I think you failed to realize that I am doing the opposite of generalizing. I am saying that others are generalizing, while I am pointing out that there are many categories within the umbrella term of atheism. I am in fact saying that atheism is neither a religion, nor is it not a religion. It is a demographic of people who may or may not be religious.
Consider this: a man is born in a society completely devoid of religion. He has no concept of a higher power--the thought has never crossed his mind. He is an atheist because he doesn't believe in a God. But does he truly believe there is no God?
darth_ender said:
I think you failed to realize that I am doing the opposite of generalizing. I am saying that others are generalizing, while I am pointing out that there are many categories within the umbrella term of atheism. I am in fact saying that atheism is neither a religion, nor is it not a religion. It is a demographic of people who may or may not be religious.
Okay. I see what you're saying. I'll admit I was multitasking while reading your post so I didn't quite realize what you were actually saying and was responding more to warb.
DominicCobb said:
Consider this: a man is born in a society completely devoid of religion. He has no concept of a higher power--the thought has never crossed his mind. He is an atheist because he doesn't believe in a God. But does he truly believe there is no God?
You are not the first to ask such a question.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism
According to these definitions, such a person is in fact an atheist of the implicit brand. Again, you show that there is no one-size-fits-all definition of atheism.
All this discussion would have been great in a couple of other better threads, i.e. the Atheist thread, the Religion thread, or even the philosophy thread.
Possessed said:
Warbler said:
DominicCobb said:
Essentially you're saying atheists have faith in their lack of faith. Interesting.
They have faith that there is no God.
I would say in most cases, (though admittedly not all) it's more like they have no faith that there is a God, which is a bigger difference than the similar wording would suggest.
Good point. Although some atheists do believe there is no God. I would say the atheists that stop at merely not believing in a God are close to being agnostics.
Leonardo said:
Warbler said:
Ryan McAvoy said:
darth_ender said:
atheism is too broad a category to rule it as a religion or not a religion.
Nope, it's real easy. It's not a religion.
I'd say it was the religion of no religion.
That's like saying a flower is a type of concrete because it doesn't have concrete in it.
I would say atheism has more to do with religion than do flowers with concrete, don't you think?
Let's say somebody wanted to practice it as such... Where is the Holy-Book? Where are the places of worship? Where is the deity? Where is the religious figurehead? Where are the doctrines? Where are the priests? Where is the organised structure? Where are the forms of dress? Where are the rules? Where is the rigidly defined creation myth? Where is the iconography?
I would argue that a religion doesn't need that stuff.
What the hell is a religion without a set of principles?
a religion without a set of principles.
Warbler said:
DominicCobb said:
Essentially you're saying atheists have faith in their lack of faith. Interesting.
They have faith that there is no God.
I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for theists to grasp.
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.php?title=Atheism_is_based_on_faith
as I said in my last post, I would agree some just stop at not believing in a God and some believe there is no God. I would say believing there is no God does require a little bit of faith. The ones that stop at not believing in a God, are close to being agnostic.
Disbelief based on lack of evidence does not require faith. In fact, disbelief does not require evidence of any kind. Someone who has never heard of the concept of "gods" would not believe in them. Under the broader definition of atheism, they would be an atheist and yet not have faith that no gods exist. Similarly, someone who has been given evidence and simply finds it lacking (the classic narrower definition of atheist) would also not be relying on faith for his or her lack of belief.
TV's Frink said:
I'd like to Botch about all these posts here that should go in the Atheism thread.
Me two.
Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.
I've met a lot of atheists that are pretty religious in their beliefs and are very divisive. For example, I have an atheist facebook friend that CONSTANTLY posts things about atheism/anti-theism. I also used to be the same way when I was an atheist. Atheism by definition is not a religion, but there are a lot of people who are very evangelical in their atheistic beliefs.
The Person in Question
RicOlie_2 said:
God couldn't do that any more than he could make a square circle. It doesn't make him less omnipotent.
If He is responsible for making the rules, then why must He abide by them?
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
I think it's a question that cannot logically be answered because it is based on a contradiction of logic, but I'll ramble on about nothing anyway:
Can a circle be a square at the same time it's a circle? Perhaps God could do it. He could certainly make one look like the other. But to make a circle that was actually square, however, seems a logical impossibility (and if there was a shape that one couldn't identify as being either a circle or a square, it would be called something else).
By definition, a square has four equal sides which meet at four right angles. A circle has no corners. A square circle is therefore self-contradictory (duh). God cannot theoretically make something with two contradictory natures. It's possible, however, that there could be another reality in the same space as ours, in which circles in our reality correspond to squares in the other one, but that's something entirely different.
Now, I guess I can't really provide an answer to your question, other than claiming that God cannot do the logically impossible, which cannot be proven thanks to our limited ability to reason.
As for the rock that God himself couldn't move: it's the same as asking why an omnipotent God couldn't deprive himself of his omnipotency (or change his intrinsic nature in any other way). The only answer is somewhat (read: completely) circular, and that is that he cannot do so because it is part of his intrinsic nature.
tl;dr: As above, beats me!
See, things are definitely getting deeply philosophical. Were similar arguments turned on atheism, the questions would arise such as:
Why is there anything at all?
Why are there any laws governing nature?
Where did those laws come from?
Why are such laws permanent?
...and...
If the universe is self-organizing, and if after an infinite number of universe collapses/explosions, with 100 octillion stars and so many worlds and so much matter and energy, is it not possible that a being capable of taking control of the universe and the laws of nature and gain all possible knowledge and wisdom?
AntcuFaalb said:
RicOlie_2 said:
God couldn't do that any more than he could make a square circle. It doesn't make him less omnipotent.
If He is responsible for making the rules, then why must He abide by them?
From a more theological standpoint, and possibly more confined to Mormonism, this is the answer I believe:
God governs the universe by keeping the laws he has created. Were he to violate his own laws, he could not be the perfect Governor of all things, and would therefore not be qualified to be God.
God is God because he wills himself to do all things perfectly. He has infinite wisdom.
RicOlie_2 said:
God cannot do the logically impossible, which cannot be proven thanks to our limited ability to reason.
... And that He, by common definition, is responsible for defining the rules that govern that logic.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
A great impediment is finding words to describe.
I'm not sure that God claims omnipotence with respect to a multiverse or the essential Logic that causes it to take various forms. The God of the bible claims near omnipotence over It's particular creation.
There must be a set of Principles that transcends our Creator.
Does it make any sense to say that someone created the Principle that 2+2 must equal 4 or that all circles must be round?
thejediknighthusezni said:
Does it make any sense to say that someone created the principle that 2+2 must equal 4 or that all circles must be round?
Yes, because we have no reason to believe that such rules hold beyond our plane of existence.
A picture is worth a thousand words. Post 102 is worth more.
I’m late to the party, but I think this is the best song. Enjoy!
—Teams Jetrell Fo 1, Jetrell Fo 2, and Jetrell Fo 3
*cough* ...and here I sit all alone in my philosophy thread waiting for visitors...
http://originaltrilogy.com/forum/topic.cfm/The-Philosophy-Thread-Where-Serious-Questions-May-Be-Discussed/topic/17361/
...yet for what it is worth I describe myself as a Weak Atheist with regards to belief in a god and a Reluctant Agnostic with regards to knowledge supporting the existence of the divine...for while I admit to lacking sufficient evidence to claim with certainty that a god may or may not exist my assessment thus far is that no such deity is in evidence...yet I would be willing to change my mind should such a sufficient case be made...
I am willing to accept that this may be considered a positive belief in the lack of a deity, rather than a strict lack of belief, given that I once did believe and now no longer do (as opposed to having never previously believed at all)...for clearly there must needs have been some evidence that caused me to no longer believe...
As such I would be willing to concede it might have some religions overtones given that it is a subject based upon a belief in the wrongness of a former belief...yet to consider that one's religion might merely be to disbelieve in god(s) is seemingly strange given religion's common association with the divine...nevertheless, if one must be true to proper semantics I would be willing to concede such a ground...for it does me no great harm...and do I not fill in my current stance under the section labeled religion when given a census?
So yes, as one of my hobbies I might describe myself as a former-stamp collector given my previous experience in the field...
It is good to see you are all alive and well... ;-)
Regards,
Praetorian
I was once…but now I’m not… Further: zyzzogeton
“It wasn’t the flood that destroyed the pantry…”
AntcuFaalb said:
thejediknighthusezni said:
Does it make any sense to say that someone created the principle that 2+2 must equal 4 or that all circles must be round?
Yes, because we have no reason to believe that such rules hold beyond our plane of existence.
But even if 2+2 and circles are LIMITED to our plane and perhaps any similar planes, that very LIMITATION must then require that these principles apply to all planes.
If all US states are located in the Northern hemisphere at the present time, then that fact must apply to everyone in the Southern hemisphere even if there is no possibility, at present, of a US state being located there.
Dear OP,
Please rename this thread... "If you need to bitch about something, or wish to start yet another redundant internet discussion about religion... this is the place".
Much Love,
Alfred E. Negman
Don’t do drugs, unless you’re with me.
Perhaps once the new forum software has finally been implemented, all the various threads that have been created on the topics of religion & atheism should be placed in a separate religion/atheism subform. That way the topics will never come up in this thread ever again*.
*Fat chance on that ever happening.
Maybe if you pray for it...
I actually never intended it to go into all this. I was actually just bitching about people who honestly think atheism is a religion, I didn't even fathom that it could possibly turn into an actual debate. Sorry guys.
ok, let's change the subject.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g3FLEa61I
I fucking hate how xenophobic and obtusely ignorant a great number of italians are. It drives me nuts.
I can't wait to emigrate, then I'll finally be able to renounce a citizenship that really doesn't belong to me and an identity that I don't identify myself with.
One of my friends lived in Italy for a year, and some of his classmates were under the impression that he had lived in an igloo back home, and had never seen advanced technology like computers.
Possessed said:
I actually never intended it to go into all this. I was actually just bitching about people who honestly think atheism is a religion, I didn't even fathom that it could possibly turn into an actual debate. Sorry guys.
actually, I think it is more fault. I was the one that first argued against what you said, and that started the ball rolling. Sorry everyone.
Hey, it was the wrong topic, but I personally enjoyed the debate.