The death of God

[Skarekrow]

Good question. I think in part because I feel so out of place. Almost like I have been cheated. Like something has been taken away from me that was rightfully mine. I cant shake the feeling.

Im not sure how to explain it better.

I am pretty sure I get what you are feeling because I feel that way too.

That is why I am so into quantum physics, metaphysics, and the paranormal....they offer me more concrete and (mostly) scientific explanations for just about anything and everything.
My thought is that one day...perhaps after we die....we will look back at this life in much the way the ancients must have viewed the moon and stars when staring up in to the night sky...it was really unexplainable to them unless it were magical or somehow a God or related to a God.
Of course, now we understand what the moon is....why it stays in orbit to the earth...etc, etc.
I feel that we will eventually reach that same understanding of our reality and existence here, and the whole notion of it being somehow “magical” or “religious” will dissolve.

 

[Barnabas]

Its an interesting concept, you are causing something to be just by defining it where it never existed before.

I don't understand what you mean by "Causing something to be by defining it where it never existed." Do you mean that I am defining atheism as a belief even though it require a lack of belief in gods? If so then you might be confusing the word faith. with the word belief. which to be fair in many modern uses both words are often used as a synonym for world view instead of their actual meanings. Faith has to do with trust and believing in things that you can't have certainty of(at least in the theological sense.)

And though I'm pretty sure I can make a pretty decent argument for the faith of atheists, that's a different story.

 

[Eventhorizon]

I don't understand what you mean by "Causing something to be by defining it where it never existed." Do you mean that I am defining atheism as a belief even though it require a lack of belief in gods? If so then you might be confusing the word faith. with the word belief. which to be fair in many modern uses both words are often used as a synonym for world view instead of their actual meanings. Faith has to do with trust and believing in things that you can't have certainty of(at least in the theological sense.)

And though I'm pretty sure I can make a pretty decent argument for the faith of atheists, that's a different story.

Previous to anyone in the world believing in God or gods what were people called? Before the first person conceived of a supernatural deity, what were people called? Atheist? No, atheist did not become a term used to describe someone UNTIL someone else said, "I believe in this god over here." People who did not believe the same were all of a sudden labeled atheists? The natural state of humankind is no belief in anything until they are taught about something.

A person who grew up by themselves on a deserted island and has never heard of God or any gods. What are they? An atheist?

 

[Neurosis]

[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Do you accept the statement that there are no gods to be true? If yes then you believe in atheism.[/FONT]

I don't accept that statement as either true or untrue.

I lack a belief in any gods. I don't believe there are no gods - these statements not the same thing. They're two fundamentally different statements. They come across similar, yet two very similar phrases can often mean completely different things. For example: "Damn, you okay?" or, "Damn you, okay?" are pretty much the same sentence, yet they have completely different meanings.

Maybe if I put this in a context without loaded terminology, you'll understand. The same statements, substituting the word, "god" for, "government".

1. I lack belief in the government.

2. I believe there is no government.

Now it's a little different because unlike gods, one has access to a plethora of observational evidence for the existence of governments - which makes statement two look a little silly. Despite this, the principle is the same - try to focus on that. Statement one lacks an oppositional claim to the existence of governments - it's not a conviction. Statement two however, is an oppositional conviction to the existence of the government.

In the same way, atheism does not necessitate the conviction that, "there are no gods". There are certainly atheists who may do that (though I personally have never met any atheist who does), however it's not an inherent axiom of atheism.

 

[Matt3737]

I don't accept that statement as either true or untrue.

I lack a belief in any gods. I don't believe there are no gods - these statements not the same thing. They're two fundamentally different statements. They come across similar, yet two very similar phrases can often mean completely different things. For example: "Damn, you okay?" or, "Damn you, okay?" are pretty much the same sentence, yet they have completely different meanings.

Maybe if I put this in a context without loaded terminology, you'll understand. The same statements, substituting the word, "god" for, "government".

1. I lack belief in the government.

2. I believe there is no government.

Now it's a little different because unlike gods, one has access to a plethora of observational evidence for the existence of governments - which makes statement two look a little silly. Despite this, the principle is the same - try to focus on that. Statement one lacks an oppositional claim to the existence of governments - it's not a conviction. Statement two however, is an oppositional conviction to the existence of the government.

In the same way, atheism does not necessitate the conviction that, "there are no gods". There are certainly atheists who may do that (though I personally have never met any atheist who does), however it's not an inherent axiom of atheism.

Agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claims—especially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claims—are unknown or unknowable.

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. Atheism is contrasted with theism, which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

be·lief /biˈlēf/
noun: belief; plural noun: beliefs

1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"

• something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
"contrary to popular belief, Aramaic is a living language"

synonyms: opinion, view, conviction, judgment, thinking, way of thinking, idea, impression, theory, conclusion, notion More
"it's my belief that age is irrelevant"

• a religious conviction
"Christian beliefs"

synonyms:
ideology, principle, ethic, tenet, canon; More

doctrine, teaching, dogma, article of faith, creed, credo
"traditional beliefs"

2. trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence More
"belief in the value of hard work"

antonyms: disbelief, doubt

You are correct that there is a separate use/meaning/sense for the word 'belief,' but you are also using the word in both senses. You cannot discredit others' claims by using the word in the same sense simultaneously. You are attempting to define atheism using both senses of the word simultaneously.

 

[Neurosis]

You are correct that there is a separate use/meaning/sense for the word 'belief,' but you are also using the word in both senses. You cannot discredit others' claims by using the word in the same sense simultaneously. You are attempting to define atheism using both senses of the word simultaneously.

I don't think you've read the rest of my replies in the thread, or the context of the responses. I'm responding to the comments of LucyJr and Barnabas, who are incorrectly asserting that atheism is a belief system. They're confusing the wording of two sentences that sound similar, yet have very different meaning. Hence why I'm trying to elucidate exactly what you're talking about.

Atheism is neither kind of belief system, regardless of whether you use the term in context of religious conviction, or acceptance that a statement is true. Atheism is non-belief - it's really that simple. I'm not actually defining what atheism is, just what it is not.

 

[Matt3737]

I don't think you've read the rest of my replies in the thread, or the context of the responses. I'm responding to the comments of LucyJr and Barnabas, who are incorrectly asserting that atheism is a belief system. They're confusing the wording of two sentences that sound similar, yet have very different meaning. Hence why I'm trying to elucidate exactly what you're talking about.

Atheism is neither kind of belief system, regardless of whether you use the term in context of religious conviction, or acceptance that a statement is true. Atheism is non-belief - it's really that simple. I'm not actually defining what atheism is, just what it is not.

Ah, I see your confusion then. Parmenides, and his disciple Plato, would strongly disagree with your paradoxical method of justification:

The section known as "the way of truth" discusses that which is real and contrasts with the argument in the section called "the way of opinion," which discusses that which is illusory. Under the "way of truth," Parmenides stated that there are two ways of inquiry: that it is, on the one side, and that it is not. on the other side. He said that the latter argument is never feasible because nothing can not be: For never shall this prevail, that things that are not are.

STRANGER: He who says that falsehood exists has the audacity to assert the being of not-being; for this is implied in the possibility of falsehood. But, my boy, in the days when I was a boy, the great Parmenides protested against this doctrine, and to the end of his life he continued to inculcate the same lesson—always repeating both in verse and out of verse:
'Keep your mind from this way of enquiry, for never will you show that not-being is.'
Such is his testimony, which is confirmed by the very expression when sifted a little. Would you object to begin with the consideration of the words themselves?
THEAETETUS: Never mind about me; I am only desirous that you should carry on the argument in the best way, and that you should take me with you.
STRANGER: Very good; and now say, do we venture to utter the forbidden word 'not-being'?
THEAETETUS: Certainly we do.
STRANGER: Let us be serious then, and consider the question neither in strife nor play: suppose that one of the hearers of Parmenides was asked, 'To what is the term "not-being" to be applied?'—do you know what sort of object he would single out in reply, and what answer he would make to the enquirer?
THEAETETUS: That is a difficult question, and one not to be answered at all by a person like myself.
STRANGER: There is at any rate no difficulty in seeing that the predicate 'not-being' is not applicable to any being.
THEAETETUS: None, certainly.
STRANGER: And if not to being, then not to something.
THEAETETUS: Of course not.
STRANGER: It is also plain, that in speaking of something we speak of being, for to speak of an abstract something naked and isolated from all being is impossible.
THEAETETUS: Impossible.
STRANGER: You mean by assenting to imply that he who says something must say some one thing?
THEAETETUS: Yes.
STRANGER: Some in the singular (ti) you would say is the sign of one, some in the dual (tine) of two, some in the plural (tines) of many?
THEAETETUS: Exactly.
STRANGER: Then he who says 'not something' must say absolutely nothing.
THEAETETUS: Most assuredly.
STRANGER: And as we cannot admit that a man speaks and says nothing, he who says 'not-being' does not speak at all.
THEAETETUS: The difficulty of the argument can no further go.

Sophist, by Plato

 

[Matt3737]

[MENTION=10096]Neurosis[/MENTION]

I mean to say that atheism holds a paradoxical placement as a belief system since, as you say, it isn't a positive ontological statement. It is simultaneously positive and negative. That can easily lead to confusion from inference since proof of contradiction can explode.

Compare similar statements:

The liar sentence: This sentence is false.

Atheism: I believe in non-belief.

 

[Neurosis]

Atheism: I believe in non-belief.

Atheism: lack of belief in a deity/god.

What you said is a form of atheism - not inherent to atheism. Certain atheists may take the stance that, "I believe there are no gods", however atheism is not predicated upon such a stance.

And since we're name dropping philosophers, Neitzche would disagree with Plato.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Maybe we should have a Plato v. Neitzche thread?

 

[Matt3737]

Atheism: lack of belief in a deity/god.

Just to clarify, what you said is not wrong. It is indeed a form of atheism, however it is not inherent to atheism. Certain atheists may indeed take the stance that, "I believe there are no gods" - however that stance is not inherently to all atheism.

Correct, but it is still considered inherent in that fashion, else it explodes to include agnosticism and potentially any other belief system, i.e. all agnostics are also atheists.

It may be an arbitrary line that you do not care for, but it is necessary for delineative and definitive purposes. A positive ontological statement is all that separates the two. Many agnostics would strongly disagree with you that you would be misrepresenting their views as well.

On a personal level though, it makes no difference. You can claim to be a Christian and yet also not believe that Christ truly existed though others might take issue with that. If you want to call yourself an atheist and take a broader interpretation of the term then by all means, but you cannot definitively argue against contradictory claims otherwise. People take it as a positive claim for definitive purposes.

 

[Matt3737]

And since we're name dropping philosophers, Neitzche would disagree with Plato.

"There are no facts, only interpretations." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Maybe we should have a Plato v. Neitzche thread?

Is that a fact now?

 

[Neurosis]

Oh, how could I forget this one?

"Plato was a bore." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Correct, but it is still considered inherent in that fashion.

Agree that it is. Though not that it should be.

else it explodes to include agnosticism and potentially any other belief system.

A fault like this lies in the fallibility of the interpreter. If people are too inept to discern the difference between, "I believe there is no god" and, "I do not believe in a god" - they shouldn't enter into such a discussion in the first place.

Many agnostics would strongly disagree with you that you would be misrepresenting their views as well.

I haven't even represented agnosticism. How could I have misrepresented it?

People take it as a positive claim for definitive purposes.

People do. They don't need to though. It's not all that difficult to understand in its original context, without attaching any conviction to it.

 

[Neurosis]

Is that a fact now?

That's cheeky.

EDIT: off to work now. Appreciate the discourse [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

 

[Matt3737]

I haven't even represented agnosticism. How could I have misrepresented it?

I'm not actually defining what atheism is, just what it is not.

You didn't represent atheism either. I suppose agnostics have to be told that they are clearly in the wrong and that they are actually atheists as well.

That's cheeky.

EDIT: off to work now. Appreciate the discourse [MENTION=4822]Matt3737[/MENTION]

Aye, good day to you.

 

[LucyJr]

I don't think you've read the rest of my replies in the thread, or the context of the responses. I'm responding to the comments of LucyJr and Barnabas, who are incorrectly asserting that atheism is a belief system. They're confusing the wording of two sentences that sound similar, yet have very different meaning. Hence why I'm trying to elucidate exactly what you're talking about.

Atheism is neither kind of belief system, regardless of whether you use the term in context of religious conviction, or acceptance that a statement is true. Atheism is non-belief - it's really that simple. I'm not actually defining what atheism is, just what it is not.

I wanted to reply to you, but I forgot. Since the usual trick atheists use is to escape with negative statements, here we go...
The question atheist must answer is simply this: Do you believe there is a God or a deity?
Notice that I didn't said "Do you believe in a God or a deity?", since athesim does not only claim a lack of belief in a deity, but also the belief there are no deity.

 

[Skarekrow]

I wanted to reply to you, but I forgot. Since the usual trick atheists use is to escape with negative statements, here we go...
The question atheist must answer is simply this: Do you believe there is a God or a deity?
Notice that I didn't said "Do you believe in a God or a deity?", since athesim does not only claim a lack of belief in a deity, but also the belief there are no deity.

What difference does it make?
How do atheists negatively impact your (as a Christian) world?
I can think of a list of how “Christians” have negatively impact mine...both in present day and historically.
Even if religion never existed one group of people would try to impose their own will on others...it would only be based upon different reasoning.
My point is this...you can believe yourself to be correct in any belief you wish....but just as you wish to be respected for your own beliefs, so should others be respected for theirs. (You have always been very respectful btw...I’m speaking in generalities)
Why should those with religious beliefs trump those without? The percentage of those who are religious does not prove one correct in their beliefs either.
Why is everyone arguing about the definition of “atheism”? It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
Historically, whenever the majority has imposed it’s will on the minority, it ends badly.
Take slavery for example....there are huge numbers of the world population still in bondage...why? Because someone in the majority decided it was beneficial to them even at the expense of another.
Even the Bible doesn’t outlaw slavery....it gives you guidelines in fact on how to manage your slaves.
So does this deem it moral to preserve the practice of slavery because the Bible doesn’t outlaw it?
True morality doesn’t come from religion, or from God(s)...it comes from the beneficial give and take that we must all adhere to in order to live peacefully together.

 

[LucyJr]

What difference does it make?

Its the difference that when we talk about basic things, like wether atheism is belief system or not, people get into fancy ideas of why atheism if not a belief system, denying th very obivious. If we understand the definitions right, we know what we are talking about, and we respect the Priciple of Identification in logic. If I think of atheism as somehow, while one thinks at atheism in another way, we don't understand each others, because we're talking about different things under the same name.

How do atheists negatively impact your (as a Christian) world?

They don't .
Hovewer, in the grand scheme of things, atheists and other religious people, impact negatively in the sense that from the Bible standpoint, they are sinning agaist God, and they don't want to turn to Him. Other than that, I know all things work for the glory of God, even the evil ones, so nobody is impacting negatively in any sort of way. Just sin. Sin hurts deeply the heart of God.

I can think of a list of how “Christians” have negatively impact mine...both in present day and historically.

I know man...and I'm so sory for it. I know terrible things have happened in history, and they still happen.
I would want to still think at the possibility that maybe those supposed christians were not real christians. Whatever christian institutions have done in history, it has no value if they don't act according to the Bible truth. And the Bible message is this: Love your neibghour as yourself, seek good with all your heart, follow Jesus and proclaim the message of the goespel to every living human on the planet, whcih is that Jesus Christ come to give his life, so that whoever believes in Him, could have eternal life. This is the message of Jesus, this is what it means to be a Christian.
And Jesus knew about man that would kill in the name of Go, he knew about hypocrites, about self-seeking wolfs who hide themselfs under religious skin in sheep clothes, and He said that their sins are much more big in the eye of God.

Even if religion never existed one group of people would try to impose their own will on others...it would only be based upon different reasoning.

Yes, These are the effects of sin. Man want to dominate, to impose his will over his fellow, which is weaker than him.

My point is this...you can believe yourself to be correct in any belief you wish....but just as you wish to be respected for your own beliefs, so should others be respected for theirs. (You have always been very respectful btw...I’m speaking in generalities)

I do respect others beliefs, that's why I take them seriously. If I wouldn't respect atheists and their worldview, I wouldn't take them for serious

Why should those with religious beliefs trump those without? The percentage of those who are religious does not prove one correct in their beliefs either.

I agree. But that is happening in the reverse also. Atheists are very millitant of their beliefs (not all of them, but most of them). This is the natural conflict that is aised by idea, and more importantly, different ideas about crucial matters.

Why is everyone arguing about the definition of “atheism”? It makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

I think it makes alot of sense, and is very important. And i"ll try to explain why.
Atheists usually take themselfs to be rational, to be very 'men of sound reason' type. I think that's not true at all, at least for the reasons they take themselfs to be so.
They mainly believe that because they say "We don't believe, that is so primitive and pitiful, we know. We are not naive like religious people, we are rational. We are the men of science and knowledge". And I don't think that's true.
1. Atheists are still believers, they have a belief system, not a 'rational' system. They believe some things, like other people believe other things, based on some evidences or reasons. They interpret those reasons and evidences, and they make the leap of faith, toward a very specific set of propositions which is defined as atheism. This 'atheism, which is a worldview, is a belief system, wether the atheist wants to admit it or not. And they usually don't admit it, or to say it in another way, they don't agree that atheism is a belief system.

2. Millitant atheists usually make atheism to appear as this very rational, whithout beliefs, just pure knowledge and sound reason worldview to people. And this is leading people astray, because its false. The correct thing that they should tell to people, and to themselfs, is that atheism IS a belief system, like other belief systems. All right, this is false. If you want to propagate your worldview by this means, I don't have any problem with it, that's your strategy and style. But than recognise it yourself, admit it that you have a worldview that is a belief system.

Historically, whenever the majority has imposed it’s will on the minority, it ends badly.
Take slavery for example....there are huge numbers of the world population still in bondage...why? Because someone in the majority decided it was beneficial to them even at the expense of another.
Even the Bible doesn’t outlaw slavery....it gives you guidelines in fact on how to manage your slaves.
So does this deem it moral to preserve the practice of slavery because the Bible doesn’t outlaw it?
True morality doesn’t come from religion, or from God(s)...it comes from the beneficial give and take that we must all adhere to in order to live peacefully together.

Slavery was never commanded in Bible, or recommended. Slavery was allowed by God, because that was the natural course of history, until God would chose the time in which He will end this.
Slavery was never started by God, or caused direct or indirect by God. Rather, it was the sinful man, with a corrupt and evil will, that made the slavery a reality, the social classes, the poor, the rich, inequality and all the evil things in the eyes of God.
So when Bible

it gives you guidelines in fact on how to manage your slaves.

it actually a urge for slaves and masters to respect and obbey the existing social situation, until God would decide to end the slavery. Jesus said that the power of Christian is not the sword or rebellion, or having power, but in submitting our will to God, and waiting patiently the direction of God's will.
God hasn't decided at that time that slavery would be ended. That is how it was in the plan of God.
The message of Jesus wasn't "I come to demolish all what is slavery and unjust, all what is rich and poor". Jesus hasn't come with a earthly and human answer to our problems, He come with a heavenly hope, with a heavenly answer, with a heavenly perspective and diagnosis for our problem.
If God would act by our understanding, yes, he would end slavery, which again, it was the work of man, but that is the course of history, influenced by man, brought in that state by man, and kept under the control by man. Yes, God gave us a will, but there would be a time when every man will face the judgement of the Holy One, every bad deed, every evil thought, evry evil plan or action.

Overall, I hope you can understand what I mean. I don't want to sound like a guy who knows it all, its just the way we Christians understand the world. Cheers !

 

[Skarekrow]

Its the difference that when we talk about basic things, like wether atheism is belief system or not, people get into fancy ideas of why atheism if not a belief system, denying th very obivious. If we understand the definitions right, we know what we are talking about, and we respect the Priciple of Identification in logic. If I think of atheism as somehow, while one thinks at atheism in another way, we don't understand each others, because we're talking about different things under the same name.

They don't .
Hovewer, in the grand scheme of things, atheists and other religious people, impact negatively in the sense that from the Bible standpoint, they are sinning agaist God, and they don't want to turn to Him. Other than that, I know all things work for the glory of God, even the evil ones, so nobody is impacting negatively in any sort of way. Just sin. Sin hurts deeply the heart of God.


I know man...and I'm so sory for it. I know terrible things have happened in history, and they still happen.
I would want to still think at the possibility that maybe those supposed christians were not real christians. Whatever christian institutions have done in history, it has no value if they don't act according to the Bible truth. And the Bible message is this: Love your neibghour as yourself, seek good with all your heart, follow Jesus and proclaim the message of the goespel to every living human on the planet, whcih is that Jesus Christ come to give his life, so that whoever believes in Him, could have eternal life. This is the message of Jesus, this is what it means to be a Christian.
And Jesus knew about man that would kill in the name of Go, he knew about hypocrites, about self-seeking wolfs who hide themselfs under religious skin in sheep clothes, and He said that their sins are much more big in the eye of God.


Yes, These are the effects of sin. Man want to dominate, to impose his will over his fellow, which is weaker than him.

I do respect others beliefs, that's why I take them seriously. If I wouldn't respect atheists and their worldview, I wouldn't take them for serious


I agree. But that is happening in the reverse also. Atheists are very millitant of their beliefs (not all of them, but most of them). This is the natural conflict that is aised by idea, and more importantly, different ideas about crucial matters.

I think it makes alot of sense, and is very important. And i"ll try to explain why.
Atheists usually take themselfs to be rational, to be very 'men of sound reason' type. I think that's not true at all, at least for the reasons they take themselfs to be so.
They mainly believe that because they say "We don't believe, that is so primitive and pitiful, we know. We are not naive like religious people, we are rational. We are the men of science and knowledge". And I don't think that's true.
1. Atheists are still believers, they have a belief system, not a 'rational' system. They believe some things, like other people believe other things, based on some evidences or reasons. They interpret those reasons and evidences, and they make the leap of faith, toward a very specific set of propositions which is defined as atheism. This 'atheism, which is a worldview, is a belief system, wether the atheist wants to admit it or not. And they usually don't admit it, or to say it in another way, they don't agree that atheism is a belief system.

2. Millitant atheists usually make atheism to appear as this very rational, whithout beliefs, just pure knowledge and sound reason worldview to people. And this is leading people astray, because its false. The correct thing that they should tell to people, and to themselfs, is that atheism IS a belief system, like other belief systems. All right, this is false. If you want to propagate your worldview by this means, I don't have any problem with it, that's your strategy and style. But than recognise it yourself, admit it that you have a worldview that is a belief system.

Slavery was never commanded in Bible, or recommended. Slavery was allowed by God, because that was the natural course of history, until God would chose the time in which He will end this.
Slavery was never started by God, or caused direct or indirect by God. Rather, it was the sinful man, with a corrupt and evil will, that made the slavery a reality, the social classes, the poor, the rich, inequality and all the evil things in the eyes of God.
So when Bible

it actually a urge for slaves and masters to respect and obbey the existing social situation, until God would decide to end the slavery. Jesus said that the power of Christian is not the sword or rebellion, or having power, but in submitting our will to God, and waiting patiently the direction of God's will.
God hasn't decided at that time that slavery would be ended. That is how it was in the plan of God.
The message of Jesus wasn't "I come to demolish all what is slavery and unjust, all what is rich and poor". Jesus hasn't come with a earthly and human answer to our problems, He come with a heavenly hope, with a heavenly answer, with a heavenly perspective and diagnosis for our problem.
If God would act by our understanding, yes, he would end slavery, which again, it was the work of man, but that is the course of history, influenced by man, brought in that state by man, and kept under the control by man. Yes, God gave us a will, but there would be a time when every man will face the judgement of the Holy One, every bad deed, every evil thought, evry evil plan or action.

Overall, I hope you can understand what I mean. I don't want to sound like a guy who knows it all, its just the way we Christians understand the world. Cheers !

I think I do understand what you are saying....and I respect the amount of faith you have...you are a strong and respectful person who I believe always has good intentions toward others...I thank you for your friendship LucyJr.

I understand that to someone with strong faith in God, that very idea of His existence is a HUGE part of their lives and who they are...I don’t think that is a negative thing whatsoever. It is only when people take that faith and use it to control or oppress others....belief in God should never be used as a justification to do hateful things...and sadly, especially in the USA, it is common practice.
Still, I believe everyone is trying to do what is right in their own hearts...it is easy to judge someone without thinking of how they came to understand and believe what they hold to be true.
I still don’t think considering “atheism” to be a belief system or not makes a difference, especially in the context that you stated it - "If I think of atheism as somehow, while one thinks at atheism in another way, we don't understand each others, because we're talking about different things under the same name.”
This is true for anyone who self-identifies as anything...Christian, Muslim, Jew, Atheist, Agnostic, Wiccan, etc...
They all have their own personal understanding and identification they extract from what they believe. I know some on here wish to be defined as atheism being lack of a belief in a God(s) and don’t consider this to be a belief system...but that is really just semantical and unnecessary to define as ANYONE’s belief is subject to their own idiosyncrasies, history, and even their current mood...ever changing and evolving.
I don’t feel that Atheists are any more militant than anyone else...but instead, I believe that they are viewed that way based upon those who disagree with them.
I will write more later, I’m not quite done...but I have to run for now...

 

[Neurosis]

The question atheist must answer is simply this: Do you believe there is a God or a deity?

I have no stance either way to this question.

It's a matter of case-by-case specifics. There are certain iterations of gods and deities that I do believe, do not exist. I believe Thor does not exist, I believe Zeus does not exist. I believe that the god portrayed in the bible does not exist. Why? For very specific reasons - I don't believe water can be turned to wine, or that people can live in the bellies of giant fish for 3 days and nights.

So I have no problem in saying that based on the dubious nature of the supporting literary works which promote the existence of the Judeo-christian god, viking and Greek gods - I believe they do not exist, and are the imaginatory constructs of humans.

I do not however, believe that no god exists.

If people want to attach some conscious entity to the fabric of the universe - I have no issue with that. It's a metaphysical claim, and it's as good as any other. However when religion strays into the realm of the physical and claims the earth is 6,000 years old, evolution does not occur etc. Well, that's no longer a metahysical claim - and there are ways to observationally and empirically refute such claims (assuming the universe even exists and that we can observe it that is).

And it seems I must remind you again, what you are arguing against is how specific atheists potray their ideas - not factors inherent to atheism itself.

Even if 50,000 militant atheists came onto this board and posted, "I believe there is no god!" - it wouldn't mean that atheism is a belief system. It would mean that those 50,000 people use atheism as a belief system. There's a key difference.

Since athesim does not only claim a lack of belief in a deity, but also the belief there are no deity.

Not necessarily. As above, it's often a case-by-case basis.

 

[LucyJr]

I have no stance either way to this question.

It's a matter of case-by-case specifics. There are certain iterations of gods and deities that I do believe, do not exist. I believe Thor does not exist, I believe Zeus does not exist. I believe that the god portrayed in the bible does not exist. Why? For very specific reasons - I don't believe water can be turned to wine, or that people can live in the bellies of giant fish for 3 days and nights.

So I have no problem in saying that based on the dubious nature of the supporting literary works which promote the existence of the Judeo-christian god, viking and Greek gods - I believe they do not exist, and are the imaginatory constructs of humans.

I do not however, believe that no god exists.

If people want to attach some conscious entity to the fabric of the universe - I have no issue with that. It's a metaphysical claim, and it's as good as any other. However when religion strays into the realm of the physical and claims the earth is 6,000 years old, evolution does not occur etc. Well, that's no longer a metahysical claim - and there are ways to observationally and empirically refute such claims (assuming the universe even exists and that we can observe it that is).

And it seems I must remind you again, what you are arguing against is how specific atheists potray their ideas - not factors inherent to atheism itself.

Even if 50,000 militant atheists came onto this board and posted, "I believe there is no god!" - it wouldn't mean that atheism is a belief system. It would mean that those 50,000 people use atheism as a belief system. There's a key difference.



Not necessarily. As above, it's often a case-by-case basis.

Nice answer. Now we're talking!

I don't think atheism is often a "case-by-case" basis.
Atheism is worldview that clearly reject any idea of a deity, in Universe and out of the Universe, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't reject deities as if they don't believe in them, but rather because they don't believe there is one at all, meaning they actually believe there are no deities whatsoever. That's atheism.

I do not however, believe that no god exists.

Respectfully I want to say that you are a AGNOSTIC, a person who is not sure or doesn't know wether a deity exist or not. You are a person who is open to possibilities.

If people want to attach some conscious entity to the fabric of the universe - I have no issue with that. It's a metaphysical claim, and it's as good as any other.

Again, than you called yourself a agnostic. Atheism its not open to any 'consciousness' in a metaphysical sense. Even naturalism rejects anything like that. Atheism is a closed system. It sates a set of propositions, and one of them is the belief there are no gods or deities whatsoever. In atheism, things start from nothing or absurd, than to rocks and matter, energy, time, than to order and complexity, values, humans and so on. It rejects totally the idea of a supernatural entity, which may cause direct or indirect the natural process of our Universe.

However when religion strays into the realm of the physical and claims the earth is 6,000 years old, evolution does not occur etc. Well, that's no longer a metahysical claim - and there are ways to observationally and empirically refute such claims (assuming the universe even exists and that we can observe it that is).

The claim that the Earth is 6.000 years old is one possible interpretation of the genesis story in the Bible, out of many other.
Still, its a metaphysical claim, because it says it is caused and created directly by a eternal God.
Question: How you would refute claims like that man was made and created in the image of God, alone with its moral capacity, intellectual and emotional aspect, since by your own definition, this is also a physical aspect, not a metaphysical one.?

I'm a bit doubtful that that science can refute historical claims by means of observational and empirical. I mean, how can science refute physical claims (again, by your own criteria), that the battle of Waterloo ever happened???
As far as I know, science deals with the present, not with the past. And yes, I know there is branch in science that tries to read the past, but its more based on observable patterns that can predict a underlying pattern, not by any observational or empirical approach.

And it seems I must remind you again, what you are arguing against is how specific atheists potray their ideas - not factors inherent to atheism itself.

Even if 50,000 militant atheists came onto this board and posted, "I believe there is no god!" - it wouldn't mean that atheism is a belief system. It would mean that those 50,000 people use atheism as a belief system. There's a key difference.

I disagree. I don't have any sort of problem with how atheism potray their worldview, but I have a problem when the actual worldview, the atheism itself, as a set of claims, is not rightly understood.
Looks like we have very different ideas of what atheism is or what is not.
Like I already said, you are not a atheist, you are rather a agnostic. Atheists reject any possibility of something supernatural. Only natural causes have place in atheism.