Atheism is not a religion

Message boards : Politics : Atheism is not a religion
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1857246 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 18:27:24 UTC - in response to Message 1857212.  

Atheism is just as much a religion as say, for instance, Roman Catholicism.

Exactly what proof has been submitted throughout human history, regarding the existence of an All Powerful, Ever Existing, Maker of All... Deity. Whether it be a bearded white male, or a 'super ant'?

Atheism is neither a Religion, nor a Secular Ideology. Just a belief in the Scientific Method. AKA 'Prove It'.


Clyde,

Prove (as you say) that there isn't... (hint: you can NOT prove it either way, *is* or *isn't*). Also, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

If your own personal religious belief is that 'there is no deity', that is still your religious belief, therefore your religion.

Sorry, both Theism and Atheism are equivalent. Belief in something without the possibility of proof. That is, Faith.


Note: I am NOT, strictly speaking, a Theist, Nor am I an Atheist (again, strictly speaking).

I would classify myself as an Agnostic Deist (and, yes, that is ALSO a Religion). I think that there MIGHT be a Deity, and I have an open mind to the possibility, BUT I do not know for sure, one way or the other. But, it does not really matter, because if there IS a Deity, it set up the Universe to run by itself according to a set of Natural Laws, then went off to do something else after the 'on switch' was thrown. If the Deity exists, they are not much of an activist, and directly interferes in Their Creation only VERY VERY rarely (if at all). I reject the possibility of any special, secret knowledge of the Deity (revealed word, visions, etc.)... possessed by anyone... ever... The only way to knowledge of the Deity (if it exists) is through observation of the universe and the application of reason to those observations. Well, those are my beliefs. Yours (or those of anyone else) are your (or their) own business.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1857246 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1857249 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 18:35:51 UTC - in response to Message 1857214.  


I think I much prefer https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion
1. The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

Sometimes one needs to go to sources that don't change as winds blow and keep original meanings.


Such as?

The source you just listed? The 'Oxford Living Dictionary'?


About

Oxford Dictionaries focuses on current language and practical usage. The English site provides free access to the largest current English dictionaries and thesaurus as well as helpful tips on grammar, usage, spelling, and more.


https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/explore/about
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1857249 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1857250 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 18:47:04 UTC - in response to Message 1857246.  

Prove (as you say) that there isn't.

An atheist by definition will not waste time looking for something (s)he knows doesn't exist.

Would you go looking for casual water lying on the floor on the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon on a fine day in March or April?
No, because you know the chances of that water existing are less than you, or even someone you know, winning the largest lottery win in the history of the USA.
ID: 1857250 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1857255 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 20:25:45 UTC

Fact or belief?

1: You're born 2: You live for x time 3: You die
ID: 1857255 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1857257 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 20:48:06 UTC - in response to Message 1857250.  
Last modified: 23 Mar 2017, 20:50:18 UTC

Prove (as you say) that there isn't.

An atheist by definition will not waste time looking for something (s)he knows doesn't exist.

Would you go looking for casual water lying on the floor on the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon on a fine day in March or April?
No, because you know the chances of that water existing are less than you, or even someone you know, winning the largest lottery win in the history of the USA.


Ya mean like this?



<wink> :P

But seriously. I HAVE seen water on the ground in the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon in March the last time I was there, about ten years ago. Of course, it was not drinkable, and was a rather small pool (a few feet across, depth less than a foot), but it was THERE. It was fed by a trickle from a spring (yes, there are hot springs in that part of the Chihuahuan desert due to volcanic activity) just off of (100 yards or so) one of the hiking trail in Big Bend National Park. Yes, there is water in the Chihuahuan Desert. You just have to know where to look for it.

I know what you are trying to say, but you chose a BAD example.

Besides, how does an atheist KNOW that a Deity does not exist? They may BELIEVE one does not (since neither the existence nor the non-existence of a Deity can be proven), but that is not really the same thing. If one is an atheist believes that a Deity does not exist, that is fine and dandy... Whatever works for them. Just do not try to act superior because of it.
https://youtu.be/iY57ErBkFFE

#Texit

Don't blame me, I voted for Johnson(L) in 2016.

Truth is dangerous... especially when it challenges those in power.
ID: 1857257 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1857259 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 20:54:50 UTC - in response to Message 1857257.  

Like everything in life...
Just do not try to act superior because of it.
..therein lies the problem.
ID: 1857259 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1857263 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 21:40:49 UTC
Last modified: 23 Mar 2017, 21:41:37 UTC

Always the wood for no trees being visible.

At least what we are supposed to guess, or at least make up when it comes to a couple of things.

Being either an atheist, or possibly an agnostic, should be a preferred way in order to carry out science, because as usual, both that of Theology, or the similar,
related to possible Religion and Faith, is supposed to be about possible deities and next a given belief in such deities by means of possible vorshipping.

I rather stick to the thread here, as well as the original poster (OP) in mind and next the fact that Albert Einstein definitely was an atheist.

But next it becomes the point of actually carrying out any science on the whole thing.

You may be familiar with the Mandelbrot set, together with a couple of other subjects currently being under discussion, in a possible attempt at making it all come together.

Whether or not it could be about such a Mandelbrot set, or even the Butterfly effect, for that matter, also the fact that both the subject of gravity as explaining the properties of space,
as well as the notion of time, these subjects are not necessary always the same.

Still the fact that we rely on both mathematics and physics in order to explain both space and also the rest of nature around us in order for a given understanding.

But next also the fact that a given notion relating to something which might not always be science could be about a possible understanding of God.

The question becomes whether or not such a given notion about a possible belief could in fact be comprehended.
ID: 1857263 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1857271 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:11:23 UTC - in response to Message 1857255.  

Fact or belief?

1: You're born 2: You live for x time 3: You die

Belief. And mathematically proved as belief.

Has to do with computer science and computer simulators. To the conscious running on the simulator it is impossible to know if it is being simulated or real.
ID: 1857271 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1857272 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:17:50 UTC - in response to Message 1857263.  

ID: 1857272 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1857275 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:36:04 UTC - in response to Message 1857271.  

So you believe that the Earth is an experiment on E.T's computer simulator?
ID: 1857275 · Report as offensive
Profile Mr. Kevvy Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $250 donor
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 15 May 99
Posts: 3776
Credit: 1,114,826,392
RAC: 3,319
Canada
Message 1857276 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:38:59 UTC
Last modified: 23 Mar 2017, 22:44:33 UTC

Einstein's "religion" isn't much of one... he could be categorized, if even possible, as an agnostic pantheist or deist. He was certainly not an advocate of traditional revealed religion, as his recently auctioned letter indicated.

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weakness, the Bible a collection of honorable, but still purely primitive, legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can change this for me."

And when his quotes on religion were misused:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Scientists who are not religious but from a religious background are open to misinterpretation as they sometimes will use religious references ie "God" but in a different manner than we are used to. As with so much, Carl Sagan put it best:

"The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous. But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity."
ID: 1857276 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1857277 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:44:00 UTC - in response to Message 1857205.  

Everyone has a belief system, but a belief system isn't necessarily religion by definition. Stating you have no religious belief system, while accepting that you do have a belief system, doesn't automatically correlate to having a religion.

And I am using the definition of religion here exclusively:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Definition of religion
1
a :  the state of a religious a nun in her 20th year of religion
b (1) :  the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) :  commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
:  a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic :  scrupulous conformity :  conscientiousness
4
:  a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


It takes mental gymnastics to try to fit atheism into that. There is no institutionalized system of beliefs or practices for atheism. Each atheist has their own individual set of beliefs, and even many share a set of beliefs, but that's not institutionalized by any means.


You appear to be referring to meaning #2. "A personal set OR institutionalized system...".

'Institutional' is not a requirement.

Atheism is just as much a religion as say, for instance, Roman Catholicism.


Still doesn't fit #2. Atheism isn't a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices (removing institutionalized system per your request).
ID: 1857277 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1857280 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:58:14 UTC - in response to Message 1857246.  
Last modified: 23 Mar 2017, 23:03:01 UTC

Prove (as you say) that there isn't... (hint: you can NOT prove it either way, *is* or *isn't*). Also, absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.


As has been said many times, you can't prove a negative. I have never seen a red, seven winged swan but that doesn't mean one doesn't exist. I can't prove one exists either. But I see no reason to believe that one exists, despite there being a possibility, until there's evidence to support the existence of one.

If your own personal religious belief is that 'there is no deity', that is still your religious belief, therefore your religion.


You keep defining individual belief as "religious". It seems in your language, you lack a word to describe "lack of religion", therefore you are unable to classify anything as such. Atheism is a rejection of religion and faith. That is the English word to describe a lack of religion.

Sorry, both Theism and Atheism are equivalent. Belief in something without the possibility of proof. That is, Faith.


Atheism is a rejection of faith. An Atheist doesn't proclaim to believe in anything without proof, rather that's the Atheist's position: to disbelieve until there's rational evidence to support the claim. That, by definition, is not faith and not a belief system.

I think that there MIGHT be a Deity, and I have an open mind to the possibility, BUT I do not know for sure, one way or the other.


As I've stated previously, Atheism isn't about rejecting the possibility of a deity. Atheism is about rejection of a faith-based system of beliefs (religion) and about rational, evidence-based thinking. I am open to the possibility of there being a deity, but I see no reason to believe in one until further evidence is provided.
ID: 1857280 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1857283 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 23:05:20 UTC - in response to Message 1857275.  

So you believe that the Earth is an experiment on E.T's computer simulator?
Don't even know I'm alive, so why invoke some E.T.?

I think therefore I am, is the wrong conclusion. I think therefore there is thinking, is the correct conclusion. I can't know anything else. I can derive the laws of mathematics and logic, but it ends there. All sensory input can be fake.

It may not be that many more years and physics will have a GUT. I expect that GUT will imply the universe is self caused ending the need for a first mover. That's when things get interesting.

In any case atheism is not theism. Theism is religion. Atheism is not religion.
ID: 1857283 · Report as offensive
Sirius B Project Donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Dec 00
Posts: 24877
Credit: 3,081,182
RAC: 7
Ireland
Message 1857286 - Posted: 23 Mar 2017, 23:21:47 UTC - in response to Message 1857283.  

Don't even know I'm alive, so why invoke some E.T.?
Has to do with computer science and computer simulators. To the conscious running on the simulator it is impossible to know if it is being simulated or real.
Who else but E.T. Can't be human now can it?
ID: 1857286 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19013
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1857302 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 0:23:13 UTC - in response to Message 1857257.  

Prove (as you say) that there isn't.

An atheist by definition will not waste time looking for something (s)he knows doesn't exist.

Would you go looking for casual water lying on the floor on the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon on a fine day in March or April?
No, because you know the chances of that water existing are less than you, or even someone you know, winning the largest lottery win in the history of the USA.


Ya mean like this?



<wink> :P

But seriously. I HAVE seen water on the ground in the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon in March the last time I was there, about ten years ago. Of course, it was not drinkable, and was a rather small pool (a few feet across, depth less than a foot), but it was THERE. It was fed by a trickle from a spring (yes, there are hot springs in that part of the Chihuahuan desert due to volcanic activity) just off of (100 yards or so) one of the hiking trail in Big Bend National Park. Yes, there is water in the Chihuahuan Desert. You just have to know where to look for it.

I know what you are trying to say, but you chose a BAD example.

Besides, how does an atheist KNOW that a Deity does not exist? They may BELIEVE one does not (since neither the existence nor the non-existence of a Deity can be proven), but that is not really the same thing. If one is an atheist believes that a Deity does not exist, that is fine and dandy... Whatever works for them. Just do not try to act superior because of it.

I deliberately said. "CASUAL WATER"

That means a puddle.
NOT a pool fed from a spring.
ID: 1857302 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1857310 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 0:54:12 UTC
Last modified: 24 Mar 2017, 1:21:56 UTC

Yes, Nick.

"Do not tell me the odds", because such a thing could be about a given Probability.

In fact I find it both hard and in fact wrong in possibly trying to give a possible explanation of God in a similar context as that of the Mandelbrot set.

Science is supposed to be namely that, meaning science, while that of Religion and Faith still are supposed to be those two things as well.

If you ever could be able to make a possible definition of that of a given Religion or Faith when it comes to a possible notion of God by means of doing such a thing by means of the
Mandelbrot set or the like, such an assumption could probably be wrong.

I have mentioned before, or in the past that we at best could perhaps believe in a scientific God as a possible Creator of the Universe.

The sad thing is that we could have both the Mandelbrot set and the Butterfly Effect for a given thing when it comes to that of science, while still be left with the possible notion of Heaven and Hell
when it comes to that of Religion.

Translate the above as needed, if possible.

If such a thing as "The Big Bang" could mean possible ridicule or blasphemy coming from that of scientists, we probably would not be any better off, in my opinion.

Again it should be pointed out the importance of that of "Matter Creation" as that of our current understanding of the Universe.

Such a thing is the "working area" for that of possible science being carried out and next the fact that we could be left with that of both moral and ethics, as well as that of philosophical questions,
if not that of possible logical or judicial questions for the same.

lawfully
statutory

orderliness
regularity

inherent orderliness

By means of Google Translate above, needs to be put into a given context.

Anyway, make it that of possible justice, if you will and you could be back at either that of moral, or possibly even that of a given Logic for such a thing.

Next should be pointed out that in my opinion, such a thing should not be taken literally, or to the point, most of the time.

I previously mentioned that a given Creation and that of a Creator for such might not necessarily be the same.

This would next be the possible notion of both God and possibly the Devil which could be around or in our hands.

If such a thing as a given destruction, like that being observed in Syria of today, we do not necessarily see the face of the Devil either, in my opinion.

Define such a thing as both love and hatred and you next could be able to define both of these in a different context.

If possibly doing so, any God or Devil in such a thing, because both could be part of a given nature.

The answer could be that we rather could make such a thing that of possible Religion and Faith.

Look at such a thing as both Matter Creation, as well as that of a similar destruction or demise, including that of the Universe and there could be reason to believe that there is no God or divine entity involved.

Needs an edit above.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsi_BFANAcE
ID: 1857310 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1857327 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 2:43:11 UTC - in response to Message 1857246.  

Clyde said:
Exactly what proof has been submitted throughout human history, regarding the existence of an All Powerful, Ever Existing, Maker of All... Deity. Whether it be a bearded white male, or a 'super ant'?

Atheism is neither a Religion, nor a Secular Ideology. Just a belief in the Scientific Method. AKA 'Prove It'.

That makes sense to me.


MajorKong said:
If your own personal religious belief is that 'there is no deity', that is still your religious belief, therefore your religion.

Sorry, both Theism and Atheism are equivalent. Belief in something without the possibility of proof. That is, Faith.

I would classify myself as an Agnostic Deist (and, yes, that is ALSO a Religion). I think that there MIGHT be a Deity, and I have an open mind to the possibility, BUT I do not know for sure, one way or the other.

That makes sense to me, too.


Nick said:
An atheist by definition will not waste time looking for something (s)he knows doesn't exist.

But how does anyone really know this for sure?


OzzFan said:
Atheism isn't a personal set of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

Atheism is a rejection of religion and faith. That is the English word to describe a lack of religion.

Atheism is a rejection of faith. An Atheist doesn't proclaim to believe in anything without proof, rather that's the Atheist's position: to disbelieve until there's rational evidence to support the claim. That, by definition, is not faith and not a belief system.

As I've stated previously, Atheism isn't about rejecting the possibility of a deity. Atheism is about rejection of a faith-based system of beliefs (religion) and about rational, evidence-based thinking. I am open to the possibility of there being a deity, but I see no reason to believe in one until further evidence is provided.

Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1857327 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1857331 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 3:12:17 UTC
Last modified: 24 Mar 2017, 3:16:43 UTC

You do not need to be a moderator in order to start a thread here at Seti@home.

Are we supposed to believe that a possible belief always should be about a given Method of Proof, or perhaps the same when it comes to that of a given truth?

Look at possible apparitions in the sky and it could be either anything, or possibly something which at best or most likely could be interpreted by means of a
spiritual nature.

Perhaps this could be further debated, but you probably know my opinion here.

Being a possible philosopher, your way of dealing with a couple of things is not necessarily that of being either a skeptical, or even a debunker, but rather you ask questions
about nature "as is" and nothing else.

In my opinion, such things possibly being explained, or perhaps interpreted as being either supernatural, or overnatural, might not necessarily or always be explained by means of
accredited science as such.

We definitely have both the heathen and angels, as well as the possible evil forces, including the Devil, for such a thing.

Really, as being kind of a scientist myself, I hate to exaggerate, but rather the fact that if a voice in your head is telling you that it becomes wrong, it rather could be the voice of the Devil,
rather than that of God.

Remember the wording "The Lord is your Shepherd" and next such a thing could go or be true for that of the "Falling man" as well.

Look at recent natural disasters happening and the fact that probably more people have lost their Faith because of such a thing.

Are you supposed to be having a given "Faith" in the possible Devil?

Supposedly it could still be about that of a given Religion for such a thing.

Anyway, look at such a thing as extraterrestrial intelligence and we probably are back at the same old story, or more or less the same thing.

Believe in the possible Mandelbrot set, or the Butterfly effect, if you will, because such a thing could perhaps suit or fit a given thing perhaps better.

Next ask possible questions about or related to that of the possible technological, which might not be explained and such things could perhaps be related to that of nature.

Anyway, possible blackmail or make a given blasphemy of that of a given science and what could the result or answer be back in return?

Are we not supposed to take these things for granted, only because that of science, or possible scientists, are able to tell you such a thing?

Next, are we supposed to be speaking about the possible "truth" when trying to have such a debate?

Possibly a couple of questions still remaining before a definitive answer.
ID: 1857331 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1857332 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 3:16:08 UTC - in response to Message 1857331.  

"Faith" in the possible Devil?


Good point. That's religion, too.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1857332 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Atheism is not a religion


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.