atheism

[gingeylover14]

i perosonaly belive thet its imposible to be an athiest because you are saying you dont have religiouse belifes yet thru saying this you ars saying you belive that you have no religious belifes therefor making that a religious belifes. just a thought please share your ideas on this subject matter

[Magus]

i perosonaly belive thet its imposible to be an athiest because you are saying you dont have religiouse belifes yet thru saying this you ars saying you belive that you have no religious belifes therefor making that a religious belifes. just a thought please share your ideas on this subject matterAtheism is the disbelief of God. Not religion. Take Buddhism, most will argue that it is a philosophy and not a religion(as per the labels), but its followers are mostly atheists.

And, truly nobody believes that they have no religious beliefs, it's kind of silly.

Empiricism, Skepticism, Scientism, Naturalism, Secularism and etc: these are philosophies that do no follow and reject religious values and beliefs beside atheism.

[deadpie]

i perosonaly belive thet its imposible to be an athiest because you are saying you dont have religiouse belifes yet thru saying this you ars saying you belive that you have no religious belifes therefor making that a religious belifes. just a thought please share your ideas on this subject matter


Having no religious beliefs isn't religious. Uh, what? That's like the Christian school girl saying, "Hey atheists, where in the bible does it say God isn't real? Durrr."

No offense, but your point is so flawed and horrible that I can't stop but to laugh.

Nihilists believe there's no point to anything, but that means that they believe something, which is the idea of nihilism. Belief in something doesn't always have to do something with faith, spirituality, or in your case that you're pointing out - religion.

[Amnesiac]

i perosonaly belive thet its imposible to be an athiest because you are saying you dont have religiouse belifes yet thru saying this you ars saying you belive that you have no religious belifes therefor making that a religious belifes. just a thought please share your ideas on this subject matter

Implying that being irreligious is in itself a religion is absurd. It's a 'belief', yes, but not a 'religion'.

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Atheism does not explain the creation of the universe, impose a moral code or perform rituals to please a godly power. Atheism is a philosophy. It is simply the disbelief in god or gods, and nothing more.

[Death]

i perosonaly belive thet its imposible to be an athiest because you are saying you dont have religiouse belifes yet thru saying this you ars saying you belive that you have no religious belifes therefor making that a religious belifes. just a thought please share your ideas on this subject matter

I think you've misunderstood atheism. It isn't a religion. You know what? I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monser, so, is my religion an 'aflyingspaghettimonsterist'? Is the fact I don't believe in Zeus give me yet another religion? The whole idea is absurd. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour and off is a TV channel, which they're clearly not. Atheism is simply a name for the LACK of belief (hence the 'a' before 'theist').

[BOBBY HILL]

ITT: Angsty atheist teens flame OP

[Peace God]

ITT: Angsty atheist teens flame OP
...while the other posters in the thread provide no logical arguments whatsoever.

[wisse2012]

my thought is athist is a religious view in nothing u belive that there is no god. personally i think its wrong but who am i to judge

[Amnesiac]

my thought is athist is a religious view in nothing u belive that there is no god. personally i think its wrong but who am i to judge

Sigh.

Did you just overlook all the other posts in this thread that explain exactly why your statement is wrong?

[Death]

my thought is athist is a religious view in nothing u belive that there is no god. personally i think its wrong but who am i to judge

Also, there's no such thing as an 'athist', otherwise that'd make you a 'thist'.

[steve1234]

It certainly isn't a religion.

I can sort of see a point though. There are many athiest groups who seem to act just like a religious organisation, preaching all sorts of things about God not existing etc. Personally, I don't agree with being an athiest and preaching things and lecturing people. I am proud to be an athiest, but i'm not going to waste my life trying to make everyone else an athiest.

[Syvelocin]

Atheism by itself is not a religion. Atheism however can be part of a religion.

Religions don't HAVE to be theistic.

[Quahog]

I don't know any atheists personally. But I have seen some on youtube, and places like that, and I believe we are all entitled to have own beliefs on certain things, and I'm just going to leave it at that. Religion is something that many people could argue about until the end of time, and I think it's just best to allow people the right to believe in whatever they want to.

[greekboy]

I think you've misunderstood atheism. It isn't a religion. You know what? I don't believe in the flying spaghetti monser, so, is my religion an 'aflyingspaghettimonsterist'? Is the fact I don't believe in Zeus give me yet another religion? The whole idea is absurd. If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair colour and off is a TV channel, which they're clearly not. Atheism is simply a name for the LACK of belief (hence the 'a' before 'theist').

Thank you.

[dushanbe4]

This depends on how you define religion. If religion is belief in and worship of a deity, then atheism is in fact not a religion (unless it is worship of the dark lord Athe). But if you think it's a philosophy about life in general, in which case Atheism is most certainly a religion.
What I'm trying to say is, it's all semantics, and unless you have an actual, set-in-stone definition of religion, you're out of luck when it comes to answers.

[deadpie]

But if you think it's a philosophy about life in general, in which case Atheism is most certainly a religion.


Lolno. Read the definition a couple posts back by Commander Awesome. Or actually, just read the entire thread. Why don't people ever read previous posts before posting in a debate? That's like walking into a bakery for cupcakes without knowing what you're supposed to bake or how to bake cupcakes.

[Korashk]

But if you think it's a philosophy about life in general, in which case Atheism is most certainly a religion.
What I'm trying to say is, it's all semantics, and unless you have an actual, set-in-stone definition of religion, you're out of luck when it comes to answers.
Atheism is "I don't believe in gods." That's it. Anything else than goes beyond the definition and used "atheism" as the sole descriptor moves into the territory of misappropriation of terms. It is not a philosophy, is it not a religion, it is ONE statement of disbelief that says literally nothing about a person besides "I don't believe in gods."

[Alaph]

Atheism is the disbelief of God, not disbelief in any beliefs.

[Magus]

Atheism is the disbelief of God, not disbelief in any beliefs.Exactly. I know some atheist who believes in ghosts and spirit! :eek:

That's why I call myself a Naturalist. That's the best way to describe oneself, if they don't believe in bullshits.

[Alaph]

Exactly. I know some atheist who believes in ghosts and spirit! :eek:

That's why I call myself a Naturalist. That's the best way to describe oneself, if they don't believe in bullshits.

Why are you a naturalist?
Are ghosts and spirits bullshits?

[Magus]

Why are you a naturalist?
Because I don't believe in bullshit. Like Ghost and Spirit.
Are ghosts and spirits bullshits?
Naturalist is another fancy way to say, 'I am an empiricist and a sceptic'.

We have a different approach at examining things: using reason and logic which are accordant with empirical accounts.

[Alaph]

Because I don't believe in bullshit. Like Ghost and Spirit.

Naturalist is another fancy way to say, 'I am an empiricist and a sceptic'.

We have a different approach at examining things: using reason and logic which are accordant with empirical accounts.

The interesting thing is, many non naturalists will say that reason and logic lead them to their beliefs.
What if they have reason to belief in super natural or preternatural?

[Magus]

What if they have reason to belief in super natural or preternatural?Even if they have the "reason" - they must provide a tangible proof of scientific scale for their believes(for a Naturalist to believe). If non is given, a Naturalist can deduce that their belief(who assert things with reason only) is fallacious, even though it has passed 'reason and logic'.

This is a bit adjacent to what Atheist think about God. Theist believe in God because of "reason" - it is reasonable to believe in God.

[Alaph]

If something is super natural or preternatural, there cannot be a tangible proof of scientific scale, even if it did exist.

You can't use science to tell if there is or isn't anything, that exists but can't be detected by science.

[Magus]

You can't use science to tell if there is or isn't anything, that exists but can't be detected by science.
Yes, you can actually use science to tell if something exist or not. You can use Science to tell that I exist, and every particle that constitute me exist. If you cannot use science. Logically, it does not exist.

Can you prove the existence of a dragon that is sleeping in my room without resorting to science?

[Alaph]

. You can use Science to tell that I exist, and every particle that constitute me exist.?
That's because you're natural.

If you cannot use science. Logically, it does not exist.

That's assuming that everything that exists can be found using science.

You're argument that only natural things exist, is depended on the assumtion that you already know only natural things exist.

[Severus Snape]

i perosonaly belive thet its imposible to be an athiest because you are saying you dont have religiouse belifes yet thru saying this you ars saying you belive that you have no religious belifes therefor making that a religious belifes. just a thought please share your ideas on this subject matter

Analyzing the etymology of the word will help you understand it better. "a" means without and "theo" means god. The word literally means "without a god" and since atheists do not believe in god this term is perfectly valid.

[Magus]

That's because you're natural.
Nah, I am a synthetic clone. ;) :P
That's assuming that everything that exists can be found using science.Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? Exactly.
You're argument that only natural things exist, is depended on the assumtion that you already know only natural things exist.No. Naturalism is totally different than Physicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism).

Naturalist believe in abstract models and their intervention in the natural world, even though they do no exist in our physical world.
http://www.virtualteen.org/forums/picture.php?albumid=1487&pictureid=16252

I don't believe scientist have found every abstract models, though.

[Alaph]

Nah, I am a synthetic clone. ;) :P
No you're not.

Ever heard of Russel's Teapot? Exactly.
Yes, but I don't agree that this is a case of Russel's Teapot.
Some assumptions, like there's no teapot orbiting the sun, are reasonable.
Others like there is only natural stuff, aren't.


No. Naturalism is totally different than Physicalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physicalism).
Yes it is, but that doesn't contradict what I just said.

Naturalist believe in abstract models and their intervention in the natural world, even though they do no exist in our physical world.

I don't believe scientist have found every abstract models, though.

So how is you believing in abstract models, less bullshit than believing in super natural?

[Magus]

No you're not.
Yes, I am.

Yes, but I don't agree that this is a case of Russel's Teapot.
Some assumptions, like there's no teapot orbiting the sun, are reasonable.
Others like there is only natural stuff, aren't.
Nah, believing in an invisible pink unicorn that's in my room is totally reasonable, man.

Cornering me at an ad ignorantiam will not get you anywhere. :yes:
Yes it is, but that doesn't contradict what I just said.Not everything I say should be a counter-argument.So how is you believing in abstract models, less bullshit than believing in super natural?We can apply abstract, and it's totally in-line with science and reason. Whereas supernatural? I don't. I don't believe in Myths.

[Alaph]

Nah, believing in an invisible pink unicorn that's in my room is totally reasonable, man.
No it isn't, but believing in super natural isn't the same.
An invisible pink unicorn is too specific, but it's reasonable to believe there's stuff in your room that I don't know about.

Cornering me at an ad ignorantiam will not get you anywhere. :yes:
It already has.
By showing that your naturalism isn't based on reason.

Not everything I say should be a counter-argument.
But everything you say should be relavent, and that wasn't.

We can apply abstract, and it's totally in-line with science and reason. Whereas supernatural? I don't. I don't believe in Myths.

A myth isn't the same as super natural, to say something is a myth inplies it doesn't exist.
To say something's super natural means you can't apply science to it, but it does exist.

The flaw in your reason is that you attempt to prove that the super natural doesn't exist by assuming everything that exists can be deteceted with science. Which is assuming that nothing that can't be detected by science (for example super natural stuff) exists.
So all you've proved is that if super natural stuff doesn't exist then super natural stuff doesn't exist.

[Weeping]

Atheism isn't believing that you don't believe in religious stuff. It is not believing in it. And however, I can't see why that would be called a religion.

I know some atheist who believes in ghosts and spirit! :eek:

Sounds like me.

[Magus]

No it isn't, but believing in super natural isn't the same. An invisible pink unicorn is too specific, but it's reasonable to believe there's stuff in your room that I don't know about.NAh, youar right!
It already has.
By showing that your naturalism isn't based on reason.
No. You want me to say that Supernatural is false, because it can't be proven -- this is a one variant of ad ignorantiam.

"My" naturalism isn't based on reason? Again, like atheism, naturalism is the lack of belief in the supernatural. The burden of proof still lies on those assert that supernatural entities exist. If they have not yet provide any proof (whether using reason or science), then it is "reasonable" to not to belief in supernaturalism.
But everything you say should be relavent, and that wasn't.It is. Because you didn't understand Naturalism.
A myth isn't the same as super natural, to say something is a myth inplies it doesn't exist.
It only implies it does not exist. Big Foot is a myth, but Big Foot may or may not exist.

To say something's super natural means you can't apply science to it, but it does exist.

The flaw in your reason is that you attempt to prove that the super natural doesn't exist by assuming everything that exists can be deteceted with science.

Which is assuming that nothing that can't be detected by science (for example super natural stuff) exists.True. Saying that everything that exist can only be detected by science is its self a fallacy.

However, there is the evidence of absence via science. And it is perfectly reasonable to disbelief to something that is absent and shows no quality of presence -- and safe to assume that it does not exist(Tea pot).

So all you've proved is that if super natural stuff doesn't exist then super natural stuff doesn't exist.
No. I have proved that you do not exist.

[georgiamay]

I'm going to jump in here.

a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny; "he lost his faith but not his morality"
an institution to express belief in a divine power; "he was raised in the Baptist religion"; "a member of his own faith contradicted him"

Above are definitions of "religion" that I've found. If you go by this, then no, atheism is not a religion. They do not believe in a supernatural power, and don't believe that this power controls human destiny. Nor do they believe that anything is genuinly "divine".


Exactly. I know some atheist who believes in ghosts and spirit! :eek:

I don't. I'm finding it hard to believe that an atheist would believe in that stuff. Unless they're agnostic in denial.

[Magus]

I don't. I'm finding it hard to believe that an atheist would believe in that stuff. Unless they're agnostic in denial.
Those who don't believe in any supernatural are better called naturalist(look above posts).

However, atheism only encompasses the disbelief in deities and gods, not supernatural like ghosts and demons. So, there are atheist who are left to believe in supernatural.

Agnostic in denial?

[georgiamay]

Those who don't believe in any supernatural are better called naturalist(look above posts).

However, atheism only encompasses the disbelief in deities and gods, not supernatural like ghosts and demons. So, there are atheist who are left to believe in supernatural.

Agnostic in denial?

I see your point. But I've never met any atheists that believe in ghosts, or any sort of after life at that rate, and I don't see how people that believe in any afterlife at all can call themselves atheists.

Agnostic in denial? It popped into my head :P I've met a few people that say they're atheist but then go on to say, "I'm not sure, there might be some higher power like a god, I don't know." They don't like the idea of religion, but they don't not believe in God. I've met a few.

[Magus]

"I'm not sure, there might be some higher power like a god, I don't know." They don't like the idea of religion, but they don't not believe in God. I've met a few.That's what people call as 'weak atheist' - they are skeptical about god, but they are not sure if they exist or not, but they live their life assuming that god doesn't exist.

[georgiamay]

A person who does not know, or who thinks it is impossible to know, whether there is a God.

Just saying that they're "not sure" or "don't know" whether god exists would probably make them an agnostic. I don't think there's such a thing as a weak atheist. If an atheist is someone who denies that God exists, I think they're pretty sure of what they think.

[Infidelitas]

Thats why im agnostic

[The Dark Lord]

Thats why im agnostic

Thank you for that persusive and compelling post clearly explaining why you are an agnostic.

[Raynes]

This has got to be the silliest thing I've read all week, and hardly warrants replying to. Don't take spiritual advice from somebody who can't spell 'spiritual'.

my thought is athist is a religious view in nothing u belive that there is no god. personally i think its wrong but who am i to judge

I feel that adhering to any given religion or spiritual path without a relatively decent understanding of it and the alternatives is wrong. If there was ever a school subject that would do people good it would be a course on various religions from a totally unbiased point of view. It would certainly do people like you well. This all applies equally to atheism.