The Religion of Atheism

[Mike375]

Not quite correct. Atheism is in fact the lack of belief in the supernatural. Why should any rational person believe something without any evidence that it is true.

Lack of belief in the supernatural automatically infers belief in the natural laws.

 

[Mike375]

Sure, but it's artificial to consider those to be mirror images of each other. Natural laws are observable - supernatural forces are not (by definition, or they would be natural, not supernatural).

So the two kinds of belief are not really the same class of phenomenon, despite it being possible to describe them in apparent equivalence, as you have done above.

They are the same because either is a belief as a default position and the default position is due to a lack of belief in the alternative.

You say that the supernatural can't be seen but neither can the natural laws when taken in the context of the topic. In fact Hawking and Co say that physics/natural laws do not exist just before Big Bang.

Now think about that for a moment. Big Bang gives it a start time. Obviously there was either something before or nothing before but either way physics is no longer applicable. So there is no natural law to be seen.

 

[Atomic Shrimp]

They are the same because either is a belief as a default position and the default position is due to a lack of belief in the alternative.

They're not the same. Belief in supernatural forces is not equivalent to belief in the effects of natural ones, unless you ignore all the details and just say they're both called 'belief', so they must be the same.
Can you think of an example of a supernatural force that engenders belief in the same way as a natural law does? - i.e. "When action X is performed, result Y happens, every time" - acceptance of something like that doesn't require a great deal of faith.

You say that the supernatural can't be seen but neither can the natural laws when taken in the context of the topic. In fact Hawking and Co say that physics/natural laws do not exist just before Big Bang.

If natural laws can't be observed, they're not natural laws at all. As I understand it, the Big Bang theory is a mathematical construct, some of the implications of which can be tested (cosmic background radiation, for example, I think) - lending weight to the theory.

Now think about that for a moment. Big Bang gives it a start time. Obviously there was either something before or nothing before but either way physics is no longer applicable. So there is no natural law to be seen.

Is it not possible to be without belief about something?

 

[Mike375]

Is it not possible to be without belief about something?

"Without belief" will mean belief.

If ypu lack belief in a supernatural then as a result one of the following will apply:

1) You believe that natural law is responsible or

2) You don't know. You may lack belief in both supernatural and natural laws but you don't know an alternative.

 

[Mike375]

Check Paul Davies religious stance at the bottom of the right side bar.

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

Now my question to atheists is what additional scientific information do have over Paul Davies to be able to make the move from agnostic to atheism?

 

[Rabbie]

Check Paul Davies religious stance at the bottom of the right side bar.

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

Now my question to atheists is what additional scientific information do have over Paul Davies to be able to make the move from agnostic to atheism?

Outside the world of undergraduate debating societies does it actually matter? I don't think so. If A wants to call himself an atheist and B wants to call herself an agnostic then just respect their position.

One person's Atheism may be someone else's Agnostism but so what. Its only a label - just a shorthand of where that person feels they are.

I haver never said there are no supernatural beings. I have said I have seen no evidence that they exist and that it would be irrational to believe in them without such evidence. Because I have no belief in their existance I regard myself as an atheist rationalist. Other people can of course differ in how they would define this position. That is their right.

With regard to natural laws I can sense their affects and use them to make predictions about what will happen in certain circumstances. for example if I throw a stone up in the air I know gravity will pull it back down to earth unless I can throw it faster than the escape velocity of the earth - something I know I am not able to do

I also know that many religions can act as a sort of comfort blanket for their followers so I can see the attraction but unfortunately perhaps that does not make me believe they are true.

 

[oumahexi]

Spiritual: Belief that super natural or super naturals are responsible. Lack of belief that natural laws are responsible.

Not necessarily. Many Druids and Pagans are extremely spiritual but believe that the essence of the spirit is the most natural thing in the universe and can be found / harnessed through the natural elements. The elements are not "super" natural, they are completely natural. While I agree that these are "beliefs" I disagree that their beliefs necessitate elementals being supernatural.

 

[Alc]

The third definition in dictionary.com clearly states : “the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.”
That eliminates the necessity for any further attempts on ya’lls part to educate me on the definition of religion. Now your next argument might well be that that absence of belief is not the same as a belief.

Which it isn't. In the same way that the absence of colour isn't a colour and the absence of sound isn't sound. You can argue this one all you want, but the fact that you can't see the distinction doesn't mean it's true.

Clearly the break in your logic is to claim that the universe just appeared and all the life from the simplest plasma life forms to complex animal like vertebrates simply came into being out of thin air

Without the help of magic, you mean?

, or you must believe (there’s that word again) that the unproven science of non creationist evolution either holds all of the truths or will soon find them (faith), in spite of no real evidence ever being produced that indicates that more complex life forms evolved from lesser ones.

Not even going to bite, here.
You, Mr Scientist, can refute all of the evidence produced by hundreds of highly reputable scientists, worldwide by saying it's not 'real'.

So we have belief and faith, two of the main characteristics of religion, even the more commonly used narrower form.

A dog has four legs, a head and a tail. Those are three of the main characterictics of a cow. using your unique brand of logic, does that mean dogs are cows?

We’ve established that atheism is indeed a religion.

No, you've established it, to your satisfaction. You've proven that for a self-proclaimed rigorous scientist you're capable of making some huge leaps of logic, as long as it fits in with your predetermined ideas.

So many people confuse religion with the existence of God, including many so called religious people. Religion is the dogmatic routine for worshiping in a controlled environment. End of Story.

So, where does 'worship' come into this atheistic religion you've created?

I’m already an unusual person, in that I have been sober for nearly 20 years.
This can only be achieved by the help of a higher power.

Plenty of people have also stopped drinking. Many thousands without the help of one or more gods. I believe the term is will power. If you want to think that you're incapable of not drinking without magical help, so be it, but please don't drag everyone who's accomplished the same thing down to that level.

My quest has been to rigorously question the existence of God and the only rational conclusion is that God exist on a level so far above us, that we are incapable of fathoming even the faintest glimmer.
But that does not stop us from seeing his work.

You see what you want to see. How you can use 'God' and 'rational' in the same sentence is amazing, but it's at least consistent with your other posts.

 

[Alc]

The reason atheists don't like atheism being referred to as a faith is because as a faith it becomes a contradiction.

Do any atheists know for 100% that there is no supernatural involved or was involved in the kick off. If you do know for sure then what scientific information do you have that Hawking and Co don't have? The answer of course is you don't have any such scientific facts. What you have is a faith that the Hawking and Co will get the answers.

If you reject the idea of faith (which you must as an atheist) the position of an atheist becomes a "I don't know....which brings you back to being an agnostic.

With the current state of science there can be no such thing as an atheist. It is simply a statement of preferred position but it is a position that does not exist.

Taking this to it's extreme, nobody anywhere knows anything.
What we all 'know' is based on past experience and the application of logic and knowledge to predict things as best we can.

Do I know that if I drop a ball it will fall? Until I read your post, I did. Now, who knows? If I throw out all I have ever learned from every source I've had contact with and accept that supernatural beings may exist, how can I ever 'know' anything again?

If I accept that there are one or more beings who can alter the laws of physics, create matter out of thin air, raise the dead, transmute one substance into another, etc, etc. then none of my past experience matters as it all could change at any moment.

Yes, faith is involved but it cheapens the argument a little to say that having faith in something when you've seen evidence of it is the same as having faith for faith's sake.

 

[speakers_86]

Now think about that for a moment. Big Bang gives it a start time. Obviously there was either something before or nothing before but either way physics is no longer applicable. So there is no natural law to be seen.

Since we are an infinitismily small part of the universe, we don't know all the answers, and may never will. Some people are okay with that. Those people are atheist. Others, feel (or have been trained to) like that is not acceptable. So they "find faith" (sometimes even making it up).

Just because we don't know what happened before the big bang doesn't mean anything. If you are really interested in this topic, look into something called M Theory. There is a great video on this on nova.org, just search for The Elegant Universe. You can watch the whole episode there.

Its hard to put a puzzle together when you don't have all the pieces.

 

[dan-cat]

Atheism is irretrievably tied to theism. You cannot be without, 'a', theism without the 'concept' of theism existing. It springs from theism by definition.

Atheism is what is left after theism has been removed.

 

[Alc]

Atheism is irretrievably tied to theism. You cannot be without, 'a', theism without the 'concept' of theism existing. It springs from theism by definition.

Atheism is what is left after theism has been removed.

Interesting(?) fact, I was looking up 'theism' and found the following definition:

"Belief in the existence of God. Theism is also a morbid condition brought on by excessive tea-drinking, but this is a different sense of the word"
from http://www.answers.com/topic/theism

Quite an ironic fact, given how much tea I drink.

 

[Rabbie]

Atheism is irretrievably tied to theism. You cannot be without, 'a', theism without the 'concept' of theism existing. It springs from theism by definition.

Atheism is what is left after theism has been removed.

surely a is what's left after you remove theism

 

[Alc]

surely a is what's left after you remove theism

Stop it, or leave the room

 

[Thales750]

Well my point is proven.

It's not, whether or not you believe, its how you choose to push your beliefs onto others that makes it a religion.

By the way, find a sober alcoholic that doesn’t believe he (she) got it from higher source and have them post here.

Maybe it’s easier for some of us because we are actually lucky enough to feel the energy of God.

If that really is the case; than this all will have all been for naut.


Wherever your road leads, seek happiness.

 

[Alc]

Well my point is proven.

It's not, whether or not you believe, its how you choose to push your beliefs onto others that makes it a religion.

By the way, find a sober alcoholic that doesn’t believe he (she) got it from higher source and have them post here.

Maybe it’s easier for some of us because we are actually lucky enough to feel the energy of God.

If that really is the case; than this all will have all been for naut.

Wherever your road leads, seek happiness.

I know a few former alcoholics. They quite rightly put it down to having sense/fear enough to stop drinking. The fact that they don't post on an Access forum is neither here nor there.

Clever, you summed up both your viewpoint and a rational response nicely in your first 12 words.
"My point is proven.
It's not, whether or not you believe"

 

[Alisa]

Now your next argument might well be that that absence of belief is not the same as a belief.

You just proved my point. Thank you.
Until religious folks can get it through their skulls that absence of belief is indeed completely different than belief, this conversation is about as pointless as argueing whether absence of sunlight is the same as sunlight, or absence of water is the same as water.

Clearly the break in your logic is to claim that the universe just appeared and all the life from the simplest plasma life forms to complex animal like vertebrates simply came into being out of thin air, or you must believe (there’s that word again) that the unproven science of non creationist evolution either holds all of the truths or will soon find them (faith), in spite of no real evidence ever being produced that indicates that more complex life forms evolved from lesser ones.

1. I have never met an atheist that claimed that complex life forms appeared out of thin air.
2. I have never met an atheist who claimed that "evolution holds all the truths".
3. If you think there is no evidence for evolution, I can only guess that you were unfortunately subjected to a very poor education. You and Mike will get along just fine.

Delusional fantasies?
That is an attempt to minimize the act of believing, by undermining the worth of the believers. Your language clearly indicates fundamentalist leanings, another standard religious practice.

So if I told you that I BELIEVE in the flying spaghetti monster, and I pray to him daily, and I live my life so as not to offend him, and that when I die, I will finally get to meet him, would you say that I was perfectly sane? Or would you call me delusional?

I’m already an unusual person, in that I have been sober for nearly 20 years.

I've been sober my whole life, except for a couple of very unfortunate events in highschool. Does that make me an unusual person too?

 

[Alc]

If you think there is no evidence for evolution, I can only guess that you were unfortunately subjected to a very poor education. You and Mike will get along just fine.

Clearly you missed the parts where he explained that was a scientist, and a very thorough one at that, and that he had proven his point to his own satisfaction. If you were going to go introducing evidence you should have done so before he decided that the case was closed.

 

[Rabbie]

I tend to think of the English language as adaptive and freely substitute words in a context not necessarily main stream.
The third definition in dictionary.com clearly states : “the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions
...
.
.
.
.
.
.
We’ve established that atheism is indeed a religion.
So many people confuse religion with the existence of God, including many so called religious people. Religion is the dogmatic routine for worshiping in a controlled environment.

Two different definitions! Which one is correct? However as most atheists don't worship and don't follow practices it is quite clear you are mistaken in your belief that Atheism is a religion but you seem to lack to nous to see that.

BTW don't you feel the irony of stopping drinking with the help of a God who allegedly changed water into wine.

 

[Alisa]

Is it actually suicide bombers and terrorists that you're seeking to disabuse of their religion though?

Or do you find yourself generally debating creationists and other assorted fundamentalist Christians?

I don't find that there is much difference between the major religions. They all follow their own novels (aka "scriptures"). They all believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. They all instruct their followers to do nonsensical things in the name of their god, to put faith and belief ahead of reason and morality. The fact that the followers of Islam seem to be causing a bit more damage at the moment is inconsequential to me - at different times in history, it has been the followers of other religions that have caused the most damage. The root cause is the same regardless.