if the extent of your philosophical review ends at the dictionary then we have little to discuss.
Otherwise you might want to explain the substantial difference between;
1) I disbelieve in the existence of God.
2) I believe God does not exist.
As I said early these are nothing more than semantic word games.
Ok, good. Atheism is a religion. Now what? Why is this important to you?
People turn science into a religion, it's called "Scientism".
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.
Here is how it works.
People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.
They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.
What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.
Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.
This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.
In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.
In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.
I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.
Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.
In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Of course it is a religion. Only Atheists hate the idea.
While you have noted that of the majority, there are still plenty of religious people in the world today who have pantheons still. Not every religious person describes their deity as omniscient and/or omnipotent...
Science can show cause/effect and help to proves which events are actual causation and which are merely correlation. This principle, however cannot be applied when dealing with deities, at least not at this stage of human and scientific development. Deities can be neither proven nor disproved, thus any stance one has on them is purely based upon belief and faith.
Of course it is a religion. Only Atheists hate the idea.
religion: definition of religion in Oxford dictionary (American English) (US)
Check it out bruthah, atheism is not a religion.
'checked it out. It is a religion. Synonym: belief.
Why should one believe something that has no actual empirical data of existence?
pure mathematics has no empirical existence.
we can add 1 + 1 to get 2 without any objects in hand for instance.
Why should one believe something that has no actual empirical data of existence?
if the extent of your philosophical review ends at the dictionary then we have little to discuss.
Otherwise you might want to explain the substantial difference between;
1) I disbelieve in the existence of God.
2) I believe God does not exist.
As I said early these are nothing more than semantic word games.
Anything you conceive and mentally process creates a belief, if you act upon that belief it is properly classified as your religion...
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.
Here is how it works.
People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.
They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.
What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.
Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.
This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.
In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.
In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.
I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.
Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.
In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Very simply, it doesn't take a god to determine one doesn't exist. It only takes others believing in a god, for one to determine it doesn't exist. For example, if a neighbor is absolutely convinced there are fairies in her backyard pulling up the carrots every night. I don't have to believe in fairies to know it's not fairies, it's likely rodents, rabbits, or the like.Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.
Here is how it works.
People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.
They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.
What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.
Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.
This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.
In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.
In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.
I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.
Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.
In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.
Here is how it works.
People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.
They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.
What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.
Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.
This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.
In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.
In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.
I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.
Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.
In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Depends on how you want to classify that empirical evidence. Would you classify your observations of an event as empirical evidence?
It is obvious that you need some information regarding atheism that does not come from whatever questionable sources you are using.
Agnosticism / Atheism - Skepticism for Atheists
in fact there are some really good stuuf on there about various religions too:
Catholicism and the Catholic Church (Articles and Resources)
About.com Islam
Hinduism: Beliefs, Practices, Culture, Celebrations
Buddhism History, Doctrines and Teachings, and More
Protestantism - Definition of Protestantism
An Introduction to the Raelian Movement for Beginners
About.com???????
:damn
No, that would be anecdotal evidence. What needs to be done is my observation should be tested and seen how widespread it is shared with others at present and continuously thereafter. The moment it is found that an insignificant number of people of the world share that observation and that the observation no longer holds true (i.e., does not appears in tests) a statement/theory or other logical communications tied with it drop due to critical questionings.
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.
Here is how it works.
People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.
They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.
What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.
Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.
This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.
In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.
In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.
I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.
Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.
In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
belief runs a wider gamut because it covers both epistemological and temporal arenas
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?