S
SunshineGrandma
Guest
I wasn’t playing and thanks for the conversation.
- Status
S
SunshineGrandma
Guest
What about in ancient civilizations? The Egyptians and Greeks, for example, practiced rituals and believed in gods. That would be considered religious practice even though it didn’t survive through the ages and didn’t have a creed.
So what makes it most interesting, what ties it all together, is man’s desire for God. There always seems to have been a longing for an understanding of how the world was created and why we are here.
Atheists may claim not to hold to a set of beliefs, other than there is no God, but I don’t think that’s possible without other beliefs to support it. They may claim not to care, but I don’t believe that either. History wouldn’t support that viewpoint and I have never, ever met someone who really doesn’t care at all.
I don’t think or believe that two atheists, or theists, have ever sat in a room together and said “I do/n’t believe in God. Period.” There is always more discussion as to the why!
I admit, I am using the biblical version of a god. Meaning anything that replaces God in our lives is a god. Money, job, politics…
So what makes it most interesting, what ties it all together, is man’s desire for God. There always seems to have been a longing for an understanding of how the world was created and why we are here.
Atheists may claim not to hold to a set of beliefs, other than there is no God, but I don’t think that’s possible without other beliefs to support it. They may claim not to care, but I don’t believe that either. History wouldn’t support that viewpoint and I have never, ever met someone who really doesn’t care at all.
I don’t think or believe that two atheists, or theists, have ever sat in a room together and said “I do/n’t believe in God. Period.” There is always more discussion as to the why!
I admit, I am using the biblical version of a god. Meaning anything that replaces God in our lives is a god. Money, job, politics…
S
SunshineGrandma
Guest
What religious governments are you referring to?
There is a lot in your post, but I am unable to think of a religious government that can be used as an example.
There is a lot in your post, but I am unable to think of a religious government that can be used as an example.
L
Leo4
Guest
But so is religion a fact of life.
M
MPat
Guest
By the way, there is one more interesting thing:
As we can see, this claim has been shown to be false experimentally - at least for people who are willing to come to this forum and claim to be atheists. Not that there was much doubt.
But why have this specific doctrine?
After all, as “Mike_from_NJ” points out (quite correctly) just afterwards:
Furthermore, acknowledging that atheism is connected with many other propositions would seem to be a good idea if one thinks it is true (“Just look what other propositions you get!”).
So, why do atheists prefer to claim that atheism is not connected with other propositions, when it is obviously false?
Do they fear to find out that those connected propositions are false?
As we can see in this thread things are not like that. Theists gave different answers to the question “Is atheism a religion?” (some said “Yes”, some said “No”, some said “Partially yes, partially no.”). But it looks like every single atheist answered “No”, some even “No, it is not even a world view.” or “No, it is not even a belief.”. Even “Atheists have no beliefs.”:
And, of course, atheists often claimed that all atheists are different.
As we can see, this claim has been shown to be false experimentally - at least for people who are willing to come to this forum and claim to be atheists. Not that there was much doubt.
But why have this specific doctrine?
After all, as “Mike_from_NJ” points out (quite correctly) just afterwards:
After all, there are enough propositions that are far more strongly connected with atheism: “Angels do not exist.”, “Humans do not have an immortal soul.” etc.
Furthermore, acknowledging that atheism is connected with many other propositions would seem to be a good idea if one thinks it is true (“Just look what other propositions you get!”).
So, why do atheists prefer to claim that atheism is not connected with other propositions, when it is obviously false?
Do they fear to find out that those connected propositions are false?
D
Damian
Guest
Yemen, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan, Mauritania are a few.
S
SunshineGrandma
Guest
I don’t see how countries under Sharia law would be relevant to this conversation.
P
prayerrider
Guest
A religion? I guess not. Illogical? Absolutely.
B
Bradskii
Guest
If someone says she believes in a god and asks me if I do, then I will ask her to describe her god to me. How does it manifest itself, what form does it take, how does it interact with her, what powers does it have etc. Then I will decide if what she is telling me is something in which I can believe (ok, it doesn’t happen exactly like that but that is the process we all go through: this is what I believe and this is what it consists of and this is why I believe it).So, why do atheists prefer to claim that atheism is not connected with other propositions, when it is obviously false?
Do they fear to find out that those connected propositions are false?
If I don’t believe her god exists then it is painfully obvious that I don’t accept that it posses any of the attributes she said it did and I don’t believe it interacts with her in any way etc.
So if I don’t believe in God, then it doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to surmise that I don’t think he created the earth and flooded the planet and answersd prayers etc. That is just a trite observation. No more than telling someone who says he doesn’t believe in santa that he must have other beliefs such as the non-existence of flying reindeer.
It should be obvious in fact that a disbelief in the concepts and individual claims made for any entity are the reasons themselves for coming to the conclusion that the entity doesn’t exist. There may well be a santa, but if I have to believe in flying reindeer and the fact that he delivers presents to every child by climbing down chimneys to believein him means…I don’t.
The fact that I don’t believe that God answers prayers or that there is a heaven and hell or that He sent His son to save us etc are not additional propositions to my disbelief. They are the reasons for my disbelief.
M
MPat
Guest
Yes, I also do not find this fairy tale of yours believable.
So, if you know that it is not what is going to happen, and I know that it is not what is going to happen, and you probably know that I know (given that you found it necessary to write “ok, it doesn’t happen exactly like that”)… Why did you provide this fairy tale at all?
Sure.
Which leads to the question: why would anyone ever want to write as if it wasn’t so?
You write as if there was a contradiction between being an additional proposition and a reason to believe something. Why should there be any contradiction between them?
Of course they are additional propositions that atheists believe - they are propositions, atheists believe they are true, they are not identical to “God does not exist.” or “Supernatural does not exist.” (some might be equivalent to them, but “equivalent” is not yet “identical”).
Not to mention that I’m pretty sure you mixed up the “direction” of “being a reason to believe” here…
B
Bradskii
Guest
I try to keep things at a level whereby people who can’t grasp relatively simple concepts can get a grip on the process that we all go through. Hey, let’s use an example so we can see the process in action! Are we all ready? OK, let’s do it.
Me: ‘Do you know that all this rain was caused by people not sacrificing enough goats to Iskur? Do you believe in him as well?’
You: ‘Well, I don’t know anything about Iskur. Tell me more about him!’
OK, you could have Googled him, but let’s say wi-fi is down in the pub so you need to ask me about the guy so you can make a decision as to whether he exists or not. This isn’t the only scenario of course. Sometimes people tell you about their god when you meet them in the street or in forums. Or maybe they tell you about one as you are growing up. But the concept is the same. They tell you what they believe and you decide if they are right.
It works for lots of other concepts as well. Politics, sport etc. Ask around.
A reason to believe something requires propositons concerning that something. One needs them to make a decision. Propositions following from that are post hoc. They automatically follow that decision. Let’s have another example…
If I say santa has flying reindeer and delivers presents down the chimney, you decide that he’s a fantasy figure.
If I then ask you if you believe he wears a red coat, then that is a post hoc proposition and is based, as far as you are concerned, on a non existant concept. It’s meaningless. A nonsensical question.
Make sense?
Last edited:
blackforest
Well-known member
They may certainly choose to model their actions on organized religions. But in the strictest definition, (i.e. lacking any supernatural beliefs), and despite any dogma or missionary zeal, they aren’t technically a religion.
S
SunshineGrandma
Guest
At the risk of being accused of beating a dead horse, I will summarize what I’ve already said in multiple posts:
Many/some Atheists (depends on where you live and who you know):
1). Are out to gain converts using various means, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, college newspapers, every holiday gathering (proselytize)
2). Have missionary zeal (“take down the nativity in the town square!”, erect a monument near the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse)
3). Have regular meetings (called meet-ups according to my atheist BIL)
4). Have a common belief system (this should be obvious but somehow isn’t to some people)
5). Refer to their belief system as a religion (My atheist BIL and his church group do this).
6). If being honest, would admit the decision to become atheist came after reading, listening to, and discussing the arguments for belief there is no God. (Study).
7). Consistently and (almost uniformly) believe, act, and converse as if they are smarter than theists
I could go on, but that’s it for now.
Many/some Atheists (depends on where you live and who you know):
1). Are out to gain converts using various means, such as YouTube, Facebook, Twitter, college newspapers, every holiday gathering (proselytize)
2). Have missionary zeal (“take down the nativity in the town square!”, erect a monument near the Ten Commandments outside the courthouse)
3). Have regular meetings (called meet-ups according to my atheist BIL)
4). Have a common belief system (this should be obvious but somehow isn’t to some people)
5). Refer to their belief system as a religion (My atheist BIL and his church group do this).
6). If being honest, would admit the decision to become atheist came after reading, listening to, and discussing the arguments for belief there is no God. (Study).
7). Consistently and (almost uniformly) believe, act, and converse as if they are smarter than theists
I could go on, but that’s it for now.
M
MPat
Guest
Or I call one example you have used a “fairy tale” and you ask me why did I do so?
Yes, it would be a reasonable thing to do - to ask first, and form opinion later. But, as we can see here, that is not what you really did. Instead you asked no non-rhetorical questions, formed an opinion right away, and proceeded to proclaim it.
And that’s why I called your original example where you act in such a different way a “fairy tale”.
“Automatically”? Reasoning does not happen “automatically”. It takes effort to construct arguments. Only “feeling” can happen “automatically”.
And, of course, while saying those things might make you “feel” that other propositions “do not count”, that does nothing to actually establish anything similar.
B
Bradskii
Guest
If you and I don’t believe that santa exists then the arguments for his existence have already been made, considered and rejected. We agree that he doesn’t exist based on those arguments.
Any propositions then made on the basis that he does exist are therefore meaningless. So asking us if he wears a red suit is nonsensical.
Can we agree that what I have just written is reasonable?
M
MPat
Guest
That would still require a separate argument. For example, given what you said here such an argument could be constructed:
- Santa does not exist. (premise)
- Any proposition made on basis of existence of something that does not exist is meaningless. (premise)
- Proposition “Santa wears a red suit.” is made on basis of existence of Santa. (premise)
- Any proposition made on basis of existence of Santa is meaningless. (from 1 and 2)
- Proposition “Santa wears a red suit.” is meaningless. (from 3 and 4)
And yes, premises would come from other arguments.
Last edited:
B
Bradskii
Guest
Uh? Where on earth are you going with this? We’re not constructing an argument. There are only 2 statements to be made.Bradskii:
That would still require a separate argument. For example, given what you said here such an argument could be constructed:
It is not hard to construct it, but it is not going to construct itself. Once again, reasoning does not happen automatically. Only feelings happen automatically, without any effort whatsoever. But using feelings where reasoning could be used is not usually “reasonable”.
- Santa does not exist. (premise)
- Any proposition made on basis of existence of something that does not exist is meaningless. (premise)
- Proposition “Santa wears a red suit.” is made on basis of existence of Santa. (premise)
- Any proposition made on basis of existence of Santa is meaningless. (from 1 and 2)
- Proposition “Santa wears a red suit.” is meaningless. (from 3 and 4)
And yes, premises would come from other arguments.
I don’t believe that santa exists.
Any comments about my beliefs based on the premise that santa exists are nonsensical.
Likewise God. So, going back to what started this, saying that atheism is more than just a belief that God doesn’t exist because in addition to that I also believe He didn’t create the world and I also believe He didn’t send His son to save us etc etc. are nonsensical.
Can I be clearer on that point? I don’t think I can.
0
0Scarlett_nidiyilii
Guest
On the one hand, religions are codified with a set of beliefs and practices, so in that way atheism is not a religion.
On the other hand, if you define religion as the way you relate to a deity or deities, the atheist relates by not relating, so in that case is a religion. Or in other words, if you ask somebody what their religion is, an atheist will say “I’m an atheist”.
On the other hand, if you define religion as the way you relate to a deity or deities, the atheist relates by not relating, so in that case is a religion. Or in other words, if you ask somebody what their religion is, an atheist will say “I’m an atheist”.
B
Bradskii
Guest
You relate by not relating? This just gets wierder. So you relate to santa by…not relating to santa. Which makes your disbelief in the fat guy… a religion?
And if you ask someone what sport they play and they say ‘I don’t play anything’, then ‘not playing anything’ is a sport.
I guess all this must make sense to someone.
Last edited:
M
MPat
Guest
Yes, you are not constructing an argument. In other words, you are not reasoning.
But, in fact, you should be constructing an argument.
Yes, the point that you really want a conclusion that your other beliefs should not be counted is very clear.
Unfortunately for you, you have not constructed an argument that would show that this conclusion is reasonable. That might have something to with the thing that you have just admitted: you were not constructing an argument.
Of course, it is going to be hard to construct such an argument, as it is easy to see that the conclusion that you want is absurd. Two propositions are not one. Two is not equal to one.
And we get back to the same question. Why do you want your related beliefs not to be counted? What are you scared of?
- Status