How atheists became the most colossally smug and annoying people on the planet

[erowe1]

So far, not a single argument for a god/God has ever been found to be sound, even if valid.

How do you know?

 

[VIDEODROME]

Agnosticism would be the same as monotheism and atheism. It's a doctrine, not a religion. If you're agnostic, then your religion includes agnosticism, but it also probably includes lots of other things.

Okay, I agree with the above quote.

EDIT: I'm not sure about the post below


You want to say everyone has a doctrine, I can buy that. But now the Religion term just got flipped again.

 

[erowe1]

Actually, you are speaking of strong atheism.



Again, you are speaking only of strong atheism. But, weak atheism is the majority position among atheists.



Atheism is not a tenet.



Since weak atheism is a lack of belief in any particular doctrine, dogma, or principle, and since a lack of belief is, by definition, not an opinion, atheism is not a tenet.



Still talking about strong rather than weak atheism, and weak atheism is still the majority position among atheists. So, your statements are simply too broad, general, and sweeping to hold any relevance.




You mean like humanists(ref Humanist Manifesto)? Except those are tenets, not practices. And, as we both apparently agreed, that is a small sub-set, and therefore, not relevant.

But, all theists do hold as a general rule, worship and prayer to a supernatural being, as well as group gathering to discuss "the word."



Buddhists are non-theists, which as a term, tends to differentiate that distinction of the "religious atheist" I had talked about previously. Meditation is a practice adhered to by Buddhists, generally speaking. And, Buddhism is a globally recognized religion. Atheism is not.



The manifesto linked to earlier in this thread does not lay out guidelines for behavior or practices. It is simply a set of established tenets(opinions).



I cannot speak to the practices of Objectivists, due to unfamiliarity. But, given your erroneous depictions of atheists, I have reason to doubt your veracity in that area as well.



By Darwinists, do you mean evolutionary biologists? If so, then yes... Of course they do. It is the scientific method as applied to biology.

So, I suppose next you will claim that science is a religion because it has "ritualistic" practices.



Now you're going to conflate daily activities with no special purpose with ritual practice?

There is simply no reasoning with you, is there?

When you distinguish strong and weak atheism, what you're calling "strong atheism" is simply the normal definition of atheism. When I said "atheism" that's what I meant. I was using the normal definition. You can verify this by checking standard English dictionaries as well as standard reference works in philosophy.

But even people who are what you call "weak atheists" must believe certain things about God or the lack thereof. Whatever their tenets are, they still have tenets. They still have to have a religion, according to the definition of "religion" that has been used so far in this thread.

I never mentioned either Darwinists or rituals.

But since you mentioned rituals, do you think rituals are essential to religion? If so, what do you think a ritual is? And who in the world do you think doesn't practice any?

 

[erowe1]

You should author a new dictionary since your definitions do not coincide with the existing ones.

I haven't offered any definitions here. The only definitions I've used are the existing ones, namely the definitions that OtherOne wanted to use.

The people making up new definitions are the ones claiming that being atheist entails not having any religion.

 

[heavenlyboy34]

I'm not at all familiar with "Kant's Proof." But then, of course, I'm not at all convinced that many who have read Kant actually understood what was stated by him, since there seems to be so much disagreement and since it has been well established(It seems to be the one thing about Kant, on which all agree) that his writing style is a bit opaque(difficult to grasp). I have not, in my own defense, found any works by Kant, and based on the reports I've seen, I haven't seen reason to bother.

This is a pretty interesting piece about it: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-religion/#GodRelKanCri

As a bit of trivia, in the very famous Bulgakov novel "Master And Margarita", Woland suggests Kant's proof during a debate with the atheist poet Bezdomny.

 

[VIDEODROME]

What if Atheism is successfully argued to be a Religion? Is there a big significance to this that is worth all this arguing over definitions?

I suppose the next argument after that is that Atheists have beliefs based on Faith which basically puts them on the same level with other Religions like Christianity?

There could be interesting consequences if this was true. Some people making this argument might say that Richard Dawkin's "belief" in Evolution is his Faith. That Natural Selection and Evolutionary Biology are his religion.

Well.....in daily life many people do use some kind of Faith because you simply can't be informed on everything. I just got my prescription refilled and I guess I have to have Faith they won't give me the wrong pills and kill me. I do think this kind of Faith is balanced with Reason and evidence though. I would not have as much Faith in a doctor listed on Craigslist working out of Motel room.

To Atheists, typical Theistic religion has a far different balance. It does have evidence, but many Atheists think old Holy Books or Relics are questionable as proof there is a God. I suppose many Theists also point to the world itself as proof there must be a Creator. I feel that this is jumping to conclusions.

I also get the strong impression that Theists strive to build up a Faith that trumps Reason. Or that some Theists are proud to have unquestioning Faith. I think most Atheists are going the other way. This does not mean they have no quality of Faith at all, but they try to keep it tempered with Reason.

I guess it seems to me that what distinguishes Atheism from Theism should be straightforward and obvious. So, I don't really get what is being argued in here about Atheism being a Religion.

 

[erowe1]

It is not a religion to say there is no credible proof of a God; therefore I do not believe there is one.

1) Anybody who makes the above claim, absolutely does have a religion, according to the definitions OtherOne provided.
2) I like that you said this. It will give an opportunity to illustrate what I've been saying.

Let us call the following Dogma A:

In order to warrant belief something must be proven.

Would you say you accept this dogma? I based it on what you said. But if there's something wrong with the way I put it that doesn't reflect what you meant, please let me know.

Then, my next question is, can you prove Dogma A?

 

[erowe1]

I suppose the next argument after that is that Atheists have beliefs based on Faith which basically puts them on the same level with other Religions like Christianity?

This is absolutely the case. It is logically impossible for someone not to have any beliefs based on faith.

And you're right to zero in on this. Part of the reason I care about this language is that I encounter so many atheists who have this completely illogical idea that somehow they only believe things based on reason and evidence, whereas religious people (which they consider themselves not to be) make appeals to faith.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Some people making this argument might say that Richard Dawkin's "belief" in Evolution is his Faith. That Natural Selection and Evolutionary Biology are his religion.

There are no sacred truths in science.

 

[Sola_Fide]

There are no sacred truths in science.

There is no truth in science. Truth is by definition that which does not change. Science constantly changes. It is impossible for science to yield a statement of truth.

 

[VIDEODROME]

This is absolutely the case. It is logically impossible for someone not to have any beliefs based on faith.

And you're right to zero in on this. Part of the reason I care about this language is that I encounter so many atheists who have this completely illogical idea that somehow they only believe things based on reason and evidence, whereas religious people (which they consider themselves not to be) make appeals to faith.

Really? I thought I made a mild concession that even Atheists have a form of Faith sometimes because you can't be informed on everything.

I do know about computers, but I am not that knowledgeable on Auto-Mechanics. I took my Honda to a Car Shop and I just have to have some Faith that these guys know what they hell they're doing. It helps a little that they have some Certifications posted on the wall suggesting a level of competence. I have been to that shop before and so far whatever they have fixed has stayed fixed.

The only way I could know for absolute certainty is to become a Car Mechanic myself and go to Trade School.

However, Reason also plays an important part here. If I saw a guy repairing vehicles out of his garage and had various cars up on blocks in his front yard, I would not put any Faith in his abilities.

If you are applying this to the God question though, you are asking people to prove a negative which is weird. The argument and burden of proof should fall on the party making any extraordinary claim.

 

[Natural Citizen]

There is no truth in science. Truth is by definition that which does not change. Science constantly changes. It is impossible for science to yield a statement of truth.

Correct.

 

[VIDEODROME]

There are no sacred truths in science.

I would hope not.

 

[erowe1]

Really? I thought I made a mild concession that even Atheists have a form of Faith sometimes because you can't be informed on everything.

I do know about computers, but I am not that knowledgeable on Auto-Mechanics. I took my Honda to a Car Shop and I just have to have some Faith that these guys know what they hell they're doing. It helps a little that they have some Certifications posted on the wall suggesting a level of competence. I have been to that shop before and so far whatever they have fixed has stayed fixed.

The only way I could know for absolute certainty is to become a Car Mechanic myself and go to Trade School.

However, Reason also plays an important part here. If I saw a guy repairing vehicles out of his garage and had various cars up on blocks in his front yard, I would not put any Faith in his abilities.

I'm glad for the mild concession. But, like you said, a person with that kind of faith may actually base it on a logical argument, and not just faith.

I'm talking about something deeper than what you're conceding. I'm saying (and this is no exaggeration) that it is logically impossible for anyone to believe anything at all, unless they believe something based on faith alone.

If you are applying this to the God question though, you are asking people to prove a negative which is weird. The argument and burden of proof should fall on the party making any extraordinary claim.

Which claim is extraordinary? That there is a God or that there isn't one?

But, what about the claim that the laws of logic exist? Is that an extraordinary claim? If so, does that mean that the person claiming it has the burden of proof?

 

[Natural Citizen]

Which claim is extraordinary? That there is a God or that there isn't one?

But, what about the claim that the laws of logic exist? Is that an extraordinary claim? If so, does that mean that the person claiming it has the burden of proof?

This reminds me of the discussion in the other thread about which rock circles the other. Essentially we're begging questions that premise upon the smaller scale of things. Or from an Earth dweller's perspective. Basically one can only see as far as they are willing or able to look.

In this case, it's the unknown(not if there is a God or there isn't). And tolerance for the unknown is not a product of faith. The faithful assume that they have all of the answers and so no more questions are required. No need to look any further, they say. Just remain content to debate if there is or isn't a God.

Tolerance for the unknown should not be surmised as disbelief.

 

[VIDEODROME]

Which claim is extraordinary? That there is a God or that there isn't one?

But, what about the claim that the laws of logic exist? Is that an extraordinary claim? If so, does that mean that the person claiming it has the burden of proof?

Well.... it could be said that most claims made about anything are trying to explain something or a mystery. You start with a question seeking an answer. If a person says "I know how this happened. God did this.", it seems like an explanation would be expected. I don't know if the flipside of this would ever happen where an Atheist steps forward "I know how this did not happen. I know this was not caused by a God or any other Supernatural Agent.". At most, they might ask the Theist to elaborate on their explanation, but stepping forward on their own to offer a negative explanation is weird.

An atheist could be investigating the cause of the big Yosemite Fire. Would anyone picture them stepping forward with a negative explanation like "I am certain this fire was not started by dragons."? I think this would be different form a Dragonist stepping forward and saying "Finally, this is proof of the Dragons!"


As for claiming Logic exists, I don't think that is such an extraordinary claim. I'm not sure Logic is a law of the universe any more than Roberts Rules of Order or Algebra. More like a method of trying to resolve something.

 

[otherone]

So far, not a single argument for a god/God has ever been found to be sound, even if valid.

Oh yeah? What about the woodpecker?

 

[Sonny Tufts]

The laws of logic are not made of physical elements; they are immaterial because they are standards of reasoning. Yet, if the whole universe is nothing but physical elements, then laws of logic cannot exist.

How does that follow?

As laws, the laws of logic are universal, invariant, and abstract (not confined to mass or space). They apply in every realm of human reasoning, which makes them absolute and eternal.

If there were no mass and space, to what could the laws possibly apply? Moreover, the law of excluded middle isn't accepted in all cases by the intuitionist school of mathematical philosophy, so it's hardly universal.

 

[erowe1]

If there were no mass and space, to what could the laws possibly apply?

To concepts. The law of noncontradiction wouldn't cease to be valid if there were no such thing as mass and space. The same goes for the laws of mathematics.

 

[fr33]

1) Anybody who makes the above claim, absolutely does have a religion, according to the definitions OtherOne provided.
2) I like that you said this. It will give an opportunity to illustrate what I've been saying.

Let us call the following Dogma A:


Would you say you accept this dogma? I based it on what you said. But if there's something wrong with the way I put it that doesn't reflect what you meant, please let me know.

Then, my next question is, can you prove Dogma A?

If that's the case then every opinion is a separate religion. You look to the sky and think it is blue, therefore you are a bluetheist.

But it isn't the case. Nobody defines religion by saying you have one opinion except a couple of people here. No dictionary defines religion like that.