Any atheists in here?
POSTED BY: BlackCollarBrowncoat
UPDATED: Sunday, March 12, 2006 20:19
VIEWED: 38267
PAGE 4 of 18
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing.
There are many types of Atheist, they can be divided into two groups though.
Soft Atheists don't believe, Hard Atheists believe in the lack of any divinity. The difference is important and what stops the water from getting muddied.
Those who believe something does not exist without evidence it does not exist are believers as much as those who believe it does exist without any evidence it does.
Those who wait for proof are not believers.
-
Think about it in terms of other things.
If I say, "Dinosaurs are still alive," or I say, "I have a gecko," the statements are the same. I am claiming something exists without offering any proof whatsoever.
However if you chose to believe I do not have a gecko you are doing it without reason, and considering the fact that I do have a gecko you'll also be wrong. (Though you have no proof of course.)
On the other hand if you chose to believe that dinosaurs are not still alive you have evidence to support it, you can check the habitats that they could survive in and see that they are not there. You can look at the archeological record and notice that dinosaur bones stop appearing after a given point in time.
You can not look at where god is supposed to live, you can not check the archeological record, you can not examine satellite images in search of herds of god, you can't even check for footprints. You have as much reason to believe that god does not exist as you have to believe that I have no gecko.
-
That is the difference. To believe something doesn't exist without proof is often enough a necessary thing, but to believe it does not exist without evidence is the same (in terms of soundness) as believing something does exist without evidence.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Having a lack of belief in something is not the same thing as believing that something doesn’t exist. Those are two different things, and ChrisTC was quite clear in pointing out, by indicating that he was referring to “hard” atheism, that he was referring to the latter. Believing that there is no god is a religious opinion.
Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is interesting. First of all, I'm not sure that any belief concerning the existence of god is necessarily religious, just as a belief about the existence of republicans isn't necessarily political.
Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing. Rejecting an unproven proposition is not a question of faith. If you make a proposition that something or another exists and I look where you say it is and see nothing, I'm not expressing belief when I say "but there's nothing there". I'm merely reacting to what my sense tells me. If you want to call that 'faith' then all bets are off and any possible conviction is 'belief'. That seems overly broad to me, and watering down the concept to the point that it's meaninglesss.
Quote:You’re welcome to be a part of that religion if you want. I personally am an avid observer of said religion,
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.
BUT that’s not the same thing as believing that Golfers don’t exist.The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.
You've totally missed the point. You argued that grouping together Hard Atheists as a religion would require grouping together all theists as a single religion (unless I missed something.) My point is that Hard Atheists have a distinct lack of difference when it comes to religion and that is what allows them to be placed in one group and what prevents others from being placed in one group.
Quote:
Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?
Yes. When people are grouping golfers together in terms of when they play the game you all get put in the same group.
Quote:
The fact is that a Catholic and a Lutheran have more in common in their basic world view, moral attitudes and ethical motivations than I do with a Chinese Communist Party Member (for example) whose only similarity with myself is our atheism.
But we are not talking about world view. We are talking about religion.
You and the communist do not disagree on religion, thus you can be considered a part of the same religion. The Catholic and the Lutheran have different religious views to such a degree that they must be considered different religions.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My two cents for what it's worth...
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism." Ditto with Agnosticism and all the other myriad belief structures out there. The modern era has seen if anything, a general muddying of the waters in this aspect. Religion has become a very personal concept for many people... even a term like Christianity now has a wide variety of meaning depending on who you're talking to.
Actually, this is why I guess I'm an agnostic, if anything. Though I always get the feeling it never means quite what it's supposed to anymore, and I lean a bit towards Gnosticism at times (and I'm a little too sketchy on terminology to say "Zen Gnosticism":)
I just figure whatever ultimate truth exists (assuming any does) that it's beyond the scope of the human mind. We lack both the terminology and symbology to quantify it in any way we'd be able to comprehend. We can't voice a concept in our heads unless we have the proper symbols or language to voice it. (Like George Orwell talks about in 1984... limited vocabulary after a certain extent limits thought.)
Here's my take. Say hypothetically you're raising a goldfish in a fishbowl in a room in your house. Imagine that you can magically communicate with said fish. Now, keeping in mind that the sum total experience of this fish is it's bowl and what it can make out of the room around it, try and explain to it what a spaceship is. :P That's the problem humankind has trying to figure out the afterlife, or god, or the nature of the universe. In a closed system, it's night impossible to figure out what's going on outside said system. We lack proper context.
I'd say I'm an atheist, but even saying that would mean that I "know" one way or another.
________________________________________________
You can take my hope when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You've totally missed the point. You argued that grouping together Hard Atheists as a religion would require grouping together all theists as a single religion (unless I missed something.) My point is that Hard Atheists have a distinct lack of difference when it comes to religion and that is what allows them to be placed in one group and what prevents others from being placed in one group.
I'm sorry but I must disagree. To continue my analogy does the fact that some Golfers follow the PGA Rules and others those of the Royal and Ancient mean they have less commonality with each other than the Non-Golfers who follow no Golf related rules at all?
A collective lack of Golf related ritual does not mean that the Non-Golfers are a more closely related group, or even the hard-core Golf Dislikers are for that matter, than the Golfers themselves.
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:Quote:
Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?
Yes. When people are grouping golfers together in terms of when they play the game you all get put in the same group.
Oh come on you can't possibly argue that non-golfers have a unity which is greater than golfers surely (because that is the implication here)
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
You and the communist do not disagree on religion, thus you can be considered a part of the same religion. The Catholic and the Lutheran have different religious views to such a degree that they must be considered different religions.
Your definition of "religion" is so sweeping on the one hand as to be meaningless and then it switches to differentiate minor doctrinal differences on the other.
Religion is a term that means more than merely a group it implies commonality of belief beyond that merely in a Diety itself
...................................
Hurrah, hurrah, when things are at their worst
With cries of “Death or Glory” comes the mighty Twenty-First
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
nuclearday, if you have one of those "alert me if someone replies" things, this isn't a direct reply to you, I just needed to click omeones reply thing and you were the last poster.
I am an atheist, but I have no problem with other peoples religion. Whatever helps get you through the day. It can make people "better" people, in that things can run a whole lot smoother.(I dont believe in good/bad, right/wrong, there just factors in the little world that humans put themselves into- if you know of Plato's parable of the cave, they're part of the cave-world) However, I don't like when people take religion a little to far, or it has the reverse effect on people(very much like the pax to the people of miranda, and the creation of reavers)
I believe i am enlightened in a way; i had an epiphany very similar to that Joss described in the "Objects" commentary, and was relieved to find out I'm not the only who'd experienced such a thing. If you know of Plato's parable of the Cave, I've been outside the cave and dwell in the threshold, i go back in most of the time to interact with people, etc. but I don't go too far in. Okay, I'm reaching this whole "limit of words" thing and I'm sure I sound like a lunatic to the unenlightened, i.e. most people. I'm sure Joss, Plato, and some other thinkers know what I'm talking about.
-Stay Shiny
"The people who made the show, and the people who saw the show, which is roughly the same number of people, fell in love with it, a little bit too much to let it go, too much to lay down arms when when the battle looked pretty much lost. In Hollywood, people like that are called unrealistic, quixotic, obsessive... In my world, they're called Browncoats."
-Joss Whedon
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by nuclearday:
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism."
Atheism – a disbelief in the existence of deity
Local Atheism – the disbelief in a certain diety
Strong Atheism – The belief that no deity exists.
Weak Atheism – The belief that a doctrine or belief in existence of a deity or deities is unnecessary.
Weak Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown
Strong Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable
Ignosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity is meaningless.
Gnosticism – the thought and practice of various pre-Christian and early Christian cults distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that salvation comes through an esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth
The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:Quote:
Originally posted by nuclearday:
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism."
Atheism – a disbelief in the existence of deity
Local Atheism – the disbelief in a certain diety
Strong Atheism – The belief that no deity exists.
Weak Atheism – The belief that a doctrine or belief in existence of a deity or deities is unnecessary.
Weak Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown
Strong Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable
Ignosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity is meaningless.
Gnosticism – the thought and practice of various pre-Christian and early Christian cults distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that salvation comes through an esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth
That's quite a detailed index of various theologies and philosophies concerning atheism and agnosticism. Of which I had examined extensively prior to this, but, however; i'm still a bit uncertain as to why there aren't more varying degrees of these beliefs that are widely recognized.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by christhecynic:
Those who believe something does not exist without evidence it does not exist are believers as much as those who believe it does exist without any evidence it does...
That is the difference. To believe something doesn't exist without proof is often enough a necessary thing, but to believe it does not exist without evidence is the same (in terms of soundness) as believing something does exist without evidence....
The water is still plenty muddy. I think the convoluted nature of these sentences is a strong indicator of the soundness of the ideas they're trying to sell.
As usual, the attempt being made is to equate disbelief with belief. This goes hand in hand with the insistence that the disbeliever prove a negative. Basically, you're saying that to justify a lack of belief in god, one must supply evidence of his non-existence. Such a thing can't be done, which is why religious apologists love this argument so much. But that doesn't mean the argument makes any sense.
Quote:
You can not look at where god is supposed to live, you can not check the archeological record, you can not examine satellite images in search of herds of god, you can't even check for footprints...
Right, which is exactly why I reject the notion of god on conceptual grounds. The proposition of 'god' is specifically designed to evade the notion of proof. You've put forth something no one can disprove and tried to say that anyone who doesn't believe you is acting on faith. That's nonsense.
Believing in god requires a leap of faith. Not believing requires no such thing.
SergeantX
"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Believing in god requires a leap of faith. Not believing requires no such thing.
I'm not talking about not believing, I'm talking about believing in the lack of god.
Not believing in god is not the same as believing there is no god. I keep on saying things about believing there is no god, and you keep responding in terms of not believing in god.
If I am as wrong as you claim why do you refuse to respond to what I'm actually saying?
After all if I'm wrong shouldn't you be able to prove it with a straight answer?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME