Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Kokomojojo, Apr 25, 2019.
Then listen to them!
I do not do "believing" at all.
IF you are actually saying all of us make guesses or estimates...
...I do that. I prefer to call my guesses or estimates...guesses and estimates, rather than "beliefs."
As to the question of whether gods exist or not...I do not guess. Instead, I offer this:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
One of the dangers of sarcasm is that it may be so subtle that some people miss it. I do not know you or why you think everyone should have seen the sarcasm of your post...but I did not.
I tend to use green to denote my sarcasm.
I do listen to them. And so far, it seems apparent to me that anyone using "atheism" as a descriptor or as part of a descriptor...
...either "believes" there are no gods or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods.
I lack belief that a 200 foot chicken is crossing the road and unless someone has evidence to the contrary I will dismiss the idea out of hand. So it is with gods.
Not sure what that has to do with what was being discussed...but...
For the record...I lack evidence that there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 10 starts to Sol...
...but I sure as hell do not dismiss the idea out of hand.
I simply say, truthfully, "I do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of those planets or not...and I cannot make a meaningful guess about it."
No need to report that, Ria.
Why not just calm down a bit...and we can talk?
That aspect is entirely irrelevant. I don’t like the label (any labels really) and tend to avoid using it, especially outside a specific context, but by common definition I can’t deny that it applies to me. It doesn’t matter whether an individual uses the label about themselves, has it used about them by someone else or it totally unaware of it at all, their individual beliefs remain exactly the same.
I think that most people don’t really think about the topic at all and if ever asked about it, have to stop and think what they actually believe before answering. All those people are so often excluded when people make sweeping statements about belief and non-belief. You can’t say anything about most atheists you’ve met if you weren’t even aware of a significant proportion of them. You can only legitimately talk about a defined subset.
But we have evidence of sentient life forms, there for to ignore it out of hand would not be logical, however 200ft chickens and gods there has never been any evidence.
Joe...I dislike descriptor at least as much as you...probably more.
But some people DO use descriptors.
Here is what I said originally...that started all this:
It is my experience that ANYONE who uses "atheist" as part of a self-descriptor...either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
BOTTOM LINE: Using "atheist" as a descriptor or part of a descriptor...almost always seems to be an acknowledgement of a "belief" (which, of course, is nothing but a blind guess about the REALITY.)
I doubt that means "atheism" is a religion...but it does mean it is almost always "belief." Very, very few atheists are actually non-believers, as they assert.
The true non-believers...are agnostics.
You seem to have some issues with what I said.
Tell me what they are...and I will respond.
We have evidence of sentient life forms...but only on this planet. Not on any other planet in our system...not on any asteroids...no on our sun, or moon...any of the comets.
So the ONLY reasonable answer with regard to one possible planet is; I do not know.
That also is the only reasonable answer to "are there any gods."
But obviously you are not of that opinion...so just go with yours.
If you cannot see that we do not need to consider extraordinary claims like 200ft chickens or gods without any evidence I pity you. The mistake atheists make is to allow theists to make their assertions in the first place.
If I walked up to you and told you that your wife was having an affair, even though I had never met her, did not know her name or anything about her, but I had just heard a rumour about her. Would you be agnostic about my claim? At best you might just tell me to **** off but you would more than likely punch me on the nose for just making the absurd suggestion. (quite rightly in my opinion). Yet we allow theists to make completely unsubstantiated claims and even let them get away with the old "lack of evidence is not evidence" argument.
Atheism is a religion to some people and not a religion to others. If you believe in atheism out of faith and not believe of reason and evidence, then it is a religion. Note that the reason and evidence doesn't have to be correct, but at least there must be an attempt to use reason and evidence. Christianity glorifies faith and it is all over the bible, and there is no mention of glorifying evidence. Most atheists believe in reason and evidence in these matters instead of faith, even if they aren't always good at it.
In general terms, focusing on the labels people use rather than the people themselves. Specifically, you’re taking (your perception of) people who self-identify as atheist but attributing their actions to all atheists, self-defined or not.
I don’t see the need to say anything generically about (all) atheists. If an individual makes statements about their own beliefs, that only needs to be discussed in that context. There’s no need for it to relate to any other individuals. It’s meaningless at best and dangerous at worst, the same kind of position that leads to the (false) assertions of all Christians being homophobic or all Muslims being terrorists. The whole point of the thread (and pretty much all other thread by the OP) is to apply the same concept to atheists, attributing negative characteristics generally so individuals can be tarred with the same brush should they ever question the existence of (his) god.
I never allow theists to get away with those claims. Most theists, to their credit, when confronted, quickly adjust to "it is just my belief"...which is to say they are "believing" (accepting without evidence) that there is a god.
With atheists...I also never allow their claims without confronting the claim.
The atheists mostly want to pretend it is not "belief"...but just a lack of "belief."
That is nonsense.
The whole "atheism is just a lack of 'belief"" is a result of errors in etymology. You porbably know that.
I lack a "belief" that any gods exists. That does not make me an atheist any more than the fact that I lack a "belief" that there are no gods makes me a theist.
In any case, the atheists I know or have read...have a more specific reason for using the word as a descriptor. They believe there are no gods...or they believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are.
Not sure why you use that as an answer to what I asked...but I don't think it is.
Like you, I do not like labels. It just happens to be my experience that the atheists I know or about whom I read...have what I said as the reason for using that label.
By the way...I DO NOT consider being an atheist to be a negative...nor have I ever suggested that I do.
Atheism as religion? I guess it deserves the same Constitutional protection as other religions then.
Just about anyone posting on a thread such as this one, is religious.
How does this:
differ from Buddhism which is a Religion.
Buddhism worships no G/god its a religion.
Jainism worships no G/god its a religion.
What is the "practice" of atheism? If you want to call a belief system a religion, I will not waste my breath but I take issue with the word "practice". I'm not waking in the morning and clasping my hands together and bowing my head or doing a series of elaborate bows to Mecca. i'm not going to a building and sitting in pews singing or listening to a man in a clerical collar tell me fairy tales. I've stopped eating the bread and drinking the wine on Easter. I don't go to some temple and light incense to a golden statue. I don't walk around a black cube dressed in white among a gigantic mass of humanity nor do I go to a dirty river in India to bathe in holy water.
What exactly am I practicing?
Because the argument here is based purely on sloppy, highly misguided semantics that completely ignores how language works in real life and is more about inventing controversies that don't actually exist instead of getting at the truth.
how is that exactly?
I gave you a like for this part since you allude that for it not to be a religion it must be proven fact.
whatever 'beliefs' you have accepted on faith.
I'd give you 2 thumbs up if I could, I'm agnostic and I have no problem admitting that my beliefs in the final analysis constitute a religion.
I'm not going to discuss words like faith, religion or belief. I take issue with the word practice because it implies ritual and ceremony. Atheism has no rituals and ceremonies.
What is "the practice of atheism"?
And why do believers feel they have something to gain with the constant push to call atheism a "religion"?
Separate names with a comma.