The great and all powerful religion thread!

[Death Aflame]

Well, like has been said, the core of Atheism is the lack of belief in God or gods only. Using just that definition, Atheism is almost like Agnosticism, but people associate it with other things, like believing God doesn't exist. With those connotations, Atheism can be considered a belief, but when you get down to it's actual dictionary definition, it's impossible for Atheism to be an actual belief. I don't think of it as a belief. I'm usually careful about how I word what I have to say; instead of saying, "I believe God doesn't exist," I just say, "I don't believe in God."

And that's part of my argument. Namely, the negation of belief is a belief in itself (and from there I extend it). I find it interesting why you think it is impossible for atheism to be a belief. Why do you think this?

Edit: 'Belief' according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Not the second definition, believing in a body of tenets held by a group. Atheists are a group who believe or refuse to believe certain things, thus they hold a system of beliefs. My point is that there doesn't seem to be anyway for Atheists to side-step the fact that Atheism is fundamentally a belief system, even if that belief system claims to be based on disbelief, it still stands that this is a form belief.

 

[Death Aflame]

Theism means you believe in God, Atheism is the opposite, it's like English class.
Most of us believe when you die, you die. You go away, you don't exist. Your brain stops working, there is no soul. No "state of nothingness." Just end of existence. You put way too much thought into that. Atheism doesn't mean you don't believe in anything, because that's just stupid, you always believe something. It just means you don't believe in God.

But what is the end of existence, or non-existence? is that not synonymous with a state of nothingness? What is the negative version of a soul? Do you see what I am getting at?

 

[seedofvengeance]

The electric impulses in your brain cease to function. Almost as if you took the batteries out of a CD player... It doesn't go into a state of nothingness, it just doesn't work anymore. There is no negative of a soul, they don't exist. You're painting nothingness as some sort of vast void, when it's just nonexistence, it's just not there.

 

[Rabid Headbanger]

It's impossible for the human consiousness to fully grasp it's non-existence.

 

[Valerie]

And that's part of my argument. Namely, the negation of belief is a belief in itself (and from there I extend it). I find it interesting why you think it is impossible for atheism to be a belief. Why do you think this?

Edit: 'Belief' according to Merriam-Webster Dictionary:

1: a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing
2: something believed; especially : a tenet or body of tenets held by a group
3: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence

Not the second definition, believing in a body of tenets held by a group. Atheists are a group who believe or refuse to believe certain things, thus they hold a system of beliefs. My point is that there doesn't seem to be anyway for Atheists to side-step the fact that Atheism is fundamentally a belief system, even if that belief system claims to be based on disbelief, it still stands that this is a form belief.

Not believing in something cannot be a belief, this is extremely simple. Babies don't believe in God, so technically they are atheists; they don't have any beliefs about anything either. Believing that something doesn't exist is obviously a belief, but not believing in it is not a belief. You technically do not have to believe God doesn't exist to be an Atheist, you just have to not believe in him. Maybe we're just reaching the limitations of the English language, this is the same thing with "being nothing". Being nothing isn't a state of being, because nothing is nothing; we just have to use the word "being" to get the point across.

 

[Death Aflame]

The electric impulses in your brain cease to function. Almost as if you took the batteries out of a CD player... It doesn't go into a state of nothingness, it just doesn't work anymore. There is no negative of a soul, they don't exist. You're painting nothingness as some sort of vast void, when it's just nonexistence, it's just not there.

But what is 'just nonexistence' or being 'just not there' or more interesingly what is the differenc between existence and nonexistence? The problem to me seems that you have this fully functioning personality that disappears, the body stays, but the person disappears (note I am not arguing that their is or isn't a soul here, I am just wondering what happens to the person I was talking too a few days ago when they die and by person I don't mean their physical manifestation).

 

[Death Aflame]

Not believing in something cannot be a belief, this is extremely simple. Babies don't believe in God, so technically they are atheists; they don't have any beliefs about anything either. Believing that something doesn't exist is obviously a belief, but not believing in it is not a belief. You technically do not have to believe God doesn't exist to be an Atheist, you just have to not believe in him. Maybe we're just reaching the limitations of the English language, this is the same thing with "being nothing". Being nothing isn't a state of being, because nothing is nothing; we just have to use the word "being" to get the point across.

No need to be condescending (i.e. this is extremely simple). Also, how do you know what babies believe or lack a belief in when they are born?

Let's return to the original point: not believing in something is the negation of the belief, the negative inverse of belief. Sometimes written as 'disbelief', my point is that this negation or lack of a belief is a belief, but in the negative sense and therefore it is still constituted as a belief, even if it is as wide as I believe everything else except X, it is still a belief that comments on X, directly or indirectly it doesn't matter. In other words, it is a position of contention, one side of a rather simple binary argument such as subjective or objective. If we changed the terms non-belief vs. belief to correspond with subjective vs. objective , belief still transcends whatever position we take in that debate (i.e. I believe in objectivity or I believe in subjectivity).

 

[seedofvengeance]

But what is 'just nonexistence' or being 'just not there' or more interesingly what is the differenc between existence and nonexistence? The problem to me seems that you have this fully functioning personality that disappears, the body stays, but the person disappears (note I am not arguing that their is or isn't a soul here, I am just wondering what happens to the person I was talking too a few days ago when they die and by person I don't mean their physical manifestation).

Your personality is a function of the impulses in your brain. They stop, you stop. The human being can be legitimately explained as more powerful and complicated electronic. It just stops, the personality is one with the body. It's a simple result of the functions in your mind, it stops when you die, just like your heart or any other vital organ. When that person died their mental functions stopped and no longer work. Just as if you destroyed a TV, it just stopped working, it didn't go anywhere. It didn't go to magical TV land where TV functions live. People do not go to fairy tale land or to some other state of consciousness, they just don't work anymore.

If you don't know the difference between existence and non existence, try this... Horses exist and are real, unicorns don't and aren't. Exist was probably the wrong word to use earlier, but I did and don't care.

edit: Arguing about such trivial things such as whether a disbelief is a belief is kinda unnecessarily time consuming and dumb.

 

[Zephyrus]

No need to be condescending (i.e. this is extremely simple). Also, how do you know what babies believe or lack a belief in when they are born?

Let's return to the original point: not believing in something is the negation of the belief, the negative inverse of belief. Sometimes written as 'disbelief', my point is that this negation or lack of a belief is a belief, but in the negative sense and therefore it is still constituted as a belief, even if it is as wide as I believe everything else except X, it is still a belief that comments on X, directly or indirectly it doesn't matter. In other words, it is a position of contention, one side of a rather simple binary argument such as subjective or objective. If we changed the terms non-belief vs. belief to correspond with subjective vs. objective , belief still transcends whatever position we take in that debate (i.e. I believe in objectivity or I believe in subjectivity).

You're giving too much thought to semantics here. There is no significant difference between lack of belief, disbelief, and a belief in nothing. Every atheist holds the same view, which is that of pure science and not a trace of religion or spirituality. Therefore this issue, in and of itself, should not be important. If anyone thinks otherwise, they're wasting their time or they're delusional (a delusional atheist, lol).

 

[Death Aflame]

You're giving too much thought to semantics here. There is no significant difference between lack of belief, disbelief, and a belief in nothing. Every atheist holds the same view, which is that of pure science and not a trace of religion or spirituality. Therefore this issue, in and of itself, should not be important. If anyone thinks otherwise, they're wasting their time or they're delusional (a delusional atheist, lol).

You see I disagree here. Theoretically what if science developed in such a way that it began provide empirical evidence for an omnipotent god-like force? That would mean that Atheism is no longer tied to science or reason, because science would be indicating precisely the opposite yet Athesim in and of itself would be unable to adapt to the change because fundamentally it is a separate belief system from science. Point being, Atheism is not Science, Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) or god-like forces, it just appears one to one with science currently because Science is equally ignorant of a great many things (more than what we think we know by tenfold at least is my guess).

Anyways I still think my deduction has merit, and is not just simply an issue in semantics, it is a fundamental issue in the clarity of the Atheist position.

 

[cookiecutter]

I have a question of clarification to ask regarding atheism for those in the know:

Atheism, as far as I understand it, is the negation of the belief in a deity or existence following death. Thus atheists, it seems, get angry when people try to represent the Atheist doctrine as a belief system in itself. Rather, they argue, again as far as I can tell, that their philosophical position is based on a lack of belief. However, is not the lack of belief (or disbelief) if you will a belief in and of itself? To make an analogy it seems remarkably similar to the postmodern condition in that it purports that their is no grand narrative, or grand truth, however, by arguing this the postmodernists are in turn arguing in a ultimate truth: that truth being the lack of ultimate truths. Anyways, what I am getting at, is that if Atheism cannot escape being a 'belief' system than it means that Atheists fundamentally believe in something. Thus, the 'negation of the belief in existence (that is, something) beyond death and/or a deity that controls all' appears, to me, to be synonymous with 'the belief in non-existence following death, or, in other words, the belief in nothing following death'. The problem arises here that believing in nothing, in itself, seems undefinable. Hence, 'nothingness' and 'somethingness' are synonyms not antonyms in this sense for since a state of nothinginess or non-existence is so elusive, so fleeting if you will, that it posits similar qualities as somethingness (at least in the sense of somethingness beyond death). Therefore, it seems to me that Atheism is simply purporting that a state of nothingness exists (irony) following death, but since nothingness is synonyous with somethingness in this metaphysical regard could not these seemingly disparate beliefs be hinting at the exact same thing?

I guess what I am getting at is that it appears to me that the distinction between Atheism and Theism breaks down when we strip back all the rhetoric of each and examine the primary terms that attempt to distinguish each belief system from the other. My question then is, how do atheists deal with this issue? Because it seems to me like a fundamental problem in the Atheist doctrine that would seem to undermine the whole point behind Atheism to begin with.

I'm just going to be blunt: you are wrong. By definition atheism is not a positive belief in something, hence the use of the word NOTHING. Belief in nothing is necessarily not a belief because nothing is not something. Seems pretty obvious to me. I think Valerie was right when she said that we reach the limits of the English language here and I have a feeling you will not understand me. Nonexistence and nothingness are unfathomable concepts to humans because everything we have ever experienced exists and is something. Atheism is a rejection of the position that God is part of this experience.

Also you should note that atheism has nothing to do with belief in afterlife, just belief in god. It just so happens that many atheists reject an afterlife based on the same reasons that they reject believing in god.

You see I disagree here. Theoretically what if science developed in such a way that it began provide empirical evidence for an omnipotent god-like force? That would mean that Atheism is no longer tied to science or reason, because science would be indicating precisely the opposite yet Athesim in and of itself would be unable to adapt to the change because fundamentally it is a separate belief system from science. Point being, Atheism is not Science, Atheism is the lack of belief in god(s) or god-like forces, it just appears one to one with science currently because Science is equally ignorant of a great many things (more than what we think we know by tenfold at least is my guess).

Anyways I still think my deduction has merit, and is not just simply an issue in semantics, it is a fundamental issue in the clarity of the Atheist position.

Atheism is not science, however a great many including myself are atheists because of science. Forget your hypothetical situation for a second and think about this problem scientifically. We start with a hypothesis that god exists. We look for evidence to support this hypothesis. Since we cannot find any, it means that this hypothesis is not correct. That is how I first thought about this question and for me it is the simplest and strongest reason to be an atheist.

 

[AchrisK]

I can see the point of the atheists. What is a person called for seeing food in front of them and eating it? How about a person who walks up stairs? Or what about someone who goes out in the morning and starts their car to go to work or school? They are just people. Yes, they believe that these things are what they seem to be and they act accordingly. So it would seem to be for an atheist. What they see is what they believe. Birth, life, death, school, work, family, etc. It's existence. They see no God, so it is not a part of their existence. I imagine they feel no need to even be labeled an atheist, because they are just a person in a world. In this regard, atheism is not a belief or a lack of belief.

But I can also see the point of Death Aflame, and I can see it because I believe in God. The above example would just be life if it weren't for (what I believe to be) an inborn knowledge of the existence of God. Since that idea is so widespread and reaches so far back, the atheistic system of beliefs has been posited for those who have decided to supress the idea of a supreme being.

If there is no inborn knowledge, then atheism would have been natural and would not have been named. It would be man evaluating his surroundings and living life. What came first? Theism or atheism? I would say theism. I think this is even obvious by the terms used. Atheism is an alteration of the word theism. Atheist has the root word that means a supreme being.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So if I were to claim that belief in a god/gods actually originated not from inborn knowledge, but from a fear of death and a desire to have explanations for natural phenomena, how would you counter that claim?

We have a belief in gravity, because most things we observe leaving the surface of the earth inevitably return to the earth. This does not mean we have an inborn knowledge of gravity (we don't), but rather that we conclude the idea of gravity based on observations.

This is the same way the concept of a god arose. It was one of mankind's earliest explanations for our observations of nature. And as time has gone on, we've been continually replacing myth-based explanations with scientific ones.

As much as you may like to think that our first explanation for a phenomenon is the most significant one, it's really just the least thought out explanation. Just imagine if we still believed, as infants do, that when an object disappears out of sight it actually disappears from existence. That's a completely ridiculous belief, and yet it's also a natural, inborn belief to have.

 

[AchrisK]

I don't know if I could. There is no proof for inborn knowledge of God, just a lot of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is that which seems to point to one thing, but could be explained in other ways. Often guilty criminals go free because, although the circumstantial evidence pointed to the truth, it wasn't enough to convict them. Then again innocent people are protected by that same standard.

 

[skeptik]

There is a substantially important semantic difference between not believing in a higher power (or lacking the belief that there is a higher power) and actively believing that there is no higher power. Both essentially can fall under the term atheist, but the first is a sufficient condition. The two are actually very different from each other; in other words, the former cannot be reduced to the latter, that not believing in a higher power is believing that there is no higher power. The former is also minutely different from the agnostic claim that whether or not there is a higher power cannot be known.

Take this for an example. I look out of the window and out of the corner of my eye I see something quickly and nearly imperceptibly jet across my peripheral vision. Somebody who also saw the same thing claims that it was a UFO, assuredly, thus, in this instance, representing a theistic claim (UFO in the connotative sense). The strong atheist would say that he believed that it was not a UFO, because UFOs do not exist. The weak atheist would claim that he doesn't believe it was a UFO because he does not believe that UFOs exist. The agnostic would claim that he could not possibly know whether or not it was a UFO because he couldn't possibly know whether or not UFOs exist.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I don't know if I could. There is no proof for inborn knowledge of God, just a lot of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence is that which seems to point to one thing, but could be explained in other ways. Often guilty criminals go free because, although the circumstantial evidence pointed to the truth, it wasn't enough to convict them. Then again innocent people are protected by that same standard.

Gah, why'd you have to go and ninja-reply to my post while I was making a giant edit to it?

 

[AchrisK]

...
We have a belief in gravity, because most things we observe leaving the surface of the earth inevitably return to the earth. This does not mean we have an inborn knowledge of gravity (we don't), but rather that we conclude the idea of gravity based on observations.

The effects of gravity are plain to see (and we still don't know what it is, right?). The existence of a supreme invisible creator is not. It seems bizzarre to me that humans would invent such an abstract concept. But if in fact that creator does exist and has placed that knowledge in his creation, then it makes perfect sense. The Bible says many times that the creation speaks of his existence, and that is what you are saying has happened. People looked around and concluded God. I know you don't believe this, but to me it all comes together nicely.

This is the same way the concept of a god arose. It was one of mankind's earliest explanations for our observations of nature. And as time has gone on, we've been continually replacing myth-based explanations with scientific ones.

Or we have become so seemingly self-sufficient that we decided to explain away God so we could be our own gods. Science hasn't disproven God. There is no scientific basis for atheism. Only when science becomes your faith are you able to fully explain away God.

As much as you may like to think that our first explanation for a phenomenon is the most significant one, it's really just the least thought out explanation. Just imagine if we still believed, as infants do, that when an object disappears out of sight it actually disappears from existence. That's a completely ridiculous belief, and yet it's also a natural, inborn belief to have.

That infant belief is not inborn, it's experiential.

Scientifically speaking I do not think first explanation automatically means correct explanation.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

@ Necuratul:

Good explanation. It's interesting that the agnostic claim is actually a stronger one than the weak atheist's claim. Though both are technically valid since agnosticism basically invokes epistemic standards for knowledge as opposed to scientific standards (as seen in weak atheism). But to invoke epistemic standards results in such a narrow set of possible knowledge that it makes the term "knowledge" practically useless.

That aside, I'm looking forward to hearing all of you guys refer to yourselves as "weak atheists" from now on.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

AchrisK: I'll have to take a rain check on this debate. I've got a math test to study for.

 

[skeptik]

Or we have become so seemingly self-sufficient that we decided to explain away God so we could be our own gods. Science hasn't disproven God. There is no scientific basis for atheism. Only when science becomes your faith are you able to fully explain away God.

The atheism that proposes to not believe in God is actually fairly well supported by science, because science gives us no reason to believe in God. However, the point of course stands for the strong atheist claim to the belief of nonexistence in God.

That infant belief is not inborn, it's experiential.

Actually, insofar as it is the immediate, natural, unlearned first response, it is in fact an inborn trait for an infant to believe that, as Berkeley suggested, that something that goes out of sight goes out of existence.

This is of course a silly belief when you consider the scenario in which two people are beholding one another, and one person turns so as to not see the other. This person will have to believe that the other person has gone out of existence, but of course the other person himself well knows that he still exists. Berkeley was a silly man...