Atheism: Cult or a religion?

[AntiTheist]

There is a difference in believing only in what you can prove and in believing that only what you can prove is real or likely.

I don’t say that things that have no evidence absolutely don’t exist or could never exist or are impossible. I’m just saying that I don’t accept the claim that they exist. Not accepting claims does not require faith.

This is another bold assumption, and it is precisely the sort of faith-based claim I am speaking of when I say Atheists require faith as much as the next group.

Well, we clearly need some definitions here:

Belief: the acceptance of a claim as likely to be true.
Faith: Belief without evidence.

A few examples: It is a belief for me to say that I believe that my keys are in the next room. That belief is not based on faith because it’s based on evidence (my own personal experience of putting my keys on the table, my understanding that there is a low probability that someone else has moved them since I last saw them, etc.).

It is not a belief for me to say that I don’t think a deer is upstairs right now. The claim “a deer is upstairs” is one that I reject. I reject it not based on faith because I reject it based on evidence (the fact that I was just upstairs, the fact that deer are extremely rare in this area, the fact that all my doors are locked, etc.).

It is similarly not a belief to say that I don’t think that the transcendent spirit guide Himmemonshaor is transcendently hanging out next to me right now on another plane of existence. The claim, “the transcendent spirit guide Himmemonshaor is transcendently hanging out next to me right now on another plane of existence” is one that I reject. I reject it not based on faith because I reject it based on evidence (there is absolutely no reason to think that such a being exists, so my position is that it does not exist until there is some evidence for its existence).

It would be a belief to accept the claim that Himmemonshaor transcendently hangs out with me – and it would be a claim based on faith.

Atheists don’t need positive evidence that there is/are no god(s) – all atheists need to do is to observe that there’s absolutely no reason to think that there are any gods at all. As you’ve admitted yourself (or was it someone else on this thread?) there’s no difference between observing a world where gods exist and observing a world where gods don’t exist.

 

[KindredSoul]

I’m just saying that I don’t accept the claim that they exist. Not accepting claims does not require faith.

Yes, but merely not accepting a claim would be to remain neutral. You do not accept the claim that there is a God. This is in line with your alleged method of reasoning. However, you also make the claim that there is no God or that there is likely to be no God. The problem is that you set up a false Dichotomy. You assume that not accepting the claim that there is a God or is likely to be a God is automatically to assume that there is no God or is not likely to be a God. This is not true; there is the perfectly neutral approach. To fall on either side of that approach does indeed require faith; it need not be blind faith, but it is faith no less.

Well, we clearly need some definitions here:

Belief: the acceptance of a claim as likely to be true.
Faith: Belief without evidence.

Faith does not have to mean belief without a rational basis, just in case that’s what you think “without evidence” would mean. Belief without empirical evidence isn’t the same as blind, unjustified belief pulled from nowhere; we’ve already covered that, of course, and we have covered how there is indeed a rational basis for Christianity, even if not proof. Otherwise, I agree with your definitions, presuming that one reads them correctly and doesn’t draw false assumptions from the meaning of the words.

A few examples: …

It is not a belief for me to say that I don’t think a deer is upstairs right now. The claim “a deer is upstairs” is one that I reject. I reject it not based on faith because I reject it based on evidence (the fact that I was just upstairs, the fact that deer are extremely rare in this area, the fact that all my doors are locked, etc.).

Neither of your examples are transcendent, so indeed you would have good reason to believe that, for example, if the deer was upstairs, you most likely would know it. Assertive skepticism only works as a rational basis when something fits such criteria, meaning that “something” must, by definition, not be transcendent in order for assertive skepticism (as opposed to neutral skepticism) to be a rational method of approaching it. Consider, if a transcendent being was upstairs, unlike the deer, it is perfectly reasonable to believe you wouldn’t detect it–that’s part and parcel to transcendence. Therefore, “I can’t detect it” would fail as a logical reason for dismissing such a being.

It is similarly not a belief to say that I don’t think that the transcendent spirit guide Himmemonshaor is transcendently hanging out next to me right now on another plane of existence. The claim, “the transcendent spirit guide Himmemonshaor is transcendently hanging out next to me right now on another plane of existence” is one that I reject. I reject it not based on faith because I reject it based on evidence (there is absolutely no reason to think that such a being exists, so my position is that it does not exist until there is some evidence for its existence).

You have used your former two examples to try to pave the way for an argument against an example that is radically different–the former two not being Transcendent, the third being quite Transcendent. It is true, in your example, that you have no reason to believe in Himmemonshaor. But you have an equal lack of reason to believe that he does not exist. The only thing you might do, and say you are basing your stance on reason rather than faith, is to be neutral about his existence. Of course, we have already covered how there indeed is more reason to believe in Christianity than in your example, but one has to first see that empiricism is not the only rational basis for believing something.

It would be a belief to accept the claim that Himmemonshaor transcendently hangs out with me – and it would be a claim based on faith.

Yes, and in the exact same way, the belief that Himmemonshaor does not transcendently hang out with you, or that he is unlikely to, is a claim based on faith as well. Only the neutral position can be said to be “no belief”.

Atheists don’t need positive evidence that there is/are no god(s) – all atheists need to do is to observe that there’s absolutely no reason to think that there are any gods at all. As you’ve admitted yourself (or was it someone else on this thread?) there’s no difference between observing a world where gods exist and observing a world where gods don’t exist.

Although neutral Agnostics need no positive evidence–because they aren’t claiming anything one way or the other–Atheists are making an assertive claim as to the falsehood or unlikelihood of something. Assertive claims do need evidence (if no faith is employed), and it is no less assertive to say “There is no God/there is likely to be no God” than to say “There is a God/there is likely to be a God.”

As for saying there is absolutely no reason to think there are any gods at all, I have not affirmed such a thing. In fact, I have affirmed rather strongly that empirical reasons are not the only acceptable reasons to believe in something. I have argued there are other reasons to believe in Christianity; it is simply that our present day to day experience, as well as what we could demonstrate [on our own initiative] in our ordinary existence, might [conceivably] look the same in either universe. Thus if I felt that presently repeatable, empirical evidence was the only rational basis for believing something (I do not), I might be Neutral Agnostic…but Atheism has no more empirical evidence for it than any religion, and it requires no less faith.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[AntiTheist]

Although neutral Agnostics need no positive evidence–because they aren’t claiming anything one way or the other–Atheists are making an assertive claim as to the falsehood or unlikelihood of something.

I guess I haven’t explained this well enough.

“Atheist” is a word for people who don’t have a belief in a god. It applies to both people who don’t accept the claim that there is a god and people who actively hold the belief that there is no god. Agnostics are atheist by definition – they don’t have a belief in god because they don’t know whether any gods are real.

To qualify as an atheist, all you need to do is observe that there is no evidence for any gods. You don’t need to make any claims about gods (which is why atheism isn’t a belief).

Now, you’re quite right that, speaking very technically, a lack of evidence simply means that we cannot accept a claim. However, there’s a difference between what’s technically the case and practical application.

Let’s say I hear about a cult that worships Himmemonshaor and that they say that Himmemonshaor has a rule that all human beings have to walk with their left hands atop their heads while they’re outside of the house or they will feel his wrath after death. All of this is transcendent, of course, so I have no basis for saying that Himmemonshaor doesn’t exist.

However, in practical life, nobody is actually neutral about things that we can’t disprove. It’s utterly silly to behave as if everything that’s claimed to be “transcendent” could be true. In practical, day-to-day life, I would have no problem behaving as if Himmemonshaor is not real. I would proudly walk around without my left hand on my head.

I feel the same way about all of the thousands of transcendent gods that are supposedly out there.

 

[KindredSoul]

I guess I haven’t explained this well enough.

“Atheist” is a word for people who don’t have a belief in a god. It applies to both people who don’t accept the claim that there is a god and people who actively hold the belief that there is no god. Agnostics are atheist by definition – they don’t have a belief in god because they don’t know whether any gods are real.

I believe the following is the definition of Atheist: “A person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.” I am not making the definition up. In the most technical sense, a strictly neutral agnostic might be said to “disbelieve” in God as he doesn’t actively believe in Him. However, insofar as the term “Agnostic” is relevant to the discussion of Atheism vs. Theism, Agnosticism is the dividing line, rather than falling into either camp. Agnostics are withholding any decision, while Atheists and Theists are both making a decision, whether firmly or just in the sense of what is likely. Why the distinction? Because an Atheist who actively believes God is unlikely or unreal cannot say, in any sense whatsoever, that a neutral Agnostic agrees with him on the question of whether God is real. Between agreeing with you or me about whether God is likely to exist, a neutral Agnostic would agree with neither. Between you and him, one thinks the evidence [or lack, rather] points to God not being real, and one thinks the evidence points to no such thing. Those are indeed two different positions.

To qualify as an atheist, all you need to do is observe that there is no evidence for any gods. You don’t need to make any claims about gods (which is why atheism isn’t a belief).

Not so. Atheism is a conclusion drawn from that observation, it is not the observation in itself. Consider, there is no reason that a person drawing no conclusions from that observation would be anything other than neutral–for him to fall on either side of neutrality is for him to automatically be going on more than the observation in itself.

However, in practical life, nobody is actually neutral about things that we can’t disprove.

A great many of those things aren’t transcendent in any way, explaining why the lack of neutrality is often reasonable…as for those that are:

It’s utterly silly to behave as if everything that’s claimed to be “transcendent” could be true.

Being neutral, by definition, would not necessarily translate into behavior, nor necessarily interfere with daily living. If you were neutral about Himmemonshaor existing, then it wouldn’t affect your behavior in any way until you had reason to be swayed. Still, you wouldn’t be falling on the side of doubt, either. You would simply be withholding a decision one way or the other, and then going on with your life. No [active] disbelief required for that. No interference with practical living. No reason to fear that such a stance would be chaotic or “silly.” It would simply be the honest realization that, based upon empirical evidence alone, you are unqualified to make a decision, including one against the transcendent claim. Of course, as demonstrated by previous discussion in the thread, there is a rational basis for Christianity (even if not proof) whereas the Himmemonshaor cult seems arbitrary, and so there would be a lot less motive to ever decide for the Himmemonshaor claim than for Christianity. Even so, neutrality would be the only option available if one were being strictly empirical, because as little evidence as there would be for Himmemonshaor, there would be just as little empirical evidence against Himmemonshaor (zero) if he fits the bill for being purely transcendent.

Perhaps the following question is why you felt neutrality wouldn’t allow a person to live a normal life: “Wouldn’t a neutral person be constantly afraid that Himmemonshaor is going to smite him after death if he remains neutral?” If the person is claiming to make a decision based upon strictly rational empiricist grounds, he cannot make the decision based upon wanting to ease that fear by dismissing Himmemonshaor; he must still remain neutral, because disbelieving in Himmemonshaor won’t make him go away if he is real…and believing in him won’t make one any safer if one of the other transcendent deities is real instead. Either decision, to the empiricist who is carrying his empiricism to its logical conclusion, will not solve the fear factor. Is it a potentially scary world for the true empiricist? Quite possibly, if he fully took into account the implications of his strictly empirical approach. But, as a strict empiricist, he cannot believe or dismiss anything for such reasons, or else he is not adhering to empiricism after all and would then be making a false claim if he said his position required no faith.

I feel the same way about all of the thousands of transcendent gods that are supposedly out there.

Just as I feel the same way about the claim that there is no God [or that He is unlikely], a claim that is just as unverifiable as any transcendent reality. The claim that there is no God, for me, is just one more option among the “thousands of transcendent gods,” and is in no demonstrable way more likely to be true than many of the others. This is exactly why, if I didn’t think there were other, non-empirical reasons to be convinced that Christianity is probably true (which is the rational basis for my having faith), I might be neutral Agnostic. But if I relied solely or primarily upon empiricism, I couldn’t believe in something, the non-existence of God or the likelihood of that non-existence}, that in practice has no more rational support than any purely transcendent claim.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[itinerant1]

**“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” **–G.K. Chesterton

 

[AntiTheist]

**“If there were no God, there would be no atheists.” **–G.K. Chesterton

I think it’s better said that if there were no concept of a god, then there wouldn’t need to be a term “atheist” (since everyone would be an implicit atheist and there would be no need for a label).

KindredSoul:

Consider, there is no reason that a person drawing no conclusions from that observation would be anything other than neutral–for him to fall on either side of neutrality is for him to automatically be going on more than the observation in itself.

I just want to address this one point: let’s say a person looks at the evidence and decides that there is no reason to conclude that there is a god and no reason to conclude that there is no god.

Does that person have a belief in god? No. That person is “without belief in a god,” which is the literal meaning of the word atheist and the way that most atheists use it today. It’s called being an “agnostic atheist.”

I’m technically an agnostic atheist since I fully acknowledge that a god or gods could potentially exist. I see no reason to accept the claim that they do.

I don’t think we disagree on too much else, except that I still feel that this word “transcendent” is nonsense and another way of saying “something for which there is no evidence.” Can you give me evidence that suggests that we should believe that “transcendence” itself exists?

 

[itinerant1]

I think it’s better said that if there were no concept of a god, then there wouldn’t need to be a term “atheist” (since everyone would be an implicit atheist and there would be no need for a label).

I prefer Chesterton’s prose. It’s much more poetic.

You are wishing for what never was and never will be. The human race, for some very good reasons, will always believe that there exists something greater than itself, and even greater than the universe.

Effects always reveal something of their cause. Contingent beings reveal, by the very fact of their contingency, dependence for their very existence on a Necessary Being. And this being we call God.

 

[KindredSoul]

KindredSoul: I just want to address this one point: let’s say a person looks at the evidence and decides that there is no reason to conclude that there is a god and no reason to conclude that there is no god.

Does that person have a belief in god? No. That person is “without belief in a god,” which is the literal meaning of the word atheist and the way that most atheists use it today. It’s called being an “agnostic atheist.”

I’m technically an agnostic atheist since I fully acknowledge that a god or gods could potentially exist. I see no reason to accept the claim that they do.

But do you equally see no reason to accept the claim that they don’t?

We’ve discussed why the term Agnostic, in our debate, is a different position than either of us holds, and I don’t see how there is any denying that. You’re not perfectly neutral, so far as I can tell, and the vast majority of Atheists aren’t. Therefore, they are not “Neutral Agnostic” which is what I am using “Agnostic” as a shorthand for here. Such an Agnostic, being pretty much an empiricist (as non-neutral Atheists claim to be) is simply refusing the false Dichotomy that to “Not believe in God” is automatically the same thing as to"Believe God is unreal or unlikely." Refusing that False Dichotomy, the [neutral] Agnostic opts to be entirely neutral and not decide in any way without positive evidence leading him to decide one of the two ways.

To phrase the question very carefully, if Person A believes there is a God or is likely to be a God, and Person B believes there is not a God or not likely to be one, can you say to me honestly that you’re not the least bit inclined whatsoever in even the slightest way to agree with Person B any more than with Person A? Only then would you be the Neutral Agnostic (keyword being “neutral”), the one who truly isn’t making any claim of any sort.

Of course, then you wouldn’t argue much against Theism anymore than you’d argue against Atheism, so this is, of course, why I doubt this is what you are. For one thing, the Neutral Agnostic absolutely knows he isn’t right, because his belief is completely a non-decision, and therefore by definition cannot be right. A Neutral Agnostic, while recognizing his approach is the only entirely empirical one, also acknowledges that, say, both Atheists and Christians each have an equal chance of being right (because, well, they believe something about the question) and that each has a 100% better chance of being right than himself…because, again, a non-decision cannot be the right decision, or else it isn’t a non-decision at all and then fails to be the Neutral Agnostic one. Yet the Neutral Agnostic approach is the only one upheld by true strict empiricism–which is, of course, why I am convinced that strict empiricism is not a reliable way of attempting to answer these questions at all, neither in the negative or positive.

So, again, are you indeed Neutral Agnostic, after having taken all this into consideration? If so, then I expect I’ll at some point on the forums see you debating with a non-neutral Atheist with just as much vigor. I also expect that you believe that God could just as likely be real as not. That is part and parcel to being Neutral.

I don’t think we disagree on too much else, except that I still feel that this word “transcendent” is nonsense and another way of saying “something for which there is no evidence.” Can you give me evidence that suggests that we should believe that “transcendence” itself exists? (blue highlight added by me

Indeed. Something for which there is no [keyword: empirical] evidence. “Something” is not the same as “nothing,” and we have already covered how being without empirical evidence simply isn’t the same thing as non-existent.

I’ve already spoken to you of the Rational Basis for Christianity, which is in turn a Rational Basis for believing in the Transcendent God without Whom Christianity could not be. It has been established, thus, that there is reason to believe in the Transcendent, even if not empirical evidence. And reason is all one needs to justify a belief on perfectly rational grounds. As for your desire for empirical evidence, that would contradict the whole meaning of Transcendent, and I must believe that you realize this. Just because something doesn’t contradict its definition doesn’t make it “nonsense.”

Suppose if I asked your question in reverse: Can you give me evidence that suggests that we should believe that “transcendence” itself does not exist? You’ll find that, if you thoroughly take into account what "transcendence means, you can’t. Does this prove that I’m right or even likely to be? No. Nor does the opposite prove that you are, or even likely to be. Your question, and the answer to it, could only leave one utterly neutral on the matter if one was relying solely on empiricism (which, again, I believe to be a mistake in the first place–I cannot see how anyone can think it is reasonable to restrict ourselves to empiricism when there are other reasonable methods of deciding something as well).

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[PJM]

=AntiTheist;5940792]That’s precisely what “no evidence” means. We are not rationally justified to believe in things that we have no evidence of.

To: PJM:
Well, in one sense, science certainly does address the “why’s.” Why is there such diversity of life? Because, we know from evidence, life evolved from common ancestors. Why do earthquakes occur? Because of plate tectonics, etc. That’s two “why’s” right there.

No friend that is HOW, not why.

None. My position is based on evidence. There is absolutely no evidence that your god – or any other god, for that matter – exists. I therefore do not accept the claim that any god exists.

Sure there is, it just acknowlwdged

So friend, what evidence can you put fort that there is NO GOD?

Now, I think presumption has a lot to do with your position. Look at the last question you asked me – about science not addressing the “why’s.” Well, what “why’s” are these, exactly? You mean nothing less than things that you assume to be true without evidence.

***Why for example is the earth the only palnet that can support life?

Why does the earth rotate when most planets / stars don’t

Why do the sun and moon “rise” and set?

Why does humanity ALONE have a mind, intellect and freewill?***

If you can answer these three are a great many others WHYS

I’d say that you’re the one operating under presumption here
**
Oh really**

 

[KindredSoul]

As a clarifier for Transcendent, it is not only something for which there is no [empirical] evidence, but something for which, under ordinary circumstances (the vast majority of space and time) there should be no empirical evidence. This is why the lack of sensory evidence is absolutely no weakness to the concept of Transcendent.

Here is a comparison. Imagine if something existed that were truly silent under all circumstances, and absolutely could not be heard. Just as it would be inappropriate to say “Since I can’t hear it, it’s not real” (which would ignore the fact that it’s silent) so too it would be inappropriate to say of the Transcendent “Since I can’t detect it, it’s not real.” Just as Silent things are beyond the senses of hearing, the Transcendent is beyond all the human senses. If a creature only had a sense of hearing, and no other senses, it truly could not detect something which was really and truly silent. In the same way that we realize that the creature’s lack of perception obviously wouldn’t mean sounds do not exist, it is perfectly logical to believe that something can exist beyond the human senses.

Also, another clarifier on Agnosticism; Agnosticism is compatible with both Theism and Atheism. Anyone who claims to doubt belief in a god or lean towards belief in a god, but who doesn’t claim to be confident in that belief or doubt, and therefore who withholds both belief and disbelief (to varying degrees), is Agnostic. This is why I do not accept your premise that Agnosticism is just another form of Atheism. There is Agnostic Atheism and Agnostic Theism, and I am sure you have heard both terms and know they are accepted. Unless we set up a false dichotomy, which violates logic, we hold that it is also possible for a person to be neither, to lean neither way, to be “Undecided” as it were, and to think that the empirical evidence available does not enable him to “decide”. Such a person would be Neutral, and cannot be claimed by either Theists or Atheists, and in fact I imagine such a person would [rightfully] resent either you or I laying claim to his view as falling on our side of the line when he quite probably thinks there is no evidence he should side with either of our views and would prefer that neither of us presumes he has done so. That is, assuming he is truly Agnostic Neutral, which admittedly is a very thin line on which to balance; yet I contend that anyone going strictly by empirical evidence of the present sensory experience would have to walk that very same line if he didn’t want to betray his strict empiricist approach.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[AntiTheist]

So friend, what evidence can you put fort that there is NO GOD?

I don’t need evidence because I’m not claiming that there is no god. All I’m claiming is that there is no good reason to accept that any gods exist.

The default position is always not to accept a claim until evidence is forthcoming. I don’t go around believing in transcendent spirit guides until I can disprove them, and I don’t go around believing in your god (or any other god) until I can disprove it either. [note to KindredSoul: I’m not automatically saying that I accept the claim that these beings don’t exist…I’m just saying that I do not have a belief in them, which is the literal meaning of “atheist”]

Now, as to your “why’s” – goodness, are you seriously this lacking in basic knowledge? I’ve experienced this “argument” tactic before – ask a bunch of questions (usually incredibly simple or basic questions) and then claim that as evidence that there is a god of some kind.

That is utter foolishness. Even if the answer to every one of your questions was “we don’t know,” it doesn’t do anything to demonstrate that there is a supernatural god. But, for your educational pleasure:

Why for example is the earth the only palnet that can support life?

Actually, I believe we did discover what very well may be microbe fossils in a meteor from Mars, so it’s probably not true that we’re the only planet that could ever support life. But yes, we’re the only planet that we’re currently aware of in which the evolutionary process has produced such a diversity of life.

The conditions on this planet 4 billion years ago were right for life to arise, as they apparently were some time before that on Mars and may very well be in other galaxies that we can’t reach.

Why does the earth rotate when most planets / stars don’t

I thought the answer was “gravity,” but I just looked it up and apparently it’s due to leftover momentum from a solar nebula.

Why do the sun and moon “rise” and set?

Are you for real? See “rotation” above.

Why does humanity ALONE have a mind, intellect and freewill?

Evolution. And I wouldn’t necessarily agree that we’re alone in having a mind; and I wouldn’t necessarily agree that we have free will, depending on what you mean by the term.

Itinerant1:

The human race, for some very good reasons, will always believe that there exists something greater than itself, and even greater than the universe.

I have no doubt that humans will always need a mental crutch. Our biological drive for certainty is too strong for most people to go without making up fairy tales to believe in.

Contingent beings reveal, by the very fact of their contingency, dependence for their very existence on a Necessary Being. And this being we call God.

Oh, lovely. Here comes the pseudo-philosophical babble.

Humans have no idea what happened before the Big Bang or where the “stuff” that exploded into the Big Bang came from. We’re certainly not justified in thinking that a magical intelligence that doesn’t need a body existed back then.

 

[Libertarian_FL]

It’s a Philosophy not a cult or a religion. The premise is based on natural science and logical applications of that which denies supernatural forces as a cause.

To compare both Buddhism in its core form and Confusionism are philosophical faiths in that there is a system of morality built around them and teachers that promote that morality.

 

[KindredSoul]

I don’t need evidence because I’m not claiming that there is no god. All I’m claiming is that there is no good reason to accept that any gods exist

If that is all you are claiming, without any extra-sensory or faith-based motives, then this would mean that you are perfectly neutral about the question, that you haven’t decided one way or the other, that whenever you see a person who believes in God or believes He is likely to exist it occurs to you: “He’s just as likely to be right as to be wrong,” a sentiment identical to and no more doubtful than the sentiment you would have toward a person who believes God is unreal or unlikely. Does this describe you? If so, you have further realized that anybody with any religious or counter-religious belief that hasn’t been disproven has an infinitely better chance of having the true belief than you–because, if this describes you, you don’t have a belief or opinion on the matter at all. Such is the way of neutrality.

The default position is always not to accept a claim until evidence is forthcoming.

In order for any given religion to be untrue in a world without supernatural occurrences, it reasonably appears that its founder(s) had to be crazy or lying–or at least such is the case in religions like Christianity, which began with claims so phenomenal that they couldn’t have been honest misunderstandings [of perfectly natural events] on the part of the founders. Thus the founders were either right, or they were mentally unstable or liars. The latter is a claim that would appear integral to any non-neutral withholding of belief toward such religions. And it is very much a claim; to say someone is a liar or crazy is a positive statement, not a mere withholding of belief. Therefore, If the default position is to not accept a claim until evidence [implicitly of the empirical kind] is forthcoming, the claim–upon which non-neutral Atheism depends, even if it never says it explicitly–that religious founders were all crazy or lying must also be rejected without evidence…and by empirical standards, that evidence must be something we can see and touch in the here and now. I have not seen such evidence. No one has ever given me hard evidence, for example, that Jesus and the disciples were mentally insane, nor that they were con-men. Therefore the default position is not only to not [actively] believe in such religions until some basis is provided (a basis which does exist–it just isn’t empirical), but also to keep in mind that in the meantime they could just as likely be true as false, even if I haven’t decided in favor of true. Likewise, the default position would recognize that the belief that God is false or unlikely is in no way superior or more likely to be true than any given religion whose claims were transcendent. Again, it’s a thin line that most Atheists do not walk.

[note to KindredSoul: I’m not automatically saying that I accept the claim that these beings don’t exist…I’m just saying that I do not have a belief in them, which is the literal meaning of “atheist”]

As discussed previously, if a person who is neutral on the issue should be called Atheist, keep in mind that you and he are the same in name only, in terms of the question of “Does God exist.” His worldview is as different from yours as it is from mine. All three of us may agree, without betraying our respective worldviews, that there is no [empirical, present-day sensory] evidence for God’s existence or non-existence–so that alone cannot define Atheist, since anyone from any religion can believe that. Further, you and I come to (or lean towards) different conclusions based on that premise. The neutral guy comes to and leans toward no conclusion at all.

I have no doubt that humans will always need a mental crutch. Our biological drive for certainty is too strong for most people to go without making up fairy tales to believe in.

Do you believe that all known religions are more likely than not to be merely mental crutches? If you do, you have ceased to merely be withholding belief, and are making a positive claim (religions are likely to be mental crutches). Your implication that religious founders are “making up fairy tales” is addressed directly above. This all goes back to the question of whether you are merely withholding belief or embracing a belief in something’s falsehood.

We’re certainly not justified in thinking that a[n] intelligence that doesn’t need a body existed back then. (slightly edited, but core meaning unchanged)

We have no empirical, present-day sensory evidence for it, maybe. But there are other legitimate ways to justify such belief. While one may have no justification for believing (nor, however, would a neutral person have any justification for actively disbelieving, for that matter) in your Himmemonshaor cult, there are reasons for believing in such religions as Christianity, reasons brought up previously in the thread, which do indeed justify believing that the Creator-God preached by Jesus Christ exists. One must realize that “empirical sensory evidence” is by no means the only rational justification for believing in something. This hinges in turn on the realization that a “rationally justified belief” need not be the same thing as a “proven belief.”

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[AntiTheist]

Thus the founders were either right, or they were mentally unstable or liars.

Or they were honestly mistaken, or they are the rough equivalent of legends (i.e. they may have been actual people, but deeds and words have been ascribed to them over the years that they never did or spoke)

An atheist doesn’t have to claim that founders of religions were all crazy or lying. An atheist simply has to not accept the claim that there are any gods.

All three of us may agree, without betraying our respective worldviews, that there is no [empirical, present-day sensory] evidence for God’s existence or non-existence–so that alone cannot define Atheist, since anyone from any religion can believe that.

Right. The thing that distinguishes an atheist is that an atheist does not accept the claim that any gods exist.

If the question is “Do you believe in gods?” and the answer is anything at all other than “yes” – including “I don’t know” – the person is an atheist because the person lacks a belief in gods.

There’s a difference sometimes drawn between “strong” atheists and “weak” atheists. “Weak” atheists are agnostic atheists – those who simply do not accept the claim that there are gods. “Strong” atheists are those who assert the positive claim that there are no gods.

I’m a weak atheist in the context of the kind of knowledge that you’re talking about. I’m a strong atheist in the context of a kind of “knowledge” defined in terms of practical, everyday knowledge.

I admit, in the sense of knowledge that you mean, that I have no way of knowing whether transcendent spirit guides exist and that I am thus technically “neutral” on the subject. In everyday conversation, however, I have no problem saying that I know there’s no such thing as spirit guides – just like I know that there’s no such thing as leprechauns, Hindu gods, your god, or Cthulhu. I don’t make those claims absolutely, and I’d be happy to change my mind if presented with evidence.

 

[KindredSoul]

Or they were honestly mistaken, or they are the rough equivalent of legends (i.e. they may have been actual people, but deeds and words have been ascribed to them over the years that they never did or spoke)

An atheist doesn’t have to claim that founders of religions were all crazy or lying. An atheist simply has to not accept the claim that there are any gods.

This would only apply to religions that we have good reason to believe evolved into anything remotely like their present recognizable form over many many years, the beginnings of which pre-dated recorded history, or religions whose founding events were vague and thus could be “honestly mistaken” for something supernatural. Certain religions, such as Christianity, do not fit the bill. Christianity in particular has its origins and early beliefs reasonably documented; its founders (for our purposes, we’ll say the disciples) believed that they had seen the evidence before their very eyes, rather than inherited it from generations ago; and finally that evidence was so extraordinary that no sane man could be honestly mistaken–dead men, having raised from the dead, rising to the heavens is not something that can be honestly mistaken from a perfectly natural event. Yet this is what Christians claimed from the very beginning, including those who claimed to be eyewitnesses of these things, so we know it isn’t merely the upgrowth of legends over many years. This is one of the strengths of Christianity: Denial of the Resurrection requires a positive claim that its founders were unanimously and identically crazy or liars.

Right. The thing that distinguishes an atheist is that an atheist does not accept the claim that any gods exist.

If the question is “Do you believe in gods?” and the answer is anything at all other than “yes” – including “I don’t know” – the person is an atheist because the person lacks a belief in gods.

If one wants to interpret Atheism as simply “without belief in God”, so as to include anyone who isn’t a Theist, it becomes a very unpragmatic term, even if that is indeed one legitimate use (if only for clarity, I’ll stick to calling the truly neutral fellow an Agnostic and leaving Atheist off). Again, a consistently “strong” Atheist is as different from a neutral Agnostic as a Christian is from an strong Atheist, a Muslim, or a Hindu. The worldviews of a “strong Atheist” and a neutral agnostic are as radically different as any other two worldviews. Just because they hold in common that they have neither one decided upon a God existing doesn’t mean their beliefs are in the least way similar enough to be grouped together in a discussion such as this one. The first would hardly be surprised if there was no God, though he would be very surprised if there was one. The second would be equally surprised or unsurprised by either outcome, because he is truly, completely undecided. That being the case, he would have absolutely no harder time believing in a God (and saying there is one) than believing there wasn’t one (and saying there isn’t one). That does not appear to be the case for you, nor for anyone who would agree with your argument.

There’s a difference sometimes drawn between “strong” atheists and “weak” atheists. “Weak” atheists are agnostic atheists – those who simply do not accept the claim that there are gods. “Strong” atheists are those who assert the positive claim that there are no gods.

I would observe that there is also a “semi-strong” variant of Atheist who simultaneously does not assert to know that there are no gods but who does think it is more likely that there are no gods. He may not be certain of his “no-God” belief, but he feels more certain of that than he is that there is no God, and if he had to guess his guess would consistently fall on the side of “no God”, wherein he fails to be neutral.

I’m a weak atheist in the context of the kind of knowledge that you’re talking about. I’m a strong atheist in the context of a kind of “knowledge” defined in terms of practical, everyday knowledge.

… I have no problem saying that I know there’s no such thing as spirit guides – just like I know that there’s no such thing as leprechauns, Hindu gods, your god, or Cthulhu. I don’t make those claims absolutely,

Unless you admit that (and call attention to the fact that) you have faith there is no such thing as Spirit Guides, it would be unacceptable to use the term “know”. It is not acceptable to suggest that you know more than you can by your own professed method. Atheists profess themselves to be empiricists. Therefore, any Atheist who says he “knows” there is no God gives the impression that there is an empirical reason to believe this beyond the lack of evidence. If he admitted that he was exercising faith–a rather tremendous faith that whatever is real can be sensually detected–then this would be one thing. But this very thread has centered upon the fact that Atheists do not admit that. When a Christian says “I know Jesus rose from the dead,” people know that he is speaking it by faith aided by reason, and there is almost no danger of anyone thinking he thinks there is some present-day empirical evidence for his claim, because people know Christians are not strict empiricists. Since Atheists claim to be strict empiricists, people are misled to believe that whatever an Atheist claims to “know” is based in empirical evidence. To claim one “knows” there is no God cannot be based in actual empirical evidence in any way shape or form. That is why it is innapropriate for the empiricist to ever claim, or even imply, that he knows something that cannot be empirically proven, even for practicality’s sake.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[AntiTheist]

If one wants to interpret Atheism as simply “without belief in God”, so as to include anyone who isn’t a Theist

That is the way that actual atheists use the term, yes.

Again, a consistently “strong” Atheist is as different from a neutral Agnostic as Christian is from an strong Atheist, a Muslim, or a Hindu.

No, that’s not true.

The worldviews of a “strong Atheist” and a neutral agnostic are as radically different as any other two worldviews.

First of all, “atheist” or “agnostic” aren’t worldviews. They’re positions on a question. A strong atheist and a weak atheist can – and very often do – have similar worldviews. Their worldviews, however, converge on a single point: neither one has a belief in a god. That’s the whole point of the label “atheist.”

Unless you admit that (and call attention to the fact that) you have faith there is no such thing as Spirit Guides, it would be unacceptable to use the term “know”.

Then you and I are using two different definitions of the word “know,” and I doubt that further conversation will overcome the language barrier.

Again, in the sense of the word “know” as you use it, I am a weak atheist. In the sense of the word “know” as I usually use it in my day-to-day conversation (in phrases such as, “I know there’s no loch ness monster”), I am a strong atheist.

Where does all of this hair-splitting get us, exactly? I’ve lost track of what you’re even trying to prove in your long-winded posts. Far easier to simply observe that atheists all do not accept a belief, and the act of not accepting something is not a belief, is not rooted in faith, and is not what most people would consider “religious.”

EDIT: As an additional note, if you think it is an act of “faith” not to think that there are transcendent spirit guides hovering around us all the time, then you are using the word “faith” in such a radically different way than most people use it that I doubt that we’ll ever be able to see eye-to-eye.

 

[latin_rite]

Well, there’s your first mistake. I’ve never met an atheist who recognizes his or her intellect as a god.

In fact, the atheists I know will be pretty quick to tell you that they don’t know everything, that they’re not perfect, and that they’re not gods.

.

Yeah? And where have these Atheist people been hiding? I always thought i would have finding their much venerated flying spaghetti monster than finding a Atheist who will admitt to not knowing everything.

 

[AntiTheist]

Yeah? And where have these Atheist people been hiding? I always thought i would have finding their much venerated flying spaghetti monster than finding a Atheist who will admitt to not knowing everything.

Well, I’m an atheist, and I do not know everything. You can ask the many atheists I know, and I’m sure that all of them would be quite happy to point out that they don’t know everything.

 

[KindredSoul]

First of all, “atheist” or “agnostic” aren’t worldviews. They’re positions on a question. A strong atheist and a weak atheist can – and very often do – have similar worldviews. Their worldviews, however, converge on a single point: neither one has a belief in a god. That’s the whole point of the label “atheist.”

The question of God is more significant than many others, and even if it need not affect the way one lives one’s life, it has a profound impact on what one thinks of the world–i.e., was it planned out, randomly created, spontaneously non-created? Is what we can detect all there is or is there more? It is not so simple or insignificant a question as, say, does Bigfoot exist. These questions have an affect on what one thinks of reality, and this is the sense in which I use the term “worldview”. If you would substitute it with something else that still captures the significance of the question accurately, fine–that is a nuance which is unimportant. The point is that the answers of a “strong atheist” and a neutral agnostic on that significant question are indeed different. “No/Probably Not” is just as different an answer from “Equally Maybe so/Equally Maybe Not” as “Yes/Probably So” is. The method by which strong Atheists and Neutral Agnostics claim to come to their answers may have more in common, but their respective answers are as different from each other as each is from the Theist’s answer. We mustn’t confuse the method for the answer itself.

Then you and I are using two different definitions of the word “know,” and I doubt that further conversation will overcome the language barrier.

Again, in the sense of the word “know” as you use it, I am a weak atheist. In the sense of the word “know” as I usually use it in my day-to-day conversation (in phrases such as, “I know there’s no loch ness monster”), I am a strong atheist.

I am only using the word “know”, in this discussion, the way strict empiricism–the standard of believing only in what can be proven or replicated to the senses–would lead me to use the word if I were being true to that standard. I am not empiricist, but Atheists often claim to be, insofar as they deny the role of faith in their position. The word “know” as I have been using it in this discussion is the only sense that it could be used by one who, without an unempirical bias, withholds belief in whatever he cannot prove–which would logically compel an intellectual prohibition against claiming to “know” that there is no Transcendent God, whether with certainty or favorable probability.

Where does all of this hair-splitting get us, exactly? I’ve lost track of what you’re even trying to prove in your long-winded posts. Far easier to simply observe that atheists all do not accept a belief, and the act of not accepting something is not a belief, is not rooted in faith, and is not what most people would consider “religious.”

What I am demonstrating is that Atheists (if you prefer, I’ll clarify with “strong/non-neutral” Atheists to distinguish from Neutral Agnostics) do indeed do more that simply refuse to accept a belief, which would leave them strictly neutral both in actuality and (logically following) in everyday conversation; when they believe or say that God is anymore likely to be false than He is to be real, they cross that line. They are then making a claim, and they cannot demand evidence for other peoples’ claims while at the same time thinking their own needs no evidence. There is no more empirical evidence for [strong] Atheism than for any religion whose central reality is transcendent, and there is no more an empirical basis for not believing the latter than the former. And yes, it is possible to simply “not believe” the former; when one simply does not believe it is true or likely that God is nonexistent, he is “withholding belief in” Strong Atheism, and he has at least every bit as much empirical motive to do so as to “withhold belief in” the Transcendent. “Withholding belief in” both would leave him in the neutral position that I have spoken of throughout the thread, an “undecided” position. Anything other than that undecided position is indeed a belief, and strong Atheism of any level (from certain to mildly likely) is no less a belief than transcendent Theism, and it is no less rooted in faith.

EDIT: As an additional note, if you think it is an act of “faith” not to think that there are transcendent spirit guides hovering around us all the time, then you are using the word “faith” in such a radically different way than most people use it that I doubt that we’ll ever be able to see eye-to-eye.

Just because this faith is overwhelmingly taken for granted doesn’t make it any less faith. That’s the whole point–some of our most basic assumptions are based on faith, but quite simply we rarely realize that. If we did, we would realize that believing such things as religion on faith is no less rational than any of the other things we believe by faith–including the basic belief that only that within our sensory perception is real or likely to be real. That belief is as faith-based as [and in my opinion far more so than] any major religion, as there is absolutely no proof that this is true, no compelling reason to believe it whatsoever, other than “that’s how most people look at things” which is hardly a measure of truth, nor is it at all empirical. Whenever it is believed, it is believed 100% on the faith that humans are perfectly equipped to sense–directly or by ingenuity–whatever exists. As scary as it may be for people to open that can of worms, and admit that so basic a belief is taken on almost blind faith, that does not change the clearly and overwhelmingly faith-based nature of the claim.

Blessings in Christ,
KindredSoul

 

[AnAtheist]

But to deny an outside influence in both the Creation of this Universe, and maintaining it, seems TO ME to be completely void of intellectual intregity?

That is a strange notion. If you had said “wrong”, ok, that is something one can discuss. But you seem to imply that simply thinking the universe may have no origin is somewhat immoral or nobody “really” does think that and those who clain they do are in fact lying?