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
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1857335 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 3:47:15 UTC
Last modified: 24 Mar 2017, 4:23:29 UTC

Thanks for that, Gordon.

Mentioning the passing of my father earlier on, I got the message from a visit from both my mother and aunt, which I believe was on Wednesday.

Also the passing away, which apparently was last Tuesday and I was not present there at that time.

Read my lips, but neither such a thing as the smile of Mona Lisa, nor that of a major earthquake or tsunami happening on Earth is going to change anything.

This, only or because of the fact that when such a thing is happening, it could be about possible change and for this we are or could be having possible events.

Fall in love with Albert Einstein, or perhaps Niels Bohr, if you will, but one possible option could be that of a event horizon being part of a Black Hole making up a given property of space.

Perhaps we are a bit or slightly too concerned about space itself and next forget about such a thing as gravity.

Gravity, as you may well know, is a "pet science" among some people, because it deals with, or incorporates a couple of subjects relevant to both mankind, as well as a given functionality.

If I am not wrong, Jesus probably was probably renouncing his Father, namely God, for leaving him, while hanging on the Cross.

The problem here is that while such a thing as a given suffering could be quite obvious, we could still be left out when it comes to a given fact when it comes to that of a possible "fate", or perhaps oblivion.

Ask for help, or possible mercy, if you will and such help or comfort might only be offered by God and not the Devil.

The Devil is a symbol for possible wrong-doing, by means of telling "to do" versus "not do do".

Logic and Justice could at times be inherent, or perhaps relating with each other.

Because of such possible "not to do's" versus those possible "do's", or "to do's", we possibly could be looking at given possibilities or options rather than anything else.

Next I become or get stumped and the fact that such a thing as "Do not tell me the odds" do not necessarily tell me about any Religion or Faith at all, including that of the possible Devil.

If the question becomes "What are my chance to live or survive", rather than that of "possible death by means of a given coincidence", or possible event, the most likely outcome would be some 50/50 and again a given Probability for such.

My guess or assumption is that you may not leave such a thing alone in a just a 50/50 fashion as mentioned or stated above.

The fact is that we most likely do not bother about neither the ants or the beehive when such a thing goes dark, but when it comes to possible moral or ethical issues, including that of ourselves, or our existence,
the answer could well be a different one.

As I previously mentioned, possible Belief and Faith could be either yours to choose, if you do not choose to be one such yourself.

Why not such a thing as Religion here?

Perhaps I should give a look into what that of possible "Belief" is supposed to mean?

Right now I do not have the answer here.

Back later.
ID: 1857335 · 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 1857345 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 4:35:06 UTC - in response to Message 1857286.  

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?
You insist on imbuing it with life; There is no rational reason to do so. Nor is there any reason to think of it as a machine either, because if it is a machine you force it to be subject to the time arrow and to cause a simulator it would have had to exist before time zero and what caused it? The only logically consistent answer is the universe caused itself. Not a warm and fuzzy answer.
ID: 1857345 · Report as offensive
pierre castro
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 Feb 17
Posts: 86
Credit: 107,398
RAC: 0
Cuba
Message 1857346 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 4:37:21 UTC

I think that an absence of God is the default position of human consciousness.
God is a social construct around which beliefs are structured, hence Religions.
That's not to say that Atheism could not be pushed, as religions are,
but then it's only pushed as a counter to institutional religions.
ID: 1857346 · 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 1857386 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 9:57:04 UTC - in response to Message 1857327.  

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.


How so? Why is it not possible to reject an idea without creating a religion?
ID: 1857386 · 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 1857437 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 14:57:08 UTC - in response to Message 1857302.  


I deliberately said. "CASUAL WATER"

That means a puddle.
NOT a pool fed from a spring.


Ok,

By 'casual water' I took it to mean 'water not placed on the ground by a human being'. If, for instance, I urinated on the ground, the resulting puddle would NOT be casual water.

But, if you wanna talk puddles in the Chihuahuan desert in the afternoon during March or April, fine...

About 25 years ago in mid to late April, while on vacation, I was driving just outside (to the north of, about 1 mile) of Presidio, Texas, on Hwy 67. A freak (early) supercell thunderstorm blew in. Rain was EVERYWHERE (at least one inch). I had to cut my vacation short (not wanting to camp in the mud and risk flash-floods). I drove east to Ft. Stockton, spent the night, then drove back home.

Oh, by the way, the northern Chihuahuan Desert is my favorite place to vacation. I have seen a LOT of the area over the last 50-something years that I have been vacationing in that area (more vacations there than everywhere else in the world combined). I've even seen a road-runner eating a dead coyote by the side of the road (between Balmorhea and Ft. Davis on Tx Hwy 17).

Now then, if puddles after a (HARD) rain do not fit the bill (since you are using what is apparently a GOLF term here)... well... it would require some sort of divine intervention (which, imo, does not happen) to produce.
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: 1857437 · 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 1857448 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 15:50:53 UTC - in response to Message 1857444.  
Last modified: 24 Mar 2017, 18:38:38 UTC

Still searching for the "missing link."


The missing link? Which one is that? Thousands of transitional forms between hundreds of species have been found... problem is, when we find one, we create two more gaps for people to point at and say "Missing link!" :^p

At best, there's only anecdotal evidence of sub-atomic particles.


Then there's still only anecdotal evidence of gravity, electromagnetism and the existence of stars. Really, there's about equal evidence for all four.

All I know is I physically/mentally experienced something 300 miles away the moment a close relative died which can not be explained using the "scientific method."

It's better explained by some parables that have been around for centuries.


In 600, Mohammed had a similar revelation, being visited in the cave of Hira by the archangel Gabriel and gifted a verse of the Quran. This fulfills your criterion of being a parable that has existed for centuries.
Will you accept Islam because of this, or do you doubt it?
Is it any less valid than your premonition? If so, why?
If you don't believe it, why should anyone believe yours?

I have feelings like this often: deja vu, odd senses of dread, unexplained anxieties, a feeling like something bad has happened. But it never does. If something like a death of someone I know had happened around the same time, I might be inclined to associate that feeling with the death, forgetting all the times it was meaningless. This is "counting the hits and forgetting the misses", a well-documented phenomenon... it's what cold-reading "psychics" use. They will throw out a dozen bad guesses but when they get a good one they latch onto it and develop it, and the audience seems to forget all the bad ones.

You're right, atheism is not a religion; it's a very narrow view.


The path through an uncharted wasteland may be narrow, but it is well-trodden for a reason.
ID: 1857448 · Report as offensive
Profile John Neale
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 16 Mar 00
Posts: 634
Credit: 7,246,513
RAC: 9
South Africa
Message 1857497 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 21:06:12 UTC - in response to Message 1857484.  

Now I'm being attacked.

You're not. Mr. Kevvy is stating his view, in opposition to yours, and asking a few questions of you, which you've ignored. Furthermore, your assertion that Mr. Kevvy "can't point out irregularities in ancient writings to come to the scientific conclusion that all ancient writings are wrong or should be ignored" is a straw man argument. He did no such thing.
ID: 1857497 · 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 1857501 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 21:32:04 UTC - in response to Message 1857497.  

To that point, I find it curious to the point of concern that people tend to interpret attempts to question, challenge assumptions, or share viewpoints are viewed by some as "attacks" on this forum. How is one ever supposed to gain a broader world view if one never gets challenged in what we assume we know?
ID: 1857501 · 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 1857516 - Posted: 24 Mar 2017, 22:02:11 UTC - in response to Message 1857501.  

To that point, I find it curious to the point of concern that people tend to interpret attempts to question, challenge assumptions, or share viewpoints are viewed by some as "attacks" on this forum. How is one ever supposed to gain a broader world view if one never gets challenged in what we assume we know?
That would be logical scientific method, not spoon fed indoctrination that it seems some persons believe all should have so they are identical in every respect. Hummmmm wonder if that is why some hate diversity .......
ID: 1857516 · 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 1857555 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 0:17:30 UTC - in response to Message 1857550.  
Last modified: 25 Mar 2017, 0:34:06 UTC

I know what I experienced. I do not know what someone in 600 AD experienced.


This is the crux of it. Our minds are not computers, our eyes not cameras, our ears not microphones. They quite often deceive us. The most popular religions were developed before there was any knowledge of schizophrenia or temporal lobe epilepsy or a host of other mental issues.

Thus, you understand you can't take on faith what went on in the head of someone else fifteen hundred years who claimed to have "visions", or to be "called", or "chosen". Yet people who claimed the same attributes wrote every religious book ever written, all based on things they claimed to see, in their minds that we now know can create believable illusions, illusions that can't be told apart from reality. If you can dismiss this person's religious experience out of hand as illusory, then it is no different than dismissing anyone else's.

As someone once put (or close to it):

"I propose we are both atheists. I only disbelieve one more god than you do. When you understand why you reject all the millions of possible gods that humanity has invented over thousands of years, then you will understand why I reject yours."
ID: 1857555 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1857569 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 1:07:02 UTC

I believe I have stated this before..............
I respect an atheist's right to not believe.
I may not agree with their lack of belief.
But I shall not berate them for that.
I only ask them to also respect my right to believe as I do.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1857569 · Report as offensive
Profile Gordon Lowe
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Nov 00
Posts: 12094
Credit: 6,317,865
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1857570 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 1:22:35 UTC - in response to Message 1857386.  

Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo.


How so? Why is it not possible to reject an idea without creating a religion?

If you're passionate enough about something to be certain, that mindset falls into my definition of a religion.
The mind is a weird and mysterious place
ID: 1857570 · Report as offensive
bobby
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 22 Mar 02
Posts: 2866
Credit: 17,789,109
RAC: 3
United States
Message 1857614 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 16:20:36 UTC - in response to Message 1857570.  

Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo.


How so? Why is it not possible to reject an idea without creating a religion?

If you're passionate enough about something to be certain, that mindset falls into my definition of a religion.

Well yes, that's very likely true, which is why some atheists (myself included) adopt Russell's approach to describing their position:

Here there comes a practical question which has often troubled me. Whenever I go into a foreign country or a prison or any similar place they always ask me what is my religion.

I never know whether I should say "Agnostic" or whether I should say "Atheist". It is a very difficult question and I daresay that some of you have been troubled by it. As a philosopher, if I were speaking to a purely philosophic audience I should say that I ought to describe myself as an Agnostic, because I do not think that there is a conclusive argument by which one prove that there is not a God.

On the other hand, if I am to convey the right impression to the ordinary man in the street I think I ought to say that I am an Atheist, because when I say that I cannot prove that there is not a God, I ought to add equally that I cannot prove that there are not the Homeric gods.

None of us would seriously consider the possibility that all the gods of homer really exist, and yet if you were to set to work to give a logical demonstration that Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, and the rest of them did not exist you would find it an awful job. You could not get such proof.

Therefore, in regard to the Olympic gods, speaking to a purely philosophical audience, I would say that I am an Agnostic. But speaking popularly, I think that all of us would say in regard to those gods that we were Atheists. In regard to the Christian God, I should, I think, take exactly the same line.

Essentially this is very similar to Mr. Kevvy's "millions of gods" vs "millions of gods + 1" approach, though it does attempt to address the "certainty" issue. That certainty thing appears to be present in posts from theists and atheists in this thread:

At best, there's only anecdotal evidence of sub-atomic particles.

Cathode ray tubes are not anecdotal evidence for the existence of electrons, at least not by what most would consider "anecdotal" (the reverse of "the plural of anecdote is not data" is also true, "the singular of data is not anecdote"), while the evidence may be indirect (we cannot see with our own eyes an individual electron), to my my mind, that's not sufficient cause to describe it as anecdotal. If you truly believe that the best evidence available for the existence of sub-atomic particles is anecdotes, please visit CERN and discuss your ideas with the physicists and engineers there, you might be persuaded to change your belief.

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

There were atheists prior to the creation of the scientific method, thus atheism cannot be "just a belief" in that method. Russell's (and Mr Kevvy's) approach was accessible to those who thought about gods prior to the creation of the scientific method.

The possibility of the existence of a god (or God) troubles this atheist as much as the possible existence of Russell's teapot or invisible pink zebras, that I cannot conclusively prove none of these things exist, is not really the point.
I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

ID: 1857614 · 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 1857620 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 16:35:41 UTC - in response to Message 1857570.  

[quote]Everything you say makes sense, but the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo.


How so? Why is it not possible to reject an idea without creating a religion?

If you're passionate enough about something to be certain, that mindset falls into my definition of a religion.


Your first statement was without a modifier; "the act of rejecting things creates it's own religion, imo." Now you are adding a modifier that wasn't there, putting an "if" on it; "If you're passionate enough about something to be certain..." While the individual can be passionate, that's a more a reflection on them. Additionally, the "if" you've added now allows for a possibility for someone to reject things without being passionate. Therefore should it not be possible to reject things without being passionate and therefore be an atheist without creating a religion?
ID: 1857620 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1857658 - Posted: 25 Mar 2017, 18:11:22 UTC
Last modified: 25 Mar 2017, 18:13:35 UTC

Religion does not adhere to nor does it require any 'scientific evidence'.
Although some have tried to provide such.
I have my belief because I was taught it.
And I have never seen any reason to abandon that thought.

It gives me great comfort at times, realizing that there are forces in play in life that are far greater than I have any control over.

I acknowledge one true God, who gave me my life.
And while I have that understanding, I also know that He does not control it.
If so, he would never have led me to where I am standing right now.
He, if He were so controlling, would have steered me far away from where I am at this time.
But, He has allowed me to steer myself far away from where I should be.
We, you and I, are not simply ships awash at sea.

I know this, and at some point before I pass, should hope to bring the ship around hard.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1857658 · 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.