Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods and that’s it. There is nothing fundamentally systematic about it in any way. Protestantism consists of a whole set of beliefs, doctrine and rules managed by a formal leadership. It is very much systematic (though even then arguably not one system given the extensive diversity world-wide). As I said, atheism is the opposite of theism, not specific religions. Atheism is no more a system than theism is.
The trouble is a) it’s factually wrong and b) it’s typically used as a tool for generalised attacks, which happen to include me.
No, it’s like saying a cocktail is almost always a bar. Cocktails can be part of what makes a bar and can even be a core element of a bar but the cocktail alone is not itself a bar.
A guess is conscious, a belief is sub-conscious.
That’s what you believe.If it is the case, you can demonstrate it by choosing to believe in God for a short period. Can you do that?
I disagree with almost everything you said here...but this is NOT the thread for it.l
If you want to discuss it...start a thread...and I will stick with that thread for as long as it takes to get you to understand how wrong you are.
But no more discussion of it here...other than a link to a new thread.
Here's my take:
There is a fine line between believing there are no gods and simply not believing in gods. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. So, it's a "belief."
However, and this IMO is relevant: Belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.
RD seems like the place to discuss this.
I think we should do that.
All I can do is offer my opinion on this again.
In word definition terms... Theism is the belief in God or Gods, and Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods.
Problem is in practical terms they are both beliefs as neither is really all that provable in the context of systems of process (science) for this subject. That makes Atheism and Theism flip sides of the same coin in terms of being able to prove their position. Thought exercise, as a substitute for process, does not account for all the potential of that debate from either side.
Agnostics tend to be the practical thinkers then by saying we cannot know for sure there are or are not God or Gods, in a context other than believing in them or not believing in them. Either way a choice has been made, and rather ironically both sides claim to be right in an argument they cannot possibly know everything about in the very context both sides claims to be talking about.
If we knew everything about the universe, origin, consciousness, time, dimension, and beyond those then perhaps that would be another matter where we could attempt to really validate Theism or Atheism. But we clearly do not know everything, making Atheists militants to Theism far more than some form of "evidence" of God or Gods not existing.
It’s commonly used to mean either of those things, yet another cause of controversy. I’m not sure it matters in the context that led to this thread though.Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).
Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).
It’s commonly used to mean either of those things, yet another cause of controversy. I’m not sure it matters in the context that led to this thread though.
All I can do is offer my opinion on this again.
In word definition terms... Theism is the belief in God or Gods, and Atheism is the lack of belief in God or Gods.
Problem is in practical terms they are both beliefs as neither is really all that provable in the context of systems of process (science) for this subject. That makes Atheism and Theism flip sides of the same coin in terms of being able to prove their position. Thought exercise, as a substitute for process, does not account for all the potential of that debate from either side.
Agnostics tend to be the practical thinkers then by saying we cannot know for sure there are or are not God or Gods, in a context other than believing in them or not believing in them. Either way a choice has been made, and rather ironically both sides claim to be right in an argument they cannot possibly know everything about in the very context both sides claims to be talking about.
If we knew everything about the universe, origin, consciousness, time, dimension, and beyond those then perhaps that would be another matter where we could attempt to really validate Theism or Atheism. But we clearly do not know everything, making Atheists militants to Theism far more than some form of "evidence" of God or Gods not existing.
The only comment I want to make on this OS...has to do with the second paragraph.
Theism almost universally is defined as "a belief in a god or gods."
Atheism is not so universally defined. Some define it as a lack of belief in gods...and some as a belief that there are no gods.
I want to say here that there is a HUGE difference between the following two assertions:
One: "I believe there are no gods"
Two: "I do not believe there are any gods."
One can logically say: "I do not believe there are any gods"...and...can at the same time logically say, "I do not believe there are no gods."
There is no contradiction there.
In fact, in the case of my agnosticism...it states my position.
I do not have a "belief" that there are gods.
I also do not have a "belief" there are no gods.
That same thing cannot be said for the first assertion. One cannot logically say, "I believe there are no gods" and "I believe there are gods."
As I said previously, calamity misunderstood the contention. I never said atheism isn’t a belief, I said it isn’t a belief system. The only thing to two working definitions of the word does is provide another reason that it can’t refer to a singular system.We have a disagreement again here.
I say it is vital.
Here's my take:
There is a fine line between believing there are no gods and simply not believing in gods. And, I guess, an absence of evidence for gods can lead someone to believe there are no gods, even though such a belief is nothing more than an unsubstantiated assumption. So, it's a "belief."
However, and this IMO is relevant: Belief that something does not exist because nothing out there indicates that it does is not the same as believing something does exist even though nothing out there indicates that it does.
I agree completely which is why I identify as a godless agnostic. It is my opinion that atheists are just too sure about something that cannot be proven: that there are no gods.
That said, I still think it is valid to state that those who insist there is no god stand on firmer ground than those who insist there is one. Again, I base that on the fact that it is more rational to not believe in something for which there is no evidence than it is to believe in it. And, we do know that there is no evidence whatsoever that gods exist. Hence, not believing in them is completely rational.
It’s commonly used to mean either of those things, yet another cause of controversy. I’m not sure it matters in the context that led to this thread though.
Good idea. We should start with a better definition of Atheism, however. It is not true that "Atheism is defined as not believing in and god or gods". It is the belief that there is no God (or are no Gods).
Actually, Jo...I could cite dictionaries that have it one way...and others that have it the other way.
The etymology of the word favors a "belief" that there are no gods...rather than simply a lack of belief in gods.
As I pointed out above...there is a difference between saying, "I do not believe there are any gods" and "I believe there are no gods."
That difference often is lost in casual conversation...but in a discussion such as is happening here...it is vital.
We are not that far apart in opinions on this I suspect.
Agnosticism boils down to "believing" in neither Atheism or Theism, it is never about believing both conditions. It is about taking a practical position in the suggestion that within today's range of knowledge and understanding we cannot know for sure that there are or that are not God or Gods.
Atheists though generally have a different take, even though there are splinters of that opinion. "Belief" is usually discarded for a statement on "there is no God or Gods." To then say Atheism is a lack of belief in God or Gods is fairly accurate method to describe the group as a whole. A good bit towards universal definition for the idea of Atheism, even if some have gone from "I do not believe there are any Gods" to the certainty of "there are no Gods." Logic and thought exercise then becomes argumentative positions in the motivation to say something with such certainty. The core part of the definition is still there as a constant, a lack of belief.
Theism is vary complex, with a rich history of varying God and Gods to belief in over human history. We get a universal definition for the word because of the inclusiveness of all the God and Gods humanity has believed in as far back as we can determine.
That shore it up, some?
I think there is a difference in having no idea whether or not there is a God and believing there is one or there is none.
The contention wasn’t whether atheism is a belief but whether it is a belief system (e.g. a religion in the original context).
Atheism and theism are equal opposites in this context. They’re just labels of singular characteristics, indicating an individual doesn’t or does believe in the existence of a god or gods. Alone they mean nothing more than that (and are actually fairly pointless without context, which is probably why they cause so much controversy). Clearly everyone has much wider and deeper ideas in relation to the nature and existence of gods but by definition, those wider ideas are above and beyond the basis labels of atheism or theism. They will be part of those views, maybe even a major part but they don’t define the views themselves.
A key reason for this is that every individual has their own view, their own belief system. I’d suggest it’s even questionable to call any given religion a belief system since even members of a single physical church/mosque/synagogue or whatever will have differences of opinion of particular aspects of their faith (and there’s nothing wrong with that IMO). Ultimately, a whole belief system will be unique to an individual. No other person in the world will have the same set of experiences or the same brain structure and so the conclusions we each reach will inevitably be different.
In conclusion, atheism isn’t a belief system and it isn’t a belief system. That just leaves belief.
As I said previously, calamity misunderstood the contention. I never said atheism isn’t a belief, I said it isn’t a belief system. The only thing to two working definitions of the word does is provide another reason that it can’t refer to a singular system.
I agree completely which is why I identify as a godless agnostic. It is my opinion that atheists are just too sure about something that cannot be proven: that there are no gods.
That said, I still think it is valid to state that those who insist there is no god stand on firmer ground than those who insist there is one. Again, I base that on the fact that it is more rational to not believe in something for which there is no evidence than it is to believe in it. And, we do know that there is no evidence whatsoever that gods exist. Hence, not believing in them is completely rational.
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?