Evidently what an atheist says he beleives is not valid in the eyes of a theist and thus, the atheist has to be told what he beleives in by the theist. I would like to say that theist are.... Well, I'll stop there because I know as an atheist, I do not comprehend the depth of... Well I better not say that either.

Do not feel lonely. In the eyes of zealots (not to say ECR is necessarily a zealot), one must not only be a theist to have valid views, but one must hold the exact same views as the zealot.

Thus you have islamofascist bombings of Islamic civilians, Catholics and Protestants shooting at each other, Spanish Inquisitions, etc.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

A true atheist claims himself to be god. They have the only correct belief, and all other beliefs are subject to his/her judgment. Am I not right in saying that atheists affirm there is no god? And such a dogmatic statement can only be made after ones knows and understands the universe in its entirety with the possession of all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he/she would be God.

Anyone claiming to know the 'one true way' would fall under this criticism: the only way that anyone can be certain that his or her beliefs are correct is to have 'looked behind the curtain' (in the Wizard of Oz sense) and seen exactly how everything works. And although most theists' definition of God includes the fact that He is all-knowing, being all-knowing does not in itself confer godhood.

Some religious folks bristle at the idea that anyone could potentially have a characteristic in common with God without being God. They would thus ascribe to God the characteristic of being the only Knower of All Things. I'm not interested in splitting such hairs here.

My point is that you are unfairly singling out (to coin a term) devout atheists.

Since the atheist is not all-knowing, he can’t make such a dogmatic statement on God's existence.

Religious zealots of all stripes make all kinds of dogmatic statements. They (usually) don't claim divine knowledge.

He can only say that he is uncertain whether or not there is a God, and this view is called agnosticism, which in my opinion is a noble pursuit: The search for the existence of God.

There appears to be a number of agnostics (by the dictionary definition) who call themselves atheists. If anyone has an exhaustive list of the organized agnostic and atheist groupings, it would be most helpful.

(edit for formatting)

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

This thread had been interesting up to this point. I don't care much to be told what I think by a bible thumper. I know what I think and don't need to be told that I am agnostic or that I should. Up to this point, I've only stated how I feel as an atheist and now I feel that people who actually believe in a religion that had it's beginnings in animal sacrifes need to tell me what I think. I think it's highly inappropriate and arogant.

---

TEAM
LL

When an atheist refers to biblical stories as 'myths,' the theist is supposed to accept this, but calling atheism a belief is somehow offensive?

Oh, that's right... because the atheist point of view is the only correct one.

Ask any radical fundementalist of any belief, they always have the only correct answer.

Well said Octagon. A true atheist claims himself to be god. They have the only correct belief, and all other beliefs are subject to his/her judgment. Am I not right in saying that atheists affirm there is no god? And such a dogmatic statement can only be made after ones knows and understands the universe in its entirety with the possession of all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he/she would be God. Since the atheist is not all-knowing, he can’t make such a dogmatic statement on God's existence. He can only say that he is uncertain whether or not there is a God, and this view is called agnosticism, which in my opinion is a noble pursuit: The search for the existence of God.

Evidently what an atheist says he beleives is not valid in the eyes of a theist and thus, the atheist has to be told what he beleives in by the theist. I would like to say that theist are.... Well, I'll stop there because I know as an atheist, I do not comprehend the depth of... Well I better not say that either.

---

TEAM
LL

When an atheist refers to biblical stories as 'myths,' the theist is supposed to accept this, but calling atheism a belief is somehow offensive?

Oh, that's right... because the atheist point of view is the only correct one.

Ask any radical fundementalist of any belief, they always have the only correct answer.

Well said Octagon. A true atheist claims himself to be god. They have the only correct belief, and all other beliefs are subject to his/her judgment. Am I not right in saying that atheists affirm there is no god? And such a dogmatic statement can only be made after ones knows and understands the universe in its entirety with the possession of all knowledge. If anyone had these credentials, then by definition he/she would be God. Since the atheist is not all-knowing, he can’t make such a dogmatic statement on God's existence. He can only say that he is uncertain whether or not there is a God, and this view is called agnosticism, which in my opinion is a noble pursuit: The search for the existence of God.

---

Octagon, that is such BS. That is all that that post deserves. BS. It is wrong, morally and logically. You know better...or ought to.

Robert, you seem very hostile toward anyone with a differing belief.

---

Octagon, I will reiterate that atheism is not a belief. It is an absence of belief. You don't believe in my opalottopmorrigan either. It is a negation. Not an assertion.

Again, only when the theists asserts a set of attributes to his 'god' does a critical atheist counterassert.

I am familiar with Tillich's works and find him dishonest.

There are (at least) two different ways to 'assert' an atheist viewpoint.

1) There is no god.

2) The theists' assertions about this god thing are all wrong.

Number 1 is what I and Dr. Eby are calling the 'belief' or 'faith' of atheism. To assert that there is no god is to assert a specific "fact" about the Universe: it lacks a god.

Number 2 is what I call agnosticism. To assert that someone else's assertion is incorrect is not an assertion of any specific "fact" about the Universe.

A third possibility is what Dr. Eby calls agnosticism, which is the total lack of caring about god stuff.

Those who ascribe to these various views may have defined specific terms to them, and I mean no offense in using the natural language labels above.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Octagon, I will reiterate that atheism is not a belief. It is an absence of belief. You don't believe in my opalottopmorrigan either. It is a negation. Not an assertion.

Again, only when the theists asserts a set of attributes to his 'god' does a critical atheist counterassert.

I am familiar with Tillich's works and find him dishonest.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

If you want to get prickly over the definition of belief, every scientific explanation ever posited was based on potentially incorrect observations... and therefore was logically invalid.

And I never said that the inscription on dollar bills was justified.

I agree. A good scientist constantly doubts what (s)he knows.

Somewhere in the book entitles Complexity by M. Mitchell Waldrop, there was a good line. It went something like this: Once you accept something as fact, it's no longer science and it becomes history.

---

TEAM
LL

Octagon, that is such BS. That is all that that post deserves. BS. It is wrong, morally and logically. You know better...or ought to.

It's definitely not perfect... I would never use the word 'religion' to describe most atheists because 'religion' has connotations of theism and ritual orthodoxy. 'Belief system' would be a far preferable term. I'm open to suggestions on a more precise term.

When an atheist refers to biblical stories as 'myths,' the theist is supposed to accept this, but calling atheism a belief is somehow offensive?

Oh, that's right... because the atheist point of view is the only correct one.

Ask any radical fundementalist of any belief, they always have the only correct answer.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

So if I actively do not believe in the monster under my bed, then i've just started a religion?

Sure if they are active atheists it might be a religion but if someone simply asks, then is it actively? Should actively be defined as marching on the captitol for the rights of atheists to be respected? For example, an atheist might want to print on the dollar bill: "there is no god, so get over it". How is it then allowing "in god we trust" to continue to printed on currency respecting religion in light of atheism possibly being a religion in it's own right? They have then denied the atheists their right to freedom of religion.

If you want to get prickly over the definition of belief, every scientific explanation ever posited was based on potentially incorrect observations... and therefore was logically invalid.

And I never said that the inscription on dollar bills was justified.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

Octagon, that is such BS. That is all that that post deserves. BS. It is wrong, morally and logically. You know better...or ought to.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

So if I actively do not believe in the monster under my bed, then i've just started a religion?

Sure if they are active atheists it might be a religion but if someone simply asks, then is it actively? Should actively be defined as marching on the captitol for the rights of atheists to be respected? For example, an atheist might want to print on the dollar bill: "there is no god, so get over it". How is it then allowing "in god we trust" to continue to printed on currency respecting religion in light of atheism possibly being a religion in it's own right? They have then denied the atheists their right to freedom of religion.

---

TEAM
LL

Found someone who articulated what I'd been trying to say, although not perfectly...

Viewpoint: The religion of atheism
By Lloyd Eby
World Peace Herald Contribotor
Published December 2, 2005

WASHINGTON -- My article "Giving privilege to atheism in today's America" in the World Peace Herald (www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20051123-091553-1212r) provoked numerous responses and comments from atheists who claim that this article misrepresents what atheism is and what atheists actually believe.

If we accept the usual or most prevalent definition of religion, a definition in which religion is explicitly tied to belief in and/or service of a supernatural god or supreme being, then atheism could not be a religion because active atheism can be defined or described as the positive rejection of the existence of any supernatural god or supreme being. Atheism is the active belief that there is no god. As one atheist put it, "Atheism is the rejection of supernatural belief. As an atheist, I do not believe in the reality of any supernatural being, and as a result of this, reject religion."

That usual or most prevalent definition of religion is defective, however, because it is too narrow. Religion has to do with what a person thinks or believes about first or ultimate things. German theologian-philosopher Paul Tillich (1886-1965) was especially insightful and instructive on this, saying that religion has to do with what he called "ultimate concern." "Our ultimate concern," he wrote, "is that which determines our being or not-being." Furthermore, "every human being exists in the power of an ultimate concern, whether or not he is fully conscious of it, whether or not he admits it to himself or others." In this sense of religion, religion is unavoidable because every person does have an ultimate concern and therefore has a religion. The theist finds his ground of ultimate concern in a supernatural supreme being or God. The active atheist asserts, tacitly if not explicitly, that no such supernatural supreme being exists so his ground for ultimate concern cannot be found in or rest on such a being. Both the theist and the atheist do make an assertion, tacitly if not explicitly, about ultimate concern, although they find or ground that ultimate concern in very different places. So they both do hold a view that is properly understood as being religious, in this extended and more accurate understanding of "religious."

The situation of the atheist with respect to religion is similar to that of the logical positivists in philosophy, who declared that metaphysics is meaningless and should be eliminated. The problem is that this statement or declaration is itself a metaphysical statement, so the logical positivist program could not succeed because it was internally inconsistent and possibly even incoherent. In a similar way, the religious fundamentalists who declare, for themselves, "I have nothing to do with philosophy," do in fact have something to do with philosophy because their statement is itself a philosophical one. It is the same for atheists: Their statement, "I do not believe in any religion or any god," is itself a religious statement.

In discussing atheism we do need to distinguish between passive and active disbelief. Passive disbelief is to be uninterested in the question, to have no opinion one way or the other. If I know nothing about X or am completely uninterested in X, then I cannot have either an active belief or active disbelief in X. Some atheism is indeed of that sort in that some people have no opinion about or interest at all in any supernatural being or any received religion. But those are not the atheists who agitate for changes in American law so as to eliminate references in it to God or religion. The atheists who do such agitation are active atheists or active unbelievers, and it is those active atheists I am concerned with here.

One atheist objected to my article that, under the definitions given in it and taken from Webster's, where religion is defined as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith," and faith is defined as "allegiance to a duty or a person; loyalty; fidelity to one's promise,' then - as this respondent wrote - "anything that one clings to fervently can be a religion: Naziism, fascism, Ba'athism, communism, even capitalism could be considered a religion under this definition." That respondent is correct. Nazism, fascism, Ba'athism, communism, even capitalism function as religions for many people who adhere(d) to them or have (had) an ardent faith in them. For those people these things do function as what Tillich called their "ultimate concern," and thus they are indeed their religions, at least functionally.

One commentator wrote, "What boggled my mind in your piece was that you attempted to show that "A" and "not A" are equal. Quite a feat. In your world 0 = 1. So, by your peculiar logic, to be with god (theism) and without god (atheism) mean the same; they both mean religious."

Although this respondent's way of putting his point is misleading - I do not and did not say that 0 =1 or that "A" and "not A" are equal - he is correct in attempting to say that I hold that active belief and active disbelief are logically equal. Each can be fully expressed in terms of the other. To say that I actively believe in the existence of X (the theist position with respect to God), for example, is exactly the same as saying that I actively disbelieve in the nonexistence of X. To say that I actively disbelieve in the existence of X (the atheist position with respect to God) is exactly the same as saying that I actively believe in the nonexistence of X.

I do indeed hold that theism and atheism are both religious. The atheist who thinks otherwise is mistaken because he is using a tendentious or incorrect definition of religion, a definition that attempts to privilege atheism and give it a logical, legal, and evidential status over the usual notions of religion. But that is unwarranted. The theist cannot prove that his belief is true; his belief is metaphysical and a statement of faith that goes beyond the observable evidence for it. And the atheist cannot prove that his view is true either; his belief is also metaphysical and a statement of unbelief that goes beyond the observable evidence for it.

Over about the past half-century the courts in the United States have moved to acceptance of the view that atheism constitutes a religion, at least for purposes of law and public policy. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the US Supreme Court said that a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being; the Court described "secular humanism" as a religion. Two cases dealing with defendants who claimed the status of conscientious objectors to military service, decided during the Vietnam War, dealt at least indirectly with this question. In United States v. Seeger (1965) the US Supreme Court held that adherence to some form of religious orthodoxy is not necessary in order for the person to be a legitimate conscientious objector. Five years later, in Welsh v. United States (1970), the Court held that "A registrant's conscientious objection to all war is 'religious' ... if this opposition stems from the registrant's moral, ethical, or religious beliefs about what is right and wrong and these beliefs are held with the strength of traditional religious convictions. In view of the broad scope of the word 'religious,' a registrant's characterization of his beliefs as 'nonreligious' is not a reliable guide to those administering the exemption."

Most recently, in August, 2005, a federal court of appeals ruled that Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat his atheism as a religion. "Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said, deciding that the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.

Concerning this last case one respondent wrote, "While it is true that some atheists claim that they follow a religion, as you cited with the prison inmate, this is usually done for some cynical purpose." But this is incorrect. The locution "cynical purpose" is tendentious because the commentator does not know what was in the mind of this prison inmate; it is entirely possible and even likely that the inmate was totally sincere. Moreover, using the words "cynical purpose" assumes what the commentator needs to prove, namely that any atheist who admits that his belief is a religion is mistaken and is doing so for some untoward reason.

The conclusion then is that the courts have finally gotten this issue right. An atheist's faith and belief system is and should be on the same logical, evidential, and legal status as Roman Catholicism, Islam, Methodism, and every other religious belief system, protestations of atheists to the contrary notwithstanding. And, since Article VI coupled with the First Amendment are properly understood as requiring government neutrality with respect to religion, it must not privilege atheism either.

One respondent did see correctly where this leads us. He wrote, "While I will not dispute that Atheism can be considered a religion, I don't think that the absence of a God alone constitutes Atheism. If that were the case, then we would really have a problem in America because the Government would have to by that view endorse a religion." He is correct. I doubt that it is possible for government to be completely neutral on this question. Government does indeed have to endorse religion, at least to some extent.

For that reason the view that government could and should be completely neutral concerning religion and religious issues does tend to break down because that view was built on a foundation that is legally, logically, and philosophically weak and perhaps even incoherent. The courts thus have to tread very cautiously here. They should be especially wary of attempts by atheists to privilege the atheist position at the expense of their theistic opponents. The so-called naked public square with respect to religion - religion now understood in the usual theistic sense -- is not really so naked after all; it is instead a public square that has a high probability of having given undue regard and privilege to atheism.

----

Lloyd Eby holds a doctorate in philosophy and teaches business and professional ethics at the George Washington University in Washington, DC.

---

No animals were harmed in the making of the above post... much.

I've read the bible. I went to church when I was younger, I went to the week long bible school at 3 different churches each summer as a kid. I knew many verses by heart. It was my choice, my parents weren't religious. I have yet to actually see compelling evidence. Ted Kaczynski wrote a manifesto. The government of the time of Jesus treated him (Jesus) the same way we treated the Waco incident with the Branch Davidians. I feel that the government might have been right about that one. Basically, what I'm saying is that I gave it a chance and came to the conclusion that there is no real compelling evidence that there is any god at all. Because of that there is no reason to be an agnostic, I've grown beyond that. I believe in the prehistoric cave paintings of spaceships in France and I believe in the ancient Egyptian drawings of spaceships.

---

TEAM
LL

I read enough of this post to know that I want to post that I'm an atheist and believe as per the definition that all religions are cults. All dogmas are based on faith and the lack of fact and can only be based on opinion.

Atheists simply do not accept a magical solution to the unknown because we believe that, eventually, we can figure it out for ourselves. Atheists do not believe in the eternal spirit in the individual sense. The difficulty in approaching the unknown and attempting to understand the unknown is having the ability to drop any preconceptions and see it for what it is. Preconceptions are all too pervasive in science without god in the equation. Often this is produced from popularized views through publications and graduate students being rushed through too quickly by their professors without taking the time to truly understand the fundamentals or develop individual thoughts beyond their professors. Thus science is bound by its own bias and by adding god to the equation, a solution is drawn up to include the biggest possible unknown. That unknown is god. Thus any solution that includes god is not a solution but has only confounded the solution since god then must be well defined and understood. Since god would be the most complex piece of any equation, it would be comparable to building the roof to a foundation that has yet been built.

If it's Science you're persuing, it would seem to me you're bound to be an agnostic not an atheist. I myself lean toward the atheist side of the agnostic spectrum but, damnitall, we can't PROVE it either way.
Along the same lines, if someone were to assert 'there's an intelligent, humanlike race on the third planet in the Tau Ceti system, I'd have to say 'maybe', pity we can't know yet, do you have any evidence I can look at?

---

If you don't touch it, you can't break it.
;

I'm an agnostic myself. For the simple reason it takes just as much faith to be an Atheist as it does to be a Believer. :)
Forgive me if somebody's already trotted this one out. My head started to hurt about half way up this thread. :D

Ah yes..there it is. Well..defining faith as 'believing in something one cannot objectively prove' the Atheist surely does require faith.

He requires faith in what exactly? Atheism isn't a philosophy. It is only an absence of belief in a positive.

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

Bingo......

I like your post

---

Founder of BOINC team Objectivists. Oh the humanity! Rational people crunching data!
I did NOT authorize this belly writing!

I read enough of this post to know that I want to post that I'm an atheist and believe as per the definition that all religions are cults. All dogmas are based on faith and the lack of fact and can only be based on opinion.

Atheists simply do not accept a magical solution to the unknown because we believe that, eventually, we can figure it out for ourselves. Atheists do not believe in the eternal spirit in the individual sense. The difficulty in approaching the unknown and attempting to understand the unknown is having the ability to drop any preconceptions and see it for what it is. Preconceptions are all too pervasive in science without god in the equation. Often this is produced from popularized views through publications and graduate students being rushed through too quickly by their professors without taking the time to truly understand the fundamentals or develop individual thoughts beyond their professors. Thus science is bound by its own bias and by adding god to the equation, a solution is drawn up to include the biggest possible unknown. That unknown is god. Thus any solution that includes god is not a solution but has only confounded the solution since god then must be well defined and understood. Since god would be the most complex piece of any equation, it would be comparable to building the roof to a foundation that has yet been built.

---

TEAM
LL

Octagon/Brooke:
Hey guys,
I haven't seen such sophomoric discussions on existential fodder as this, since I participated in them back in 1970.
If you both would just post bibliographies to cover your plaguristic statements, it would save all of us a great deal of time. Also, Logic IS fun. I enjoy confusing my undergraduate students with statements like yours. Please continue!

Entertainingly,
Leinad_12551

PS: If you would like to read an intelligent post(unlike yours, it has original thoughts) concerning the the biological processes needed for the 'Evolution Hypothesis' to function. Please follow the URL.....http://www.rae.org/FAQ02 This paper starts at the 'Logical Begining' of the 'Evolution VS Intelligent Design' debate. You know....amino acids and proteins and DNA. It is scientific rather than the more common philosophical debate on GOD

Why so hostile?

---