What exactly is in it for Theists, to claim that atheism is a religion?

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Modus Ponens, Mar 26, 2012.

  1. Modus Ponens

    Modus Ponens Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2010
    Messages:
    1,663
    Likes Received:
    433
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Maybe they think they're making some blazing critique, or think they're engaging in some kind of refutation-by-accusation of hypocrisy... I don't know.

    Fact is, atheism is a belief system; it is not mere absence of belief. The beliefs of atheism consist in assent to the denial of most, if not all, propositions concerning the supernatural, and in particular the moral dimension of our relationship to supernatural agents. You can't have formal atheism, without this reference to the supernatural. If you want to say atheism is a 'religion' on account of that, so what? What does it get you?

    Atheism makes no positive, only negative, assertions. We strive to make no assertions whatever, without having sufficient reason for doing so. We put our faith in reason. If that makes us religious, well - so what?
     
  2. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yeah...so what? The trouble with both theists and atheists is their arrogant inflexibility. They insist on there being a 'black and white' world. Every experience in life comes at us in 'varying shades of gray'. This is the 'reality' that an agnostic lives in. The world of an 'open mind'.
     
  3. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are forgetting that there are two different types of Atheism.

    "I don't believe in a God" =/= "I believe there is no God"
     
  4. Bishadi

    Bishadi Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2010
    Messages:
    12,292
    Likes Received:
    52
    Trophy Points:
    0
    or the easiest truth to remember is the realization that most 'atheist' are evolved theist, labeled by people that sustain a belief.

    i have seen more abrahamic adherants call people that are god believers, that they are atheist, simply for not believing in the beliefs that they do

    "atheist" is just a label by theists...............

    and most 'theist' are hypocrits to their very system of beliefs. for example: Often the best examples of 'anti-christ' can be observed by watching christians. The reason; they must lie (false witness) just to be one of them.
     
  5. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And that is why we think atheism is a religion.

    Its all about belief - not facts.
     
  6. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Atheism "I don't believe in a god" is a philosophical position.

    Atheism "I believe there is no god" is a religious belief.
     
  7. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Fact is, there is no god.

    So no Atheism is NOT a religion. :relax:
     
  8. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They are both religion, they deal with beliefs.

    You are attempting to split hairs to deny that your faith is faith. It is what it is, whether or not it raises your emotional hackles is irrelevant.
     
  9. FreshAir

    FreshAir Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2012
    Messages:
    150,180
    Likes Received:
    62,818
    Trophy Points:
    113
    saying you didn't believe in pink elephants is a belief too, not sure it would also be called a religion
     
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So you are arguing that all of philosophy is a religion?

    It deals with beliefs.

    I have no faith. I will hold no belief that cannot be demonstrated with empirical evidence. Therefore, I do no believe in a god.

    A god may in fact exist, but until someone generates evidence of its existence, I will not believe in it.
     
  11. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That's not correct. There has never been presented demonstrable proof that a god doesn't exist.

    Saying there is no god with no proof is no different from saying that there is a god with no proof.
     
  12. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    There is no god. There is no Leprechauns. There is no Unicrons.

    All are man made ideas.
     
  13. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Proof?

    And here is where that hardline religious argument breaks down: you can't prove it.

    Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
     
  14. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I don’t need proof. Do you need proof that there isn’t an Invisible 3-legged monkey next to you? Just because you can dream something up, doesn't mean its true outside your imagination.
     
  15. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There currently isn't proof that there is an invisible 3-legged monkey next to, but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

    However, without proof of its existence I should not believe in it. If in the future evidence of its existence comes to light then I will believe in the invisible 3-legged monkey.
     
  16. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No actually, that is where atheism breaks down .... you cannopt prove that there is no God. And you claim its ... belief? But not like religions ... which requires faith?

    There is plenty fo evidence for God, its just not conclusive - hence the logical requirement for a leap of faith.

    And, of course, there are things you CAN prove are not there, like magic floating tea cups in space.

    What is advocated there is called an arguement from ignorance:

    If you cannot prove there is no God, then HE MUST BE REAL?

    If you cannot prove there IS a God, then HE MUST BE FALSE?

    "Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof."

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

    How many times does this have to be pointed out to atheists before they will stop accepting fallacy as the basis of their ... belief, which is not a religion, but born out in factual data that is .... never laid out.

    Belief without evidence, the use of fallacy? Sound like a really bad religion too me.
     
  17. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    This is where philosophy breaks down, and why I don’t play this stupid game. Just because I thought up of the an Invisible 3 legged monkey, does not mean it actually exists. I thought it up, pure and simple. It is a man made imagination, just like Leprechauns, unicorns and gods. So no, its not there.
     
  18. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Agh yeah, if I swing my arms and the don;t hit that invisible three legged monkey sitting right next to me? That would be considered pretty damb strong proof that there is no moneky next to me.

    Here is the proof, once again, of the easy resort to fallacious and non-factual logic by atheists ... as usual.

    "Some people seem to think that you can’t prove a specific sort of negative claim, namely that a thing does not exist. So it is impossible to prove that Santa Claus, unicorns, the Loch Ness Monster, God, pink elephants, WMD in Iraq, and Bigfoot don’t exist. Of course, this rather depends on what one has in mind by ‘prove.’ Can you construct a valid deductive argument with all true premises that yields the conclusion that there are no unicorns? Sure. Here’s one, using the valid inference procedure of modus tollens:
    1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence in the fossil record.
    2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record.
    3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.
    Someone might object that that was a bit too fast  after all, I didn’t prove that the two premises were true. I just asserted that they were true. Well, that’s right. However, it would be a grievous mistake to insist that someone prove all the premises of any argument they might give. Here’s why. The only way to prove, say, that there is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil record, is by giving an argument to that conclusion. Of course one would then have to prove the premises of that argument by giving further arguments, and then prove the premises of those further arguments, ad infinitum. Which premises we should take on credit and which need payment up front is a matter of long and involved debate among epistemologists. But one thing is certain: if proving things requires that an infinite number of premises get proved first, we’re not going to prove much of anything at all, positive or negative."

    http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

    Now, the interesting part is that stoney has seen all this before, and yet he insists on jumping into one thread after another with the same dogmatic fallacy.

    Not only is atheism thus a religion of dogma, its a religion of overt trolling and absolute illogical intrasigence.
     
  19. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I don't have to prove that there is not god. I am not a Hard Atheist. I am not making a positive claim.

    On the other hand, theists have to prove that god does exist before I will even take a single step towards belief in it.
     
  20. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You cannot prove that something doesn't exist. You can only prove things that do exist and therefore have evidence.

    However, the just because you can't prove that unicorns, invisible monkeys, or gods don't exist, you still should not believe in them unless they have positive evidence as to their existence.
     
  21. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Where's your proof?

    There certainly isn't proof that it does exist, but where is your proof that it doesn't?
     
  22. ronmatt

    ronmatt New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    Messages:
    8,867
    Likes Received:
    158
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I think it would be safe to say.."we can prove that there are not 2 moons in orbit around the earth" Or that the Earth revolves around 2 suns.
     
  23. rstones199

    rstones199 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2009
    Messages:
    15,875
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I can prove something does not exist. I can prove that there is no Hungarians on the Padres 40 man roster.

    But, people are real and so is the Padres 40 man roster. Because they are real, I can show there are no Hungarians does not exist.
     
  24. Neutral

    Neutral New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2010
    Messages:
    14,003
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    0
    If you are claiming that there is no God, or that God is unlikely, then you there should be some kind of logical and explainable trail that leads you there.

    If not? All you have is a SWAG. That is beyond even religion.

    Here you go BTW:

    Now, at what point, after seeing one atheist after another claim that it is evidence that drives them to their inevitable conclusion, only to claim, after a series of silly and mean spirited logical fallacies (like magic spaghetti and magic floating tea pots), do we have to arrive at atheists claiming that they have no burden of proof - despite being based in evidence - in support of a claim they are not making! Before you are allowed to conclude that atheism is in the same logical category as extreme Creationism?
     
  25. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,174
    Likes Received:
    4,995
    Trophy Points:
    113
    For practical purposes yes, but only because of how strong the opposite positive evidence is.
     

Share This Page