Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
I have issues with belief. Belief is what exists in the absense of (or even in contradiction to) data.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hard-core atheist, and pretty anti-religious. While I think that science is the way to knowledge, I'm reasonably certain we will never know everything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bovinity:
I thoroughly believe that god does not exist. Does that make me a believer or a non-believer? Now I'm confused...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BlackCollarBrowncoat:

Like the beloved Cap'n, I'm an atheist, and I was wondering if any of my fellow browncoats are non-believers.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by rue:
Belief is also what makes you trust the data, or trust that data is worth considering.

I used to have issues with that at a quite early age (pre-teen). What is real, what is significant etc. The I realized I wasn't about to test reality by jumping off a roof, and I settled on the pragmatic side.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by bovinity:
I thoroughly believe that god does not exist. Does that make me a believer or a non-believer? Now I'm confused...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RocketJock:
You've just hit on the primal paradox of atheism. Since it's axiomatic that one cannot prove a negative

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
If Atheism is a religion then bald is a hair colour by the way

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
I mean come on, if holding a belief about the nature of god is not religious than what is religious?

According to you if I believe there is a god that is not religious because belief regarding the existence of god is not religious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
In any case Atheism just means "without theism" ie. without belief in God. This should not be automatically equated with being Religious or Irreligious as there are in fact some Religions that do not have a God in the strictest sense making them Atheist Religions.

---

Quote:

---

There is more to being a religion than simple theism, or lack of it, and you cannot call Atheism a Religion in the same way you could assign the term to Christianity, Hinduism or Islam for example.

---

Quote:

---

If you seek to classify atheism as a religion then by implication all the theist faiths are a religion too... collectively.

---

Quote:

---

You should not muddy the waters by equating religion with faith either.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
The belief that there is no god is a belief about god.

Thus those who believe there is no god must have hair. They are not bald.

Now those who do not believe there is no god, and do not believe there is a god, those people are bald.

-

I mean come on, if holding a belief about the nature of god is not religious than what is religious?

According to you if I believe there is a god that is not religious because belief regarding the existence of god is not religious.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
[Not really, religions hold common beliefs, that is why Lutherans and Catholics are not the same religion.

Atheists hold one set of common beliefs about the nature of god and are more united and uniform in this set than any two popes could ever be said to be. Also, with very few exceptions, they have exactly the same set of customs and rules with respect to god.

Hardly like other religions where custom differs from place to place and order to order. Certainly the Atheist belief has a more uniform set than any other dogma ever did and all who believe in a lack of god agree in totality about what god mandates in any give situation.

Atheism has an answer for every situation. A set of customs and mandates more strict than any other religion I know of. Every single hard atheist agrees on exactly what god wants them to do, when god wants them to pray, what god will allow them to eat, what god considers good or bad, which commandments god holds highest.

They have an agreement on what god considers Kosher that not even the Jews can rival. The have an agreement on when god wants them to pray that no Prophet ever managed to instill.

In short they have a set of common beliefs more uniform than any other religion on this planet, they have a set of religious mandates applicable to any situation, they have a set of religious customs that no member has ever challenged. And they always, without any hesitation, agree on exactly what god wants from them.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
This is interesting. First of all, I'm not sure that any belief concerning the existence of god is necessarily religious, just as a belief about the existence of republicans isn't necessarily political.

Secondly, I call myself an atheist, but it's not a 'belief' for me. It's a lack of belief, and despite the attempts to muddy the waters, those aren't the same thing. Rejecting an unproven proposition is not a question of faith. If you make a proposition that something or another exists and I look where you say it is and see nothing, I'm not expressing belief when I say "but there's nothing there". I'm merely reacting to what my sense tells me. If you want to call that 'faith' then all bets are off and any possible conviction is 'belief'. That seems overly broad to me, and watering down the concept to the point that it's meaninglesss.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Hotpoint:
Your argument here does not stand up to much scrutiny. By seeking to equate a group as in any way a religion, whose only collective identity within the group is a lack of ritual then I might easily say that I am also a member of the Religion of Non-Golfers where the only commonality of our Religion is that none of us play golf.

---

Quote:

---

Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?

---

Quote:

---

The fact is that a Catholic and a Lutheran have more in common in their basic world view, moral attitudes and ethical motivations than I do with a Chinese Communist Party Member (for example) whose only similarity with myself is our atheism.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:

You've totally missed the point. You argued that grouping together Hard Atheists as a religion would require grouping together all theists as a single religion (unless I missed something.) My point is that Hard Atheists have a distinct lack of difference when it comes to religion and that is what allows them to be placed in one group and what prevents others from being placed in one group.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:

Quote:

---

Does our uniformity of non-golfingness gives us a unity of non-purpose?

---

Yes. When people are grouping golfers together in terms of when they play the game you all get put in the same group.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:

You and the communist do not disagree on religion, thus you can be considered a part of the same religion. The Catholic and the Lutheran have different religious views to such a degree that they must be considered different religions.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nuclearday:
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism."

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by nuclearday:
First off, reading through this thread, it seems like once again we're coming against the limitations of the English language. We're lacking proper terms to quantify the various subsets of belief or non-belief that fall under the umbrella term of "Atheism."

---

Atheism – a disbelief in the existence of deity

Local Atheism – the disbelief in a certain diety

Strong Atheism – The belief that no deity exists.

Weak Atheism – The belief that a doctrine or belief in existence of a deity or deities is unnecessary.

Weak Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknown

Strong Agnosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity or deities is unknowable

Ignosticism – the belief that the existence of a deity is meaningless.

Gnosticism – the thought and practice of various pre-Christian and early Christian cults distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that salvation comes through an esoteric knowledge of spiritual truth

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
Those who believe something does not exist without evidence it does not exist are believers as much as those who believe it does exist without any evidence it does...

That is the difference. To believe something doesn't exist without proof is often enough a necessary thing, but to believe it does not exist without evidence is the same (in terms of soundness) as believing something does exist without evidence....

---

Quote:

---

You can not look at where god is supposed to live, you can not check the archeological record, you can not examine satellite images in search of herds of god, you can't even check for footprints...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:
Believing in god requires a leap of faith. Not believing requires no such thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheIncomparableNotion:
That's quite a detailed index of various theologies and philosophies concerning atheism and agnosticism. Of which I had examined extensively prior to this, but, however; i'm still a bit uncertain as to why there aren't more varying degrees of these beliefs that are widely recognized.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
After all if I'm wrong shouldn't you be able to prove it with a straight answer?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SergeantX:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by christhecynic:
After all if I'm wrong shouldn't you be able to prove it with a straight answer?

---

No, because it's not a straight question. Your distinction is loaded with assumptions and not justifiable. For example, where do you put these statements in your terminology?

1. I don't believe in god.
2. God isn't real.

---

Quote:

---

Or some more.

1. I don't believe the earth is made of spaghetti.
2. The earth is not made of spaghetti.

---

Quote:

---

Is someone who utters statement two acting on faith?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by TheIncomparableNotion:
That's quite a detailed index of various theologies and philosophies concerning atheism and agnosticism. Of which I had examined extensively prior to this, but, however; i'm still a bit uncertain as to why there aren't more varying degrees of these beliefs that are widely recognized.

---

I would imagine because most atheist don’t spend a lot of time in self reflection about their philosophical and religious opinions. I think that many, if not most, atheists are not necessarily opposed to the belief in god, as much as they are skeptical of religion. This is why many atheists get their dander up when someone suggests, perhaps rightly so, that strong atheist views are distinctly religious in nature. Many atheists don’t want to be labeled religious. In fact, on more then one occasion I’ve had atheists admit to me that their opinions are really more agnostic, but they proclaim an atheist position because they don’t feel that agnosticism is “strong” enough. And then there is my own personal experience: I once held very strongly atheists positions, even though I think I knew that this was in conflict with what I really believed. When I began to reflect on what it was that made me feel that I was an atheists, I was forced to abandon that characterization. It occurred to me that what I was really opposed to was certain aspects of human nature often associated with religion, but in reality I don’t think I was ever actually opposed to the existence of god, much less believed that god didn’t exist. To a large extent, atheism is a surrogate for opposition to religious belief, more then it is an actually independent theological or philosophical conviction, and that’s why, I believe, that there isn’t wide acceptance of the diversity of atheistic opinion.

---

The Earth is old.
And doesn't care if one small girl wants seeds to grow.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by HappyBrain:
If I ever choose to blindly follow a fictional character I'm sure I can come up with a better one than God.
Seriously, If I come face to face with the big guy when I die, I will gladly admit that I was wrong. I just don't see the point in worry about it now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:
Hard-core atheist, and pretty anti-religious. Somewhat of a mystic, tho. While I think that science is the way to knowledge, I'm reasonably certain we will never know everything.

---

Quote:

---

If I ever choose to blindly follow a fictional character I'm sure I can come up with a better one than God.

---