UFOs?

[FinkUFreaky]

Does that mean Christianity is not a religion?


I wouldn't say that, though I suspect some doctrinaire Catholics might.


I know - not arguing with you per se. This is a good discussion. I was just illustrating that it's not a very logical way to view atheism. There are lots of things I could persuade someone to stop believing in that don't involve religion. If I told a child the Tooth Ferry is a lie that they should no longer believe in, that's not engaging in religious activity.

People like to place atheism into the religious (or religion-adjacent) category in an attempt to disarm atheist critiques of religion. At its core, atheism doesn't require faith, or dogma of any kind. It isn't like a religion at all. It's the complete opposite.

As long as you aren't the elementary school teacher telling the 6 year old that Santa isn't real haha. That's kind of where I'd have the problem with "some" atheists (if attempting to force their parenting decisions on others). The real problem is the children with parents that don't even try to parent (too many of those); not those that continue a hoax that some Jolly guy gives presents to all the children that are good, and then eventually has to explain why they lied about it.

But when your Nugget shows up and loses a tooth after ejecting, and wants to put it under his pillow, I'd say it's time to spill the beans ?

While Nassim Taleb would disagree, religion to me = faith-based philosophy. To me, the term atheism misses the point, but there is no exact term in the common lexicon (e.g., areligious or afaithful), and I'm not one for pedantic neologisms. Ultimately for me the question of atheism vs. religion is an epistemological one, namely is knowledge properly gained solely via reason (atheism) or also via faith (religion).

IMO, faith (belief in the absence of evidence or in the presence of contrary evidence) is diametrically opposed to reason. Saying "God does not exist" is less a dogmatic statement, and certainly not a statement of evidence-based fact. It is shorthand for "there is zero evidence for God, and an omnipotent/omniscient God is a logical impossibility, therefore I'm going to live my life as if there is no God, and not believe in his existence."

Alien claims, like most God belief, fall into the not even wrong category.

I do understand where you are coming from, but I do also see "God does not exist" as a statement that you believe that it does not rather than a statement that you have no proof that it does. I understand the entire point of your post was to point out what is meant by that, and yet the next time someone tells me "God does not exist" I will still see it as their belief of the same. Maybe I'm a slow learner ? .

I guess I just find it funny when I'd think the main ones clamoring against aliens would be the ones that believe God created us, only us, and all the stars and galaxies for our pleasure. Now it's more likely non-believers to believe that we are the only ones that could possibly have evolved spontaneously, and with all the other potentially habitable planets out there, we are the only intelligent life in the universe. A product of incredible chance that can't have happened elsewhere. I don't know where we as a civilization will be in 1000 years. I'd guess either extinct, or there will have been some incredible scientific breakthroughs that we can't imagine. I don't believe anyone in 1020 had any idea what the world would look like today. That's 1000 years (measured by Earth of course). The universe is so old that untold civilizations like ours, or even galactic empires, could have existed and fallen. While I don't believe we've made contact with any, and I don't imagine we will in my life, to say that it's likely other intelligent life exists and "could" have interacted with us is not in the "not even wrong" category. That said, if you purely meant that believing in it completely is such, I'd agree with you.

The courts would disagree. To have legal standing in a anti-religion case (think prayer in school) atheism is indeed considered a religion without theism. In short, if an atheist demonstrates that his beliefs constitute a framework by which he lives (there is no god) and it guides and directs his life, it qualifies as “religion.”

This I guess would be where I would disagree with an Atheistic movement as well. I don't care if other people pray at school. Some people do. A brief prayer time, for those that believe, does not infringe on someone's right to not believe. If they have a problem with the wasted time, maybe there could be a handout with some extra math problems to solve during during the 30 second prayer. Unless they have a dogmatic belief that there is no God. Then I could see how there would be an issue.

 

[Brett327]

The courts would disagree. To have legal standing in a anti-religion case (think prayer in school) atheism is indeed considered a religion without theism. In short, if an atheist demonstrates that his beliefs constitute a framework by which he lives (there is no god) and it guides and directs his life, it qualifies as “religion.”

I'm not interested in case law. We're talking about philosophical matters.

atheism is indeed considered a religion without theism.

This statement is oxymoronic.

 

[Griz882]

This statement is oxymoronic.

Well, in this one instance we are talking about the courts.

 

[Mirage]

At its core, atheism doesn't require faith, or dogma of any kind. It isn't like a religion at all. It's the complete opposite.

This is the sentiment about atheism that I've run into many times that seems clearly incorrect. If you believe there is no god, and you have no facts or even very strong evidence showing there is no god, then you believe that based on faith. Agnosticism is the only belief system that requires no faith, because you don't believe anything except that our origins are an unsolved mystery.

 

[Brett327]

This is the sentiment about atheism that I've run into many times that seems clearly incorrect. If you believe there is no god, and you have no facts or even very strong evidence showing there is no god, then you believe that based on faith. Agnosticism is the only belief system that requires no faith, because you don't believe anything except that our origins are an unsolved mystery.

It’s not a belief. It’s the absence of belief. There is no faith involved. I know it’s a difficult distinction for some to grasp.

 

[Mirage]

It’s not a belief. It’s the absence of belief. There is no faith involved. I know it’s a difficult distinction for some to grasp.

So, do you believe definitively that there is no creator/god? That's the pillar of atheism, and what distinguishes it from agnosticism (which you coincidentally defined while trying to define atheism.)

The distinction between the two is literally in the names, but maybe it is, as you say, a difficult distinction for some to grasp.

 

[Brett327]

I didn’t attempt to define atheism in my post. I addressed your statement about belief and faith WRT to it. Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, there is no basis for holding a belief one way or another on God’s existence. Similarly, if I told you that there was a government issued Skillcraft ink pen orbiting the planet Jupiter, that was exercising control over every aspect of the universe, it wouldn’t require an act of faith or belief for you to dismiss me as a lunatic.

On the other hand, based upon even the most rudimentary understanding of human history, culture and psychology, it’s fairly clear to me that the concept of God is a purely human invention - an idea for which there is ample scientific evidence. In a sense, I’m simply weighing the available evidence on the concept of God, and finding both the evidence and logic of the believers lacking.

 

[IKE]

So, do you believe definitively that there is no creator/god? That's the pillar of atheism, and what distinguishes it from agnosticism (which you coincidentally defined while trying to define atheism.)

The distinction between the two is literally in the names, but maybe it is, as you say, a difficult distinction for some to grasp.

While many people label themselves agnostic because they are undecided, the origin of the term is not "I don't know," but "I can't know." That's why I'm not agnostic.

See here.

 

[Mirage]

Since there is no evidence for the existence of God, there is no basis for holding a belief one way or another on God’s existence.

Agreed, and there are likewise no facts that disprove the existence of a creator, which is why I'm agnostic.

On the other hand, based upon even the most rudimentary understanding of human history, culture and psychology, it’s fairly clear to me that the concept of God is a purely human invention - an idea for which there is ample scientific evidence. In a sense, I’m simply weighing the available evidence on the concept of God, and finding both the evidence and logic of the believers lacking.

And that's perfectly fine if that's your conclusion, but previously you said atheism was the absence of a belief, and that's why no faith was involved, but now you're saying that you're weighing the evidence and believe god does not exist. So, either you think a creator not existing is a fact and therefore requires no faith to believe, or you believe it even though it's not a fact, which would therefore require faith. I think it obvious that it is not a fact, so therefore the atheistic belief that humans were not created has to be taken on faith.

If you think that it is a fact, then my question would be, "How do you know we aren't a simulation? Or that we aren't part of an experiment created by a higher being/species? Or that we weren't created by an apathetic creator who has chosen not to reveal himself to us in any way?" After all, there are plenty of explanations that both involve a creator and don't involve a human religion.

 

[Brett327]

To avoid going around in circles, I'll simply say this: In your view, rejection of a faith-based proposition requires an opposing faith based act. That is not my view. I see it as a null. We could spend our entire lives proposing increasingly outlandish hypotheticals, but if the foundation of an individual's epistemological philosophy relies on reason and evidence, those propositions are discarded as invalid.

 

[Mirage]

In your view, rejection of a faith-based proposition requires an opposing faith based act.

This is not how I feel at all, so I'll only reply one last time to try to explain: I reject the same faith-based propositions you're referring to (religions) without employing any of my own faith, and in my view the only way to do that is to admit that I don't have any answers.

 

[Brett327]

This is not how I feel at all,

I think it obvious that it is not a fact, so therefore the atheistic belief that humans were not created has to be taken on faith.

Color me confused. At any rate, great discussion. You've made me think carefully about how to precisely express these ideas, so that's a win/win in my book.

 

[Mirage]

Color me confused. At any rate, great discussion. You've made me think carefully about how to precisely express these ideas, so that's a win/win in my book.

I was trying to say that atheism requires faith, but agnosticism does not. So, one can reject "faith-based propositions" without an "opposing faith based act," but IMO that's not what you're doing if you embrace atheism.

Anyway, I enjoyed it to, and it's refreshing to have a civilized conversation about such a deep topic!

 

[Brett327]

It's funny that this discussion happened in the UFO thread, and not the "Is my Norse-Pagan armband cool" thread.

 

[taxi1]

"Is my Norse-Pagan armband cool"

YES