Atheism vs. Religion Dead Horse Beating Round 473!

Remove all ads!

The first part of #3 ("conviction of the truth of some statement") actually does apply to atheism. "God does not exist" is a statement, and atheists are convinced that it is true.

I have to admit being on the fence here. While I don't think atheism is a belief system per se, (and neither does NOG, it seems), I think that atheism could be a belief, in the sense that atheists presumably have examined the evidence on both sides (again, part of definition #3 above) and concluded that the scientific view is correct. However, since you can't actually disprove the existence of god, and since so many people believe in god*, I tend to think that atheism might be a belief.

*this point is important. You can't actually disprove the existence of anything, but if enough rational people believe something exists, then there must be some basis for that belief. Therefore, one needs to examine that basis, and decide whether the belief is valid.

 

That's not entirely true. I don't believe in God (ie am not a theist), but I also don't agree with the statement that "God does not exist," but I'm still technically an atheist. Atheism is very a broad term (broader than I think it really should be), but even so, most atheists don't argue that God absolutely doesn't exist -- merely that God's existence is bloody unlikely. This is a value judgment, of course, and I agree with you that NOG's third statement does apply to some atheists.

 

I agree, and further think that this is the only reasonable position that atheists could take (which kinda contadicts the first part of my previous post, but not by much). But then isn't that, in essence, a belief? If you accept that there is some chance, however small, that god does in fact exist, then you have made a choice between two scenarios, and based on the evidence (again, definition #3), decided on non-existence.

 

That's the question, isn't it? The true defintion of Aethism. I don't think there can be one. Everyone has their own view of what it is, most with different views from others. What dictionary definition or viewpoint is correct?

 

Yes. I agree with this, too, and merely sought to point out that there are plenty of atheists like me* who can't rightly be seen as believing anything about God at all.

* I don't actually self-identify as an atheist, but other people identify me as such. After looking at other sources on atheism, it appears that, if only barely, I do nevertheless fit the definition.

 

I think the "truth of some statement" is in the statement of "God exists." I don't believe in the truth of the statement "God exists" -- which is what makes me an atheist/agnostic -- there is a subtle difference.

Perhaps it's a po-tay-toh, po-tah-toh kind of difference (or potatoe).

 

No argument from me there. However, I also think that atheists take it one step further, and say what Drew said previously - "that God's existence is bloody unlikely". Which takes me back to my response to him.

But like I said, I'm on the fence as to whether atheism is a belief or not. So if you decide to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about, you can assume that I believe that your knowledge in that regard is correct.

 

Ah, but does atheism accept as true, genuine, or real that gods do not exist? That's still a factual claim that can be accepted as true, genuine, or real.

... Crap, I think we may have gotten into the whole 'what is atheism' confusion again. Ok, forget the term 'atheist'. Do those who believe gods do not exist accept that premise as true, genuine, or real? If so, then that is their belief. No matter what you call them. By the way, what would you like to call them?

Mmm, no. That post was the entire definition given. Those were all accepted usages, and none of them supported your claim. Anyway, find me any definition that gives the opposite.

Umm, I hate to point this out, but those don't prove anything, or serve as any valid criteria for this debate, because no one challenges them. Both Christians and anti-Christians (for lack of a better term at the moment) accept that reality is real (find me anyone who doesn't), that humans have the capacity to perceive reality accurately (within certain constraints recognized by both sides), and that rational explanations exist for elements of the real world (mind you, our definitions of rational explanations may differ).

Again, misinterpretations that you atheists cling to as proof Christianity is a lie don't work. I've referenced it before and I'll reference it again: read "Genesis and the Big Bang" by Dr. Gerald Shroeder. It's an eye-opener, and solves the two problems above.

:sigh: You can say the same thing about characters in BG2. Does that mean they weren't created with a purpose? Just because you don't see a purpose doesn't mean it doesn't exist. There are thousands of man-made things around the world that you would see no purpose in simply because you didn't understand the design.

Again, just because you don't see a purpose doesn't mean there isn't one there. It just means that you don't understand any purpose that may be there. For millenea, people thought the brain had no purpose. Now we see a more complete 'plan' of the workings of the human body. Oh, and evolution doesn't prove anything is goalless. It's a theory of the process of change, not any end-goal or control scheme.

Anyway, if that's your best 'proof' that the Bible is a lie, you need to work harder. The only way you can use those to prove the Bible is a lie is if you first assume the Bible is wrong, which then results in circular reasoning.

Actually, no. If anyting, it proves just how alien the Scientific Method and logic are to the human mind. Think about it. How many millenia of civilization did it take for us to come up with that stuff, and even now people have to be taught it in school. That's an alien thought process.

Apparently. People have been claiming proofs of gods since time began. Mind you, those proofs are usually about as well thought out than your 'proof' that the Bible is wrong.

My point was that, if you define knowledge based on actual fact, the fallibility of human understanding guarantees that we'll never know that we know anything, because we can never be sure that we're right. In that case, in any discussion where understanding is called into question, that definition of 'knowledge' is useless.

Ah, but those can only be proven 100% if you first start with some base assumptions, such as that you accurately percieve reality, that measurements of time are consistent, and that paperwork is reliable. That means you can't prove them 100%, because you can't prove those assumptions. Mind you, in most common discussions, we can all agree on a set of basic assumptions, but this isn't a common discussion.

If that's the case, then defining knowledge based on fact is wrong, because if that were the definition, you couldn't 'know' somethign and be wrong. Instead, it is better to define 'knowledge' as a degree of certainty. For example, if I say I believe something is true, or that I think it is, I indicate (most of the time) some level of uncertainty. If I say I know it is true, it means I'm so certain it is true that I won't question it unless substantial proof to the contrary is given.

The only 'cherry picking' I did was to isolate those definitions that had some kind of relevance (i.e. taking out the assumption of power definitions). And if you don't like the dictionary's definition of a word, then either find a better dictionary (be my guest) or invent your own language.

Again, we're getting into problems defining Atheism. Replace that with "Those who claim that gods do not exist". That is "something believed". It is also a "conviction of the truth of some statement".

We may not agree on the definition of 'self-evident', but I don't think it can be a relative thing. I think if something is 'self-evident', then everyone who isn't insane can agree on it. I.e., it proves itself, it doesn't need back-up evidence.

The problem is, that only means you don't follow one particular belief (i.e. the belief that gods exist). If you follow something else instead (i.e. gods do not exist, or even the existence of gods is uncertain and questionable), and accept the truth of that statement, then you believe it, and it is your belief.


All in all, though, I have to disagree with the statement "most atheists don't argue that God absolutely doesn't exist". Since we can't readily agree on a definition of Atheism, I think the safest course would be self-identification. I.e. if you call yourself one, then you are. It's not great, but it's probably the safest for the time being. Of those who don't really identify with any particular religion, most probably don't really identify with anything at all. They don't call themselves atheists, they don't call themselves agnostics, they just don't call themselves anything. Of those who call themselves atheists, the actual recognition that there isn't enough evidence to come to any concrete conclusion on the existence of gods (i.e. "I don't particularly beleive they do exist, but I don't particularly believe they don't exist either") has shown itself to be pretty uncommon in all of my interactions. I can usually find one or two in any religious debate, but that compares to 3-10 who are certain gods don't exist. I don't know, it may just be that whole 'vocal minority' phenomena again, but I don't see a whole lot of them (which supprises me that so many of you admit to being uncertain).

 

I believe the term you are searching for is non-Christian.

Thank you, Grand Master of Semantics. Of course same basic assumptions apply. If you cannot accurately perceive reality, then it makes little difference whether we are talking about knowledge or belief - because the person in question is insane.

Obviously. No one could ligitimately aruge with so rational a statement But then what was the purpose of the previous paragraph, in which you seemed to argue the exact opposite?

 

My point is, in discussions about religion, one of the things we're arguing about are our basic assumptions. Because of that, we can't really rely on standard definitions of them.

Argued the opposite? When did I do that? I said:

Based on that, my statement about knowledge reflecting a degree of certainty was an attempt to offer an alternative definition. If knowledge isn't defined by what is true, it has to be defined by something else, and I offered the certainty of the 'know'er. In that case, knowledge is a sub-set of belief. It is a belief you are so certain about as to not question.

 

Sorry - I was referring to the previous quotation of my post, not the previous paragraph from your post, when you said:

Without these criteria in place, all knowledge would be impossible, which can at best be considered a philosophical point, if not down right silly.

 

Unless you recognize knowledge as fallible. In that case, it doesn't matter if you can prove it 100%, so long as you can prove it to the point you consider acceptable.

 

So, from your above statement I can conclude that christians generally accept reality as real, percievable, measurable and interpretable. But I find your following statements to directly contradict this:

Does that count as 'circular reasoning'? I see it this way: Once you question the assumptions of the scientific method, the issue leaves the realm of science, and enters into philosophy. With nothing atall to start from, I feel completely out of my depth.

I can only offer evidence to disprove your religion, if we agree to stay within the realms of science. If you proceed to question reality, then it's not a fair fight.

 

Ok, Coin, let's start with some basic assumptions. I agree that what we generally percieve is 99% of the time real and consistent with reality. That doesn't mean, though, that we percieve 99% of reality. Far from it, as I think any scientist will tell you. The difference between my Christian viewpoint and your secular one is what portion of reality is percieved. You see science as all that there is, and thus, while you still recognize that some significant portions of reality may escape our perception, even currently aided by our best tools, you still see it as natural, systematic, and consistent (define that as you will). I, on the other hand, see three realms of reality. One is ours, the basic material, physical world, with matter and energy and everything else you consider to be all of everything. The second is the spiritual side of this world, wherein angels, demons, and our spirits reside. Those two, while usually pretty seperate, are not entirely divided, and thus can and do influence each other. The third is, well, God. Yes, that's right, God get's his own, because He is beyond it all, like an author is beyond everything in any world he writes. Again, God can and does interact with both of the others. I seperate God from the spiritual world because, by my definition, the spiritual world is still 'natural' (i.e. created by God) and I believe follows it's own sets of rules and regulations similar to our natural laws (I don't really know what they are, nor do I think we can really learn that).

So, you see, what you see as claims that reality isn't real (miracles and such which break your rules of reality) are really just claims that reality is more than it seems.

If I've misunderstood you somewhere, please tell me.

In my paragraphs about the definitions of knowledge and belief, I was talking very philosophically, but that's a very philosophical field. I still think the distinction between knowledge based on reality and knowledge based on certainty is important because, well, we're all wrong from time to time. Even when we're really certain we're right.

 

Let me point something out about the definition of atheism. I think there is an term that defines a group of people that are unconvinced of God's existence quite finely. That term is "agnostic". Not convinced of either way (may have a leaning towards each side but generally not convinced).

Is there a blending of the definitions of atheist and agnostic here?

Also there is a strong argument atheism is an idea, school of thought, and so on. Why the fuss over calling it such? I have ideas all the time. Some have turned out to be right and some wrong-but I don't deny an idea is an idea.

 

The correct definition of agnostic is "not convinced either way". This is not the same as "unconvinced of God's existence". Someone who's unconvinced of God's existence may or may not be convinced of God's non-existence; if the former he's an atheist, if the latter he's an agnostic. Both atheists and agnostics don't consider that there is any concrete evidence that God exists, but atheists will say that's enough to discard God's existence outright, while agnostics will say that the question isn't or cannot be answered for good either way. At least most branches of agnosticism will. Others will tell you they simply don't care much for the question in the first place.

I don't think there's a "strong argument" going, only NOG views it as a school of thought and most of us disagree on this point. There's simply no unifying concept at all behind atheism, besides not believing in God, and that's just not enough for it to count as a school of thought or a religion. Granted some atheists do sound like religious fanatics sometimes when they go on a crusade against religion (very ironic when you think about it) but I'd hardly call them representative of the majority. The way I see it atheism is the "none of the above" of religions, and as such trying to categorise it as a religion itself doesn't really work.

 

Pplr, I agree with you, but these others argue that atheist is a larger term, that it includes both those who are convinced of the non-existence of god and those who are unconvinced (agnostics).

Ziad, I think you need to re-visit the usage of the phrase "school of though". It can be applied to anything as major as a religion or as minor as a singular opinion on a singular point. All that is required is that some people teach it to others (and even that part is iffy). Atheism, no matter how it is defined, includes thought and ideas that are taught to others. Also, it is an entirely different term from a 'religion'. Hell, a preference for chunky peanut butter can be called a 'school of thought'.

 

NOG, if you can express it in one sentence, it isn't a school of thought. Atheism is a singular belief.

 

Drew, obviously you and I have different experiences with the phrase. Actually, most of the time I've run into the phrase, it's used in conjunction with something expressed in one sentance. The typical wording is: "There is a certain school of thought that argues..." The thought then ends with the end of the sentence. Now, of course, it may be complex enough to require further expounding and explanation, but it also may not.

In origin, it seems the term 'school' refers to a collection of people, not a process of learning. Like ODU's College of Engineering.