What is Atheism?

Conscript said:
I don't know. But religion causes people to do some pretty radical things. Do you think the terrorists who flew planes into the WTC back in 2001 would be quite so willing to die if their religion hadn't taught them that killing "infidels" was good and right and that by comitting such heinous acts of murder they would be garunteed to go to paradise?
Click to expand...

Answering a question with a question. But no, I don't think that the terrorists flying would have been quite so willing to die without the belief in their acts as 'good'. However with suitable indoctrination and a certain amount of moral flexibility you could probably achieve similar results not in the name of religion so I'm not prepared to blame religion for all ills done in its name. Frequently it seems merely a convenient vehicle to carry out actions and as I've already commented it is easy to rally people around a common ideal or against a common enemy.
 
shr3k said:
Im atheist but i dont claim there isnt a god. Im open to the thought so does that mean im not an atheist?
Click to expand...

It perhaps depends on whose definition you choose but I'd call you an agnostic-atheist at the moment but I suppose that could change to purely agnostic if you decide that you simply don't know or care if a god(s) exist.

//edit, sorry Conscript, I hadn't realised that was your answer. :)
 
Conscript said:
When I read about the Crusades, about the witch hunts of early modern Europe, about terrorism, about another Islamic fundamentalist who blows up a car bomb killing hundreds of innocents, about honour killings, about hardline Christians in America claiming that homsexuals should burn in hell because of their sexual preferences, when I read about all this violence in the name of God/Allah/whichever deity, I lose all faith in religion as a means of uniting people peacefully.

At least disagreements between people in modern democratic rational society is based on reality. Not based on something you only believe in.
Click to expand...

Funnily enough my religion doesn't involve any of that. It does involve lots of drinking and sex though along with regular rituals. No virgins though. :)
 
Im gutted I missed this thread :(

Im a "practicing atheist" which basically means I bother people with my views :D Its just a term really for people who are not fence sitters. Most atheists these days fall into this cateogory.

Read Dawkins (if not already said in this thread) and then make your mind up.

I aint got time to rant now but ill be back
 
Evangelion said:
Yes, but science begins with what has been proved, and uses this as a foundation to prove other things. Faith necessarily transcends what can be proved; that's what makes it faith.
Click to expand...

Technically speaking, science starts with what has been demonstrated to be predictively accurate. That's what proven, in a scientific context, means. It's got nothing to do with whether it's true.

Well, that's quite a generalisation. Science is quite capable of telling us how the data was achieved, and it is not limited to mere hypothesis about "the simplest way the data can be achieved".
Click to expand...

No, science is quite capable of telling us how the data could be acheived, that's different from how it was achieved, certainly in any sort of scientific study that would be remotely relevant in a philosophical debate. All the assumptions of the method are geared to this end, so how can it do anything else?

By contrast, faith can say whatever the hell it likes, since it is not restricted to empirical data, objective analysis of available evidence, repeatable experiments, or verifiable facts. The corollary, of course, is that faith cannot prove anything; indeed, it exists in the absence of proof.
Click to expand...

Science cannot prove anything outside of it's context though. Unless you put faith in the assumptions used in the scientific method to be true to, or define reality, but there's no proof to back up such a thing...
 
If anyone here is curious about this discussion I urge them to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

It is an excellent book that gets to the heart of faith from a totally logical (and in my opinion) unbiased way.
 
Hodders said:
If anyone here is curious about this discussion I urge them to read "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins.

It is an excellent book that gets to the heart of faith from a totally logical (and in my opinion) unbiased way.
Click to expand...

Somewhat akin to recommending learning christanity from Fred Phelps...

It's a very biased, very forcefull look at Richard Dawkins' own faith and how he wishes everyone else to stop being stupid and listen to him.

If you're going to read it (and it is worth a read despite it's clear problems), ensure you also read The Dawkins Delusion for balance.

Dawkins is an atheist preacher, who exhibits all the symptoms of a 'faith sufferer' he described in his essay 'virus of the mind', unfortunately, he's completely blind to the fact that he is the classic example of atheism being used just like a religion...
 
Last edited:
LordSplodge said:
I am amused by those people saying being Agnostic is where it's at. Come on pick a side. Sitting on the fence is not the best option.
Click to expand...

agnostic = undecided? or dont know
atheist = dont believe in god(s)
theist = believe in god(s)


whats the one for "i dont give a ****" ?

basically

yes, no, undecided and irrelevant.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
That's agnostic too. The existance of god is irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Definition on Agnostic
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable

Or do you want to work with another one?
What i'm thinking about isnt that.

There is space for 4 categories
 
to be more clear.

Both 1 + 2 entertain the proposition (one affirms it and one denies it)

3 decides that its unknowable.

However 4th category does none of the above. because to 4 its an empty proposition. Its truth or falsehood is irrelevant. Its not just UNKNOWABLE its irrelevant. So the 4th category isnt the same as the 3rd(agnostic)
 
Last edited:
Surfer said:
Definition on Agnostic
a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable

Or do you want to work with another one?
What i'm thinking about isnt that.

There is space for 4 categories
Click to expand...

The definition I've always used is.

A belief that the (truth) values of certain claims -- particularly theological claims regarding the existence of God, gods, or deities -- are unknown, inherently unknowable, or incoherent, and/or therefore, irrelevant to life." (this was the definition on the wiki page but it's been recently changed)

Someone who simply doesn't consider the question (which is what treating the question as irrelevant really does) is quite hard to categorise, and most groups have come up with definitions that allow them to include these people within their own. They tend to be called either implicit agnostics or implicit atheists (I prefer the first term, because atheism is, to me and historically, linked to a decision or affirmative statement of viewpoint, not just ignoring it).

I'm agnostic to the existance of the christian god, I don't know or care whether or not they exist, it's irrelevant to me, and so I would put myself in that category.
 
Surfer said:
to be more clear.

Both 1 + 2 entertain the proposition (one affirms it and one denies it)

3 decides that its unknowable.

However 4th category does none of the above. because to 4 its an empty proposition. Its truth or falsehood is irrelevant. Its not just UNKNOWABLE its irrelevant. So the 4th category isnt the same as the 3rd(agnostic)
Click to expand...

I know exactly where you're coming from, but as far as I'm aware, there's no specific term for that sort of stance. It could possibly come under ignosticism if you considered the proposition to be poorly defined or undefinable and therefore irrelevant. There's other possible categories too (such as Theological Noncognitivism), but again, it depends on your stance as to why you consider the proposition to be irrelevant which is best applied...
 
Dolph said:
... It could possibly come under ignosticism if you considered the proposition to be poorly defined or undefinable and therefore irrelevant. There's other possible categories too (such as Theological Noncognitivism), but again, it depends on your stance as to why you consider the proposition to be irrelevant which is best applied...
Click to expand...

How the hell (not suggesting it's existence :P) do you know all this stuff and terminology!! :)
 
V3g3tto said:
How the hell (not suggesting it's existence :P) do you know all this stuff and terminology!! :)
Click to expand...

A high level of interest in the subject really. I've tried to educate myself on religion and belief to try and gain a better understanding of it. I did a degree in chemistry which covered the scientific side (including it's limits) and the rest has been a lot of reading and study.
 
I think I've changed my mind. I'm ignostic.

The way I see it, if there is some sort of "higher power" or "unseen force" (and that in itself is a big if) what are the chances of it being anything remotely like any description of "god" that anyone has ever come up with? The god/s of most religions have way too many human characteristics for me to take them seriously. I think they just stem from the difficulty humanity has with understanding things different to them, so we feel the need to anthropomorphise everything to make it easier to understand.

Granted, the abrahamic god has developed over time and has fewer human like qualities, but I think it's still generally thought of as a human-like consciousness.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom