces more closely mirrors our own experiences -- to me it seems that it is naturalists who are trying to jam the whole of human experience and self-awareness into the box of naturalism and determinism, when it doesn't really fit.

Some people accept determinism but say that god plan can be seen in the big bang. That he designed the explosion so that things would turn out as they did, automatically threw mechanical means. That is not a very satisfactory explanation for the big bang, or the first movement because that is explaining something simple with something more complicated. Thats pretty much the opposite of an explanation.

I think that those people have concluded that God exists for other reasons, and given that they have already made that conclusion, explain the big bang in those terms. Relativity is an unnecessarily complicated description of how an apple drops, but it is reasonable, because we have already accepted the idea of relativity based on other evidence.

Saying that the mind is something more than physcial is saying that the mind is a connection between the physical reality and some other reality (call it the methaphysical). There is a bridge there that makes interaction between the two realities possible. If things interact this interaction can be observed. This interaction means that one reality can be observed and changed from the other. So this methaphysical reality can be observed and changed thru the physical reality by purely physical means. If there are gods and souls in this other reality.. and they affect our physical world. Then we should also be able to affect the gods by shooting bullets at them.. or by throwing pizzas at them or something. Interaction does not just work in one direction (i mentioned that in some previous post)

Of course interaction does not just go one way. I'm not sure why you think this means bullets or pizzas are the means of interaction -- but sure, in a way. If you get shot or hit with a pizza, it will surely affect your mental state.

Well thats what i have this time.. sorry if i missed some of your points. But i think I'd just be repleting myself answering those.

I guess my key point is that the assumption that our thinking is anything else than physical is a useless assumption because it does not help us predict anything (that we can observe) about reality.

Cheers

The idea that the mind is not purely physical is not an assumption, it is a conclusion based on the evidence of what we observe about ourselves. I observe myself to be self-concsious, which is not a physical attribute, and observe my internal workings to be unsatisfactorily explained by materialism -- indeed, unexplainable.

I'm going to be gone for a couple weeks, but please consider the following points, which I still haven't heard back on:

1. The attribute of self awareness does not describe the physical state of particles, but rather a mind's perception. Without being a person, you could not say conclusively that the person experiences self awareness or does not -- despite perfect physical knowledge. This implies that self-awareness is not a physical attribute.

2. We gain new ideas by distorting or extrapolating recurrent experiences. In a physical universe, all our experiences must necessarily regard the purely physical. Yet, we have persistant ideas which cannot be arrived at by the distortion or extrapolation of physical ideas (meaning, purpose, beauty, etc.). Please give an example of an untrue physical idea which cannot be achieved by distortion or extrapolation from any number of true physical ideas. Or show how ideas like "ultimate meaning" could be achieved based on the extrapolation or distortion of physical observations.

3. Justify the a-priori assumption that our physical senses can be trusted, but observations regarding the nature of one's own mind should not qualify as valid evidence (i.e. the assumption that evidence must be observable through the senses, repeatable, etc., to be admissible). Also, show how this does not a-priori exclude from possiblity any idea but those of deterministic, natural processes (since repeatable implies deterministic, and the senses can only observe the physical). If you cannot show this, admit that demands for "evidence" are faulty -- something akin to deciding to accept only blue light as evidence and then demanding a proof that the world is not purely blue.

 

[Mark]

So, you are defining atheism as a religion, as long as other people worship a god?

That makes no sense...

The non-belief of something is not a religion.

This is a simple concept, one that is easily illustrated by our previous understanding of Awizardry and the like...
*******************************************

I do not believe in wizards, also called Awizardry.

Johnson worships wizards.

Awizardry is a religion.

Not valid.

I'm talking about a "bigger picture" - the nature of the Universe.

Specifically about whether God exists, and if believing such is "religion".

Do you define believing in God as religion?

If someone believes the Universe was created, is that "religious"?

Religion: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies,...

a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects...

Again, you can't prove God doesn't exist, so you can only believe it.
You have a "set of beliefs" concerning God and the nature of the universe.

Some Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power.

They can do whatever they want because once they die it's all over - no accountability. That's what they believe.

And some people believe that there are consequences, good and bad, for our actions after we die, because we are more than just our bodies, we have a spiritual side to our existence, more than just our flesh. And some add that there is a Creator, or God, who on purpose brought us and the Universe into existence.

And if you call someone who believes in a God, and their set of beliefs concerning that "religious", then you have to call someone who doesn't believe in a God and their set of beliefs concerning such "religious" too.


I'm fine if you don't want to call your belief system regarding the existence of God, Atheism, a religion,
but then you shouldn't call my belief system regarding the existence of God, Christianity, a religion.

 

[Paulitical Correctness]

Admitting to yourself, "Hey, maybe I haven't got all the answers", is quite possibly the single most important thing you can do in regards to becoming a more open-minded person, which will ultimately allow you to better coexist with your fellow man.

Nothing wrong with faith and conviction, or lack thereof. But remember they are your beliefs.

"U lyke liberteez? Hay, me 2!"

 

[Broadlighter]

You want to make God laugh, just tell him your plans.

 

[sophocles07]

Again, you can't prove God doesn't exist, so you can only believe it.
You have a "set of beliefs" concerning God and the nature of the universe.

Negative Proof fallacy?

Can you really consider it a “set of beliefs” when you are simply saying “I see no evidence for this, therefore I don’t believe in this, if you present me with some evidence, I guess I’ll believe in it”? It’s like saying I have a “set of beliefs” when I know that I am typing on a computer right now but see no evidence for the proposition that I am typing on an elephant’s asswrinkles. One is factual, the other ridiculous; it’s not a “religion.”

Some Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power.

Yeah, and some Catholics molest children. What’s your point?

They can do whatever they want because once they die it's all over - no accountability. That's what they believe.

You’re very simple.

And some people believe that there are consequences, good and bad, for our actions after we die, because we are more than just our bodies, we have a spiritual side to our existence, more than just our flesh. And some add that there is a Creator, or God, who on purpose brought us and the Universe into existence.

Question:

is it more morally honorable to do good, behave well on earth for reward, avoid evil because you will be punished; or to do good and avoid evil because you know it will help everyone out and make the world better?

If the first choice does not strike you like an enlarged cosmological version of parent-child relations, you are overthinking this thing.

And if you call someone who believes in a God, and their set of beliefs concerning that "religious", then you have to call someone who doesn't believe in a God and their set of beliefs concerning such "religious" too.

No, you don’t; for reasons above.

I'm also not aware of any ritual based in the idea of "no god," or of any of these needed "tenets" of the faith.

 

[Kade]

I'm fine if you don't want to call your belief system regarding the existence of God, Atheism, a religion,
but then you shouldn't call my belief system regarding the existence of God, Christianity, a religion.

This is, quit possibly, the most idiotic utterance I've heard on these forums yet, and that is difficult, as you are competing with the forces of Theocrat and Truth Warrior.

You are so utterly mistaken in your understanding of Atheism and atheists in general, that you have actually clarified a problem I had been witnessing.

You see, you attempted to define us as a group, because you understand what a religion is... you say things like:

"Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power."

Nonsense. Atheists live as if this life matters greatly, seeing as it is the only one we have. I cannot make sweeping generalizations about atheists, even though I am one, because as a "group" we do not have a constant set of beliefs or practices.

Here are some easy generalizations about atheists that can be made that contradict the very definition of a religion:

Atheists do not make supernatural claims about reality.
Atheists do not have a set of beliefs and/or practices.
Atheists do not have a codified set of rules, rituals, or prayers.
Atheists do not have cultural traditions, or a shared mythology.
Atheists do not even have much of a community.

The most important distinction that can be made as well in this batshit nonsense you are spewing, is one question...

If Atheism is a religion, what form of belief or non-belief is a non-religion?

 

[Theocrat]

The Religion of "Atheism"

This is, quit possibly, the most idiotic utterance I've heard on these forums yet, and that is difficult, as you are competing with the forces of Theocrat and Truth Warrior.

You are so utterly mistaken in your understanding of Atheism and atheists in general, that you have actually clarified a problem I had been witnessing.

You see, you attempted to define us as a group, because you understand what a religion is... you say things like:

"Atheists live their lives, for example, believing that it doesn't matter how they live their life in terms of having to answer for their actions to a higher power."

Nonsense. Atheists live as if this life matters greatly, seeing as it is the only one we have. I cannot make sweeping generalizations about atheists, even though I am one, because as a "group" we do not have a constant set of beliefs or practices.

Here are some easy generalizations about atheists that can be made that contradict the very definition of a religion:

Atheists do not make supernatural claims about reality.
Atheists do not have a set of beliefs and/or practices.
Atheists do not have a codified set of rules, rituals, or prayers.
Atheists do not have cultural traditions, or a shared mythology.
Atheists do not even have much of a community.

The most important distinction that can be made as well in this batshit nonsense you are spewing, is one question...

If Atheism is a religion, what form of belief or non-belief is a non-religion?

"Atheists" are religious humanists. See here, here, and here for more details about that. You are not in a position of religious neutrality. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and philosophically naive.

 

[Kade]

"Atheists" are religious humanists. See here, here, and here for more details about that. You are not in a position of religious neutrality. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and philosophically naive.

Unless you ask what every atheist in the world believes, the only thing you are qualified to say is based on the very definition of the word.

We do not believe in gods.

Some atheists are humanists, but not all. Humanism is a religion. Atheism is not.

You are the only one being intellectually dishonest here Theocrat.

 

[acptulsa]

not[/B] in a position of religious neutrality. To suggest otherwise is to be intellectually dishonest and philosophically naive.

Just because you have no one to sing hymns to doesn't mean atheism (as opposed to agnosticism and using the simplest, most straightforward definitions) isn't a belief structure concerning the truth about dieties.

And what is the word we use for belief structures concerning dieties?