NationStates Jolt Archive

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

Been there, done that. Result: I'm Muslim.

Not much of a challenge. Try a hot dog eating contest.

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

I was an atheist for a while before actually learning about Christianity, now I am Christian...

Been there, done that. Result: I'm Muslim.

Not much of a challenge. Try a hot dog eating contest.

Indeed.

Been there, done that. Bought the T-shirt, even. Result: I'm Kemetic.

I'd rather a lettuce-soaked-in-Tobasco-dressing eating contest, myself.

Indeed.

Been there, done that. Bought the T-shirt, even. Result: I'm Kemetic.


Neat! Never met a Kemetic type person before. Netjer is pleased.

I'd rather a lettuce-soaked-in-Tobasco-dressing eating contest, myself.

Hrmmmm .... now we may be on to something. I suppose a hot dog eating contest would alienate vegetarians.

Tried it. A meteorite fell on my car. Insurance company said it was an Act of God.

Tried it. A meteorite fell on my car. Insurance company said it was an Act of God.

ROFL!

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

I tried, but God kept leaving messages on my machine.

Could say been there done that, I became religious as a teenager.

Hrmmmm .... now we may be on to something. I suppose a hot dog eating contest would alienate vegetarians.

We could just play charades.

Neat! Never met a Kemetic type person before. Netjer is pleased.

I'm impressed! Usually mentioning Netjer results only in blank looks all around. Dua Netjer, indeed!


Hrmmmm .... now we may be on to something. I suppose a hot dog eating contest would alienate vegetarians.

Unless there were also vegetarian hot dog sausages.

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results. I abused the warranty rules and tried it for 5 years.

I'm impressed! Usually mentioning Netjer results only in blank looks all around. Dua Netjer, indeed!

Well I've studied much in my day when it comes to religion. 30 years of searching will do that to ya. I've seen pics of some of the shrines ya'll set up in your homes. Pretty. I also admire the sheer, unmitigated devotion of the Kemetic. It's that same devotion that drew me to Islam. The idea of giving yourself up, body and soul, completely is appealing.


Unless there were also vegetarian hot dog sausages.

Ah! True true. Must get some of those soysages.

Why does it seem that everyone on NS is inherently biased against religion? I know its not everybody and I know organized religion has done some bad things, but I am sick of atheists and agnostics looking down their nose at religious types. I've tried to be atheist as much as I've tried to be heterosexual, and neither works for me. SO, I'd appreciate it if everyone would just quit haranguing eachother about their values. It would do wonders in the way of lowering my blood pressure.

Why does it seem that everyone on NS is inherently biased against religion?

We did a poll once. There are more religious people on NS than there are atheists. Being in the minority tends to cause people to become indignant and try to force change.

SO, I'd appreciate it if everyone would just quit haranguing eachother about their values.

Funny thing is: when we religious types start talking about our differing beliefs, the conversation is generally pleasant and mild. There's a lot of mutual respect involved because we understand something on a level that atheists cannot. We are not slaves to the machine. Hence, there is solidarity, regardless of how and to whom we pray.

We are not slaves to the machine. *resists urge to make incredibly stupid comment about machine cults*

What do you mean by "slaves to the machine", anyway?

*resists urge to make incredibly stupid comment about machine cults*

What do you mean by "slaves to the machine", anyway?

what does that guy have against machines anyways, just becouse he is religios, don't take it out on machines. They are your friend

what does that guy have against machines anyways, just becouse he is religios, don't take it out on machines. They are your friend Firstly, I think it was a metaphor.

Secondly, I for one frequently take out my rage on machines (usually caused by machines). I repeatedly slap the monitor I'm looking at right now, and question its ancestry.

We did a poll once. There are more religious people on NS than there are atheists. Being in the minority tends to cause people to become indignant and try to force change.

Odd. It always seemed to me to be the other way round.

*resists urge to make incredibly stupid comment about machine cults*

*snicker*

What do you mean by "slaves to the machine", anyway?

Being unable to see beyond what is right here, right now, right in front of you. Only understanding that which is quantifiable or, put simply, that which can be plugged into a machine and have data returned.

Why does it seem that everyone on NS is inherently biased against religion? I know its not everybody and I know organized religion has done some bad things, but I am sick of atheists and agnostics looking down their nose at religious types. I've tried to be atheist as much as I've tried to be heterosexual, and neither works for me. SO, I'd appreciate it if everyone would just quit haranguing eachother about their values. It would do wonders in the way of lowering my blood pressure.

I'm not so sure if there really is such a bias. You'll find some very interesting debates between Atheist and Theists on this board. Sure, there are trolls and flamebaiters on both sides too, but you can easily ignore them if you want.

BTW this thread is an answer to a religious thread, so would it not be more reasonable to complain about the original thread?

Well I've studied much in my day when it comes to religion. 30 years of searching will do that to ya. I've seen pics of some of the shrines ya'll set up in your homes. Pretty. I also admire the sheer, unmitigated devotion of the Kemetic. It's that same devotion that drew me to Islam. The idea of giving yourself up, body and soul, completely is appealing.


Studying religion is great. It's one of the more interesting aspects of humanity, I dare say.

There are definitely some great shrines out there. My personal shrine is rather humble, but living as I am, a fairly humble life at the moment it's good enough for me and the Netjeru are very understanding when it comes to these things.


Ah! True true. Must get some of those soysages.

I've had both "real" meat frankfurters and soy-frankfurters in my time, and honestly, I have trouble telling the difference when it comes to taste and texture.

Odd. It always seemed to me to be the other way round.

I think it depends on who is in the majority. I may have broad brushed a bit.

Why does it seem that everyone on NS is inherently biased against religion? I know its not everybody and I know organized religion has done some bad things, but I am sick of atheists and agnostics looking down their nose at religious types.

I personally have no problem with people who believe - provided they
A. Actually *know* what they believe. The number of Christians that knows little of the history surrounding Christ for instance is staggering.
B. Are willing to debate their beliefs and adapt them if they are shown to be wrong.
C. Truly believe, and do not just adhere t their religion because it gives them a reason to feel superior and behave badly towards others (e.g. gays)

We did a poll once. There are more religious people on NS than there are atheists. Being in the minority tends to cause people to become indignant and try to force change.



Funny thing is: when we religious types start talking about our differing beliefs, the conversation is generally pleasant and mild. There's a lot of mutual respect involved because we understand something on a level that atheists cannot. We are not slaves to the machine. Hence, there is solidarity, regardless of how and to whom we pray.

Well you as a muslim pray to god, so does the christians the jews, and maybe some other i don't know, the other religions i have never understoood.

Islam, anyways is in realety just an edition of chritianety where jesus isn't digged as much, and you are forbidden to eat bacoen

From what I've seen of religious people "trying" athiesm, they basically sit around for a week and constantly remind themselves not to pray or say "god" outside of the privacy of their own home. Then they instantly go back to believing whatever they normally do.

How does anyone actually "try" atheism for a week. You can't just turn belief on and off.

Islam, anyways is in realety just an edition of chritianety where jesus isn't digged as much, and you are forbidden to eat bacoen Er, actually it's based on the words of a completely different prophet that neither of the other two recognise as a true prophet.

B. Are willing to debate their beliefs and adapt them if they are shown to be wrong.

Here's a prime example of my machine metaphor. Beliefs are beliefs. They cannot, by nature, be wrong or be proven to be wrong any more than any opinion can.

There is no black and white. There is no hard data. There is no machine code.

Debating against what someone else believes is a fool's errand.

You can only prove to yourself that Allah does not exist and that the 5 daily prayers are meaningless, but you will never prove it to me.

Islam, anyways is in realety just an edition of chritianety where jesus isn't digged as much, and you are forbidden to eat bacoen

Not really. Islam is similar to Judaism except we accept Jesus as a Prophet. After all, Ishmael and Isaac were brothers with nations promised to both.

Our restrictions are more than just against pork, too. Personally, I keep kosher.

But I get your point.

How does anyone actually "try" atheism for a week. You can't just turn belief on and off.

The original thread said:

I challenge all Athiests/Agnostics (this challenge is, ofcourse, optional) to choose to practice any officially recognized major religions of the World for one week straight, without violating any rules of that Religion, and notice any difference in their lives.


So for this thread to be a proper answer it should say that you should live like an Atheist for a week and not be an Atheist.

Er, actually it's based on the words of a completely different prophet that neither of the other two recognise as a true prophet.

Yeah, but I mean, if we assume Mohaamed was a politician, and did not get, you know, that God told him things, then we can assume that he either used some semite religion as a base for islam, ans that semite religion shared the ideas of one god as both arabs and jews are semites and the offspring of abraham. Or he was tolled bye some travelers, or monks from the Byzant, or some christian place, about the concept of One god religions, and he tought, I might as well use that to unite the arabs, in the same way that Rome changed to Chritianety just so to hold on to power a little more.

Of course I guess it is possible that mohammed got tolled sdomething by god in the dessert, but if thats the case i'm going to fry:p


BUt you have to admit, islam and christianety look the same, except for the buildings:p

The original thread said:

I challenge all Athiests/Agnostics (this challenge is, ofcourse, optional) to choose to practice any officially recognized major religions of the World for one week straight, without violating any rules of that Religion, and notice any difference in their lives.


So for this thread to be a proper answer it should say that you should live like an Atheist for a week and not be an Atheist.

Maybe I ought to try it and see what happend, what religons should i choose:confused:

I've tried to be atheist as much as I've tried to be heterosexual, and neither works for me.

Then I hope you're not Christian cause you'd be a hypocrite.

I disrespect religion in the same way I disrespect IMDb users. I know there are smart people in both groups, but a vocal majority(or at least a vocal part) are so mind-bogglingly stupid it drowns out the good parts like static. I'm pretty sure that applies to basically any group of people. But so far I can't see the same trend in atheism. Sure, there are stupid atheists, but they don't go on demanding respect just because they're atheist. I respect people for what they say and what they do, not because they happen to be in a special group.

Maybe I ought to try it and see what happend, what religons should i choose:confused:

Preferable a religion that does not force you to sacrifice humans or anything like that. :)

BUt you have to admit, islam and christianety look the same, except for the buildings:p

Not even close if you really look. Muslims, like Jews, do not have a go-to guy with God. To pray in someone's name is blasphemy to us. We assign no divinity to anything earthly and we certainly don't assign divinity to the Prophet.

This makes Christianity a great departure from what the God of Abraham intended. Not a bad thing, mind you, just a departure.

From what I've seen of religious people "trying" athiesm, they basically sit around for a week and constantly remind themselves not to pray or say "god" outside of the privacy of their own home. Then they instantly go back to believing whatever they normally do.

I agree that it isn't exactly something you can "try". Much like an atheist or agnostic trying to be religious for a week, it's really not a very reasonable proposition. Many people do, however, shift from one to the other (and often back and forth many times) in their lives. Myself, I was an (explicit, very explicit) atheist since the time I was able to really comprehend what a religion was and have a usable understanding of what people thought God was. Probably my hardcore Catholic extended family had something to do with that.

I basically "grew out of it", though and went about investigating various religions (though not with the intent of being a part of one). I ended up stumbling upon one that just made me say "Wow. That really, really makes sense to me." Of course, there were a bunch of personal experiences with divinity there as well, once I allowed myself to be open to the idea, all of which led me to my faith.

Maybe I ought to try it and see what happend, what religons should i choose:confused:

Choose Pastafarianism.

Choose Pastafarianism.

What is that

What is that

Atheism with added beer, strippers, pirates and heaven.

Preferable a religion that does not force you to sacrifice humans or anything like that. :)

*Gives lazy otakus cookie for having me keep out of truble bye not sacrifice humans*

What is that

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

:D

Athism with added beer, strippers, pirates and heaven.

Great religion;)

Choose Pastafarianism.

I'm more a fan ot the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn).

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

The original thread said:

I challenge all Athiests/Agnostics (this challenge is, ofcourse, optional) to choose to practice any officially recognized major religions of the World for one week straight, without violating any rules of that Religion, and notice any difference in their lives.


So for this thread to be a proper answer it should say that you should live like an Atheist for a week and not be an Atheist.
Problem is, there is no way to "live like an atheist". You could live exactly the same way as you did before (well, except for obvious things like going to church), just for different reasons.

Problem is, there is no way to "live like an atheist". You could live exactly the same way as you did before (well, except for obvious things like going to church), just for different reasons.

Well, then that would be it I guess. No church, no praying, no religious diet etc.

Simply cutting everything everything away that would be religiously motivated.

Well, then that would be it I guess. No church, no praying, no religious diet etc.

Simply cutting everything everything away that would be religiously motivated.

I'm not sure about this. I know Atheist Catholics who all the Catholic things but don't actually believe in God.

I'm not sure about this. I know Atheist Catholics who all the Catholic things but don't actually believe in God.

But they don't do it because of a religious motive. They just do it as a kind of tradition I guess. So for a Theist to try this challenge he should simply don't do anything that is religiously motivated - if said Theist can pray without a religious motive, the he surely could continue to pray.

But they don't do it because of a religious motive. They just do it as a kind of tradition I guess. So for a Theist to try this challenge he should simply don't do anything that is religiously motivated - if said Theist can pray without a religious motive, the he surely could continue to pray.

You're right that they don't do it with religious motive. It's just habit and, as you say, tradition. My family (on the side that aren]t real Catholic hard-liners) are guility of this.

It really is easier said than done to just stop doing things with religion as a motivation since, for many theists, their God is at the least the partial motivation for a great many things they do.

Why does it seem that everyone on NS is inherently biased against religion? I know its not everybody and I know organized religion has done some bad things, but I am sick of atheists and agnostics looking down their nose at religious types. I've tried to be atheist as much as I've tried to be heterosexual, and neither works for me. SO, I'd appreciate it if everyone would just quit haranguing eachother about their values. It would do wonders in the way of lowering my blood pressure.

Your going to hell for not being hetrosexual yet you practice the religion.

Ok it's cool.

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.


Does just plain forgetting God exists for a long time count?

eh, I tried athiest for a while, it didn't really work out for me, I even tried Satanism for about a year, no luck there either.

Wicca was sorta fun for about 2 weeks, but I couldn't make it a lifestyle.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

:D

so, why did you become a muslim dude anyways:confused:

so, why did you become a muslim dude anyways:confused:

He recieved a vision of Jesus in the shower.

He recieved a vision of Jesus in the shower.
I also recived a visin, I was drunk, and woke up next to this strange looking girl with no pants, but thats a differnt cind of vision isn't it

Here's a prime example of my machine metaphor. Beliefs are beliefs. They cannot, by nature, be wrong or be proven to be wrong any more than any opinion can.

There is no black and white. There is no hard data. There is no machine code.

Debating against what someone else believes is a fool's errand.

You can only prove to yourself that Allah does not exist and that the 5 daily prayers are meaningless, but you will never prove it to me.

Surely beliefs can be wrong to a degree. At least morally wrong?

Surely beliefs can be wrong to a degree. At least morally wrong?

I think that there is no reason to pray 5 times a day even if you are muslim, better to life a good life, and obey the 10 comandments.
If God is up there he wont give shit about how often you prayed, he'll give shit about what you did!

Funny thing is: when we religious types start talking about our differing beliefs, the conversation is generally pleasant and mild. There's a lot of mutual respect involved because we understand something on a level that atheists cannot.

Just a question, but have you lived in the bible belt? You know, OK, TX, places like that? Yeah, the discussions you describe do not exist there. I happen to live in OK, and have met very few who even acknowledge the existance of other religions. I'm happy those discussions happen somewhere, but not where I live, unfortunately. Saving grace of the internet, I guess.

I would consider myself spiritual. I have no ties to any specific religion, but I do have beliefs, some of which mimic those from other religions. My family has had previously poor experiences with religion, and I find the biggest turn-off to be preaching to me what I'm to believe (which happens where I live frequently). I was EXTREMELY lucky to have found a wife who respects my separation from devout religiousness, though she happens to conform somewhat to *a* religion. (I do not care what religion she may be, so I do not care to remember its name.) When she and I first started dating, she got a number of requests from her friends to get me in a church and "save me". She was kind enough to tell them that she was not about to force me to do something I had told her I didn't want to do. I will admit that she has asked me to attend a particular church which I did find rather tolerant of other religious beliefs and was not what I recall as a "typical" (or stereotypical) church.

Anyway, that's just my two cents. I like where the discussion here is going, too.

Your going to hell for not being hetrosexual yet you practice the religion.

Ok it's cool. Considering angels are sexless…

That's an impossibility, because if you were truly a believer in you religion you couldn't become an atheist. The same is true with trying any religion as an atheist; religious belief comes from faith and a feeling that it is the correct path for you, not just trying it out.

I think that there is no reason to pray 5 times a day even if you are muslim, better to life a good life, and obey the 10 comandments.
If God is up there he wont give shit about how often you prayed, he'll give shit about what you did!

Not quite what I meant. Praying 5 times a day probably does not hurt anyone. I'm talking about when a religion actively encourages or even demands that their followers persecute others for not either following their faith or simple for being something their faith deems as evil.

I'm questioning how that if it is a belief can be right?

Just a question, but have you lived in the bible belt? You know, OK, TX, places like that? Yeah, the discussions you describe do not exist there. I happen to live in OK, and have met very few who even acknowledge the existance of other religions. I'm happy those discussions happen somewhere, but not where I live, unfortunately. Saving grace of the internet, I guess.

I would consider myself spiritual. I have no ties to any specific religion, but I do have beliefs, some of which mimic those from other religions. My family has had previously poor experiences with religion, and I find the biggest turn-off to be preaching to me what I'm to believe (which happens where I live frequently).

Whoa, I can seriously relate.

I live in Arkansas, where everyone is Baptist. You can barely get a job if you aren't going to the "right" church.

I tried becoming Baptist, but I eventually realized that there was absolutely no way I was ever going to believe what they were "teaching" me. So I left.

At first I decided to be atheistic, but I realized that from stuff I was writing that I actually did have spiritual beliefs. So I started looking at what they were, and discovered that much of what I believe coincides with Mahayana Buddhism. So now I "officially" consider myself Buddhist, but I continue to search deeper and deeper into what I believe.

So in a sense, I really dislike both nontheism (not to be confused with atheism) and religion, because in my mind they're both full of crap. You can't prove religion and you can't prove science, so you might as well believe only what you can prove to yourself, which is why I hate it when people try to convert me.

There's some good stuff about this in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy Online: http://plato.stanford.edu/contents.html. Check under "God" and "Evil, Problem of".

I also like the articles by Alvin Plantinga and Paul Naquin about evolution, naturalism, and theism.

Just a question, but have you lived in the bible belt? You know, OK, TX, places like that? Yeah, the discussions you describe do not exist there. I happen to live in OK, and have met very few who even acknowledge the existance of other religions. I'm happy those discussions happen somewhere, but not where I live, unfortunately. Saving grace of the internet, I guess.


I think perhaps he meant discussions between religious folks who aren't fanatics or "fundies". The Bible Belt seems to be full of them, unfortunately.

I think perhaps he meant discussions between religious folks who aren't fanatics or "fundies". The Bible Belt seems to be full of them, unfortunately. As Father Ted says. "This is what it's all about. A fine port, beautiful surroundings… and intelligent company!"

Just a question, but have you lived in the bible belt? You know, OK, TX, places like that? Yeah, the discussions you describe do not exist there. I happen to live in OK, and have met very few who even acknowledge the existance of other religions. I'm happy those discussions happen somewhere, but not where I live, unfortunately. Saving grace of the internet, I guess.
where exactly in OK do you live? Because I live here and have wonderful civil discussions about religion. I think I tend to go looking for it though, as I enjoy those types of discussions.

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

Since none of us* are born 'religious'... indeed, since none of us even can comprehend 'religion' at birth, we ALL try Atheism.... for a while.

(* Except, maybe the Dalai Lama)

Since none of us* are born 'religious'... indeed, since none of us even can comprehend 'religion' at birth, we ALL try Atheism.... for a while.

(* Except, maybe the Dalai Lama)

Strictly speaking can someone be an atheist until they have a concept of god/s to not beleive in?

I don't like this challenge. I'd just assume to let theists remain theists all the time.

I tried, but God kept leaving messages on my machine.
Or was it is somebody pretending to be a god.

so, why did you become a muslim dude anyways:confused:

It was deemed necessary.

I think that there is no reason to pray 5 times a day even if you are muslim, better to life a good life, and obey the 10 comandments.
If God is up there he wont give shit about how often you prayed, he'll give shit about what you did!

Unfortunately, God gave more than 10 commandments. In Torah, there are 613 commandments.

If God didn't give a shit how we prayed, God would not have told us how.

Just a question, but have you lived in the bible belt? You know, OK, TX, places like that?

Lived in Texas my whole life. Yeah, there are rat bastards out there who wouldn't piss on me if I were on fire because I'm not Christian, but those people are no more Christian than I am.

He recieved a vision of Jesus in the shower.

True! Glad someone's paying attention. :)

I was an atheist for a while before actually learning about Christianity, now I am Christian...

Are you refering to when you were an infant, or were you born in some hidden tribe in the amazon rainforest?

Because neither counts. To be an atheist, you have to consciously reject religion. Which an infant is incapable of.

I guess you could be a tribal atheist however, if you reject whatever your tribal beliefs are. If that is the case, sorry that our civilized diseases seem to have taken you once you mind has awakened.

Since none of us* are born 'religious'... indeed, since none of us even can comprehend 'religion' at birth, we ALL try Atheism.... for a while.
(* Except, maybe the Dalai Lama)

Wrong. See above post.

I'm more a fan ot the Invisible Pink Unicorn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_pink_unicorn).

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."


Yeah, the IPU has a cool tag line, but I find it easier to say I worship a pasta creature than a pink unicorn. It's more manly. Since only girls like unicorns. And pink. Now, if were an invisible green dragon...

Strictly speaking can someone be an atheist until they have a concept of god/s to not beleive in?

One cannot be an EXPLICIT Atheist, until one encounters the concpet of 'god/s'... which is the reason I consider Explicit Atheism to be on equal footing to a religious view.

However, not even knowing what a god is means that one lacks belief, implicitly...

Thus, until one learns what 'god/s' is/are, one is automatically an Implicit Atheist.

It was deemed necessary.
Explain a little more please.

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.
Hon, that's like asking a alcoholic to go dry for a week and then report the results. Even if they could do it (which many of them can't), they're still just a dry alcoholic. If people really could kick the God habit that easily then there'd be no more religion in the world.

Are you refering to when you were an infant, or were you born in some hidden tribe in the amazon rainforest?

Because neither counts. To be an atheist, you have to consciously reject religion. Which an infant is incapable of.

I guess you could be a tribal atheist however, if you reject whatever your tribal beliefs are. If that is the case, sorry that our civilized diseases seem to have taken you once you mind has awakened.

You, my friend, are drawing false conclusions, based on an incomplete understanding of what an 'Atheist' is:

Your point is valid, IF we are discussing Explicit Atheists (Those who believe their is evidence of a LACK of 'god/s')... but not if we are discussing Implicit Atheists (Those who believe there is a lack of EVIDENCE of 'god/s').

Hon, that's like asking a alcoholic to go dry for a week and then report the results. Even if they could do it (which many of them can't), they're still just a dry alcoholic. If people really could kick the God habit that easily then there'd be no more religion in the world.

This does, of course, assume that everybody shares your opinion that the "God habit" is a bad thing that is to be "kicked". Many do not.

This does, of course, assume that everybody shares your opinion that the "God habit" is a bad thing that is to be "kicked". Many do not.
Just like there are plenty of drunks who see nothing wrong with alcoholism. What's your point?

You, my friend, are drawing false conclusions, based on an incomplete understanding of what an 'Atheist' is:

Your point is valid, IF we are discussing Explicit Atheists (Those who believe their is evidence of a LACK of 'god/s')... but not if we are discussing Implicit Atheists (Those who believe there is a lack of EVIDENCE of 'god/s').

Aren't Implicit Atheists also inherently "Agnostic-Atheists"? I've always thought of Implicit Atheism as what amounts to a suspension of belief awaiting further possible evidence, resting in the default position of "no God". Is that correct?

You, my friend, are drawing false conclusions, based on an incomplete understanding of what an 'Atheist' is:

Your point is valid, IF we are discussing Explicit Atheists (Those who believe their is evidence of a LACK of 'god/s')... but not if we are discussing Implicit Atheists (Those who believe there is a lack of EVIDENCE of 'god/s').
Why not use more precise terms? A atheist is one who disbelieves god/gods, while an agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether or not god(s) exists. All humans are born agnostic, in that we do not have access to enough information to know whether or not God exists. Some humans are taught to profess belief in that which they cannot know, and to glorify their own lack of knowledge, while others reject belief in the unknowable as silly, dishonest, insane, or simply unnecessary.

In other words, we all start out not knowing as well as not caring. Most of us learn to care, one way or the other, and become either superstitious or ardently atheist. A few of us remain utterly uninterested in the entire mess.

Just like there are plenty of drunks who see nothing wrong with alcoholism. What's your point?

*chuckles* I can see we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree on this issue.

Have you ever met a religious person who really, REALLY wanted to stop believing in God, but just couldn't because they were so addicted? Have you ever met an alcholic who said "Oh, alcoholism looks cool. I think I'll do that." and made a conscious decision to become an alcoholic?

Why not use more precise terms? A atheist is one who disbelieves god/gods, while an agnostic is a person who believes it is not possible to know whether or not god(s) exists. All humans are born agnostic, in that we do not have access to enough information to know whether or not God exists. Some humans are taught to profess belief in that which they cannot know, and to glorify their own lack of knowledge, while others reject belief in the unknowable as silly, dishonest, insane, or simply unnecessary.

Actually, isn't an Atheist someone who "does not believe in gods"?

So, everyone would be born as (Implicit) Atheist: not believing.

An Explicit Atheist however does not only not believe in God, but says that there can be no gods.

To be an Agnostic would require that you have already knowledge about the concept of gods, since you cannot make statements about concepts without those concepts (no one says "I don't think we have a way of knowing wether there are gods" without knowledge of the concept of gods).

So, we wouldn't be born Agnostic.

Aren't Implicit Atheists also inherently "Agnostic-Atheists"? I've always thought of Implicit Atheism as what amounts to a suspension of belief awaiting further possible evidence, resting in the default position of "no God". Is that correct?

It is true that Implicit Atheism tends to be 'skeptical'... and, indeed, that the Implicit Athiest and Agnostic viewpoints coincide and overlap.

But, Agnosticism is about what one believes it is possible to EVER know (i.e. whether god/s exist/s)...

Which means one can lack belief in 'god/s', but think it is [b]possible[/i] to know for sure... which, I guess would make you a Gnostic (Implicit) Atheist.

Or - one can lack belief in 'god/s', but think it is [b]impossible[/i] to know for sure... which, I guess would make you an Agnostic (Implicit) Atheist.

etc.

I don't know quite where that leaves those of us that lack belief, and also lack a conviction about whether it is possible to know.... Implicit Agnostic Implicit Atheist... maybe?

*chuckles* I can see we're probably going to have to just agree to disagree on this issue.

Have you ever met a religious person who really, REALLY wanted to stop believing in God, but just couldn't because they were so addicted?

Actually, my best friend is a fellow who has been struggling to kick his religious addiction for years. He identifies as an atheist right now, but constantly has to deal with many ingrained religious beliefs that he consciously knows are not healthy. His strict religious upbringing has left him with many emotional and psychological issues that it has taken years for him to fully recognize, and he may never be able to fully repair many of them. It is extremely hard to undo conditioning that has been imposed on somebody for the first 20 years of their life.

Have you ever met an alcholic who said "Oh, alcoholism looks cool. I think I'll do that." and made a conscious decision to become an alcoholic?Sure, haven't you? Of course, they don't call it alcoholism, they just call it "drinking," but that's the same game that religions play...putting on a positive spin, or down-playing negative aspects of a given behavior, in order to convince yourself that it's okay. People often choose to pursue dangerous, unhealthy, and unsafe activities, and they usually do it by convincing themselves that it's not really a big deal, or even that it's the right thing to do.

Also, the vast majority of serious alcoholics share a major factor in common with the majority of the strongly religious: heredity. Children who grow up in alcoholic homes are at very high risk for developing substance abuse issues, just as children who grow up in religious homes are at very high risk for developing superstition-dependence. They don't "consciously" choose to go down this road; the decision was largely made for them. They may learn to overcome their problem, or they may be lucky enough to simply dodge the bullet entirely, but many will simply give in.

Actually, isn't an Atheist someone who "does not believe in gods"?
So, everyone would be born as (Implicit) Atheist: not believing.
An Explicit Atheist however does not only not believe in God, but says that there can be no gods.
To be an Agnostic would require that you have already knowledge about the concept of gods, since you cannot make statements about concepts without those concepts (no one says "I don't think we have a way of knowing wether there are gods" without knowledge of the concept of gods).
So, we wouldn't be born Agnostic.

No. An atheist (regardless of whatever made-up categories someone tells you) has an affirmative belief. There is/are no god/gods. If you have not been exposed to the concept of a higher power, you cannot make a willing choice to reject religion.

Agnostic is a more proper term for an infant, unless someone can find an infant who can explain his/her belief system to us and refute logical conclusions. If you do not know about god, then "you don't know".

Actually, isn't an Atheist someone who "does not believe in gods"?

So, everyone would be born as (Implicit) Atheist: not believing.

An Explicit Atheist however does not only not believe in God, but says that there can be no gods.

To be an Agnostic would require that you have already knowledge about the concept of gods, since you cannot make statements about concepts without those concepts (no one says "I don't think we have a way of knowing wether there are gods" without knowledge of the concept of gods).

So, we wouldn't be born Agnostic.
Hmm, I think the problem is that the terms are so often misused that people (myself most definitely included) tend to lose track of the actual meanings. Your definitions make sense, so I recind my suggestion...let's go with your word use.

It is true that Implicit Atheism tends to be 'skeptical'... and, indeed, that the Implicit Athiest and Agnostic viewpoints coincide and overlap.

But, Agnosticism is about what one believes it is possible to EVER know (i.e. whether god/s exist/s)...

Which means one can lack belief in 'god/s', but think it is [b]possible[/i] to know for sure... which, I guess would make you a Gnostic (Implicit) Atheist.

Or - one can lack belief in 'god/s', but think it is [b]impossible[/i] to know for sure... which, I guess would make you an Agnostic (Implicit) Atheist.

etc.

I don't know quite where that leaves those of us that lack belief, and also lack a conviction about whether it is possible to know.... Implicit Agnostic Implicit Atheist... maybe?

Heh, sounds like a fair, if perhaps a little wordy, name for you guys.

No. An atheist (regardless of whatever made-up categories someone tells you) has an affirmative belief. There is/are no god/gods. If you have not been exposed to the concept of a higher power, you cannot make a willing choice to reject religion.

Agnostic is a more proper term for an infant, unless someone can find an infant who can explain his/her belief system to us and refute logical conclusions. If you do not know about god, then "you don't know".

Nope.

I do not: Believe that there are no gods.

I do: Don't believe.

So: No belief here.

Therefore: My Implicit Atheism is not based on belief, but the LACK thereof.

Actually, my best friend is a fellow who has been struggling to kick his religious addiction for years. He identifies as an atheist right now, but constantly has to deal with many ingrained religious beliefs that he consciously knows are not healthy. His strict religious upbringing has left him with many emotional and psychological issues that it has taken years for him to fully recognize, and he may never be able to fully repair many of them. It is extremely hard to undo conditioning that has been imposed on somebody for the first 20 years of their life. What kind of "ingrained religious beliefs"? Are you talking about a way of looking at the world, morality, what? How do these harm him?… we all have had experiences that have drastically changed our worldviews, whether we like it or not.

Sure, haven't you? Of course, they don't call it alcoholism, they just call it "drinking," but that's the same game that religions play...putting on a positive spin, or down-playing negative aspects of a given behavior, in order to convince yourself that it's okay. People often choose to pursue dangerous, unhealthy, and unsafe activities, and they usually do it by convincing themselves that it's not really a big deal, or even that it's the right thing to do. This might be relevant if whatever religion you're talking about encouraged unhealthy behaviour or selfish behaviour

Also, the vast majority of serious alcoholics share a major factor in common with the majority of the strongly religious: heredity. Children who grow up in alcoholic homes are at very high risk for developing substance abuse issues, just as children who grow up in religious homes are at very high risk for developing superstition-dependence. They don't "consciously" choose to go down this road; the decision was largely made for them. They may learn to overcome their problem, or they may be lucky enough to simply dodge the bullet entirely, but many will simply give in. What is superstition-dependence? As far as I know it's not a recognised psychological condition.

Actually, my best friend is a fellow who has been struggling to kick his religious addiction for years. He identifies as an atheist right now, but constantly has to deal with many ingrained religious beliefs that he consciously knows are not healthy. His strict religious upbringing has left him with many emotional and psychological issues that it has taken years for him to fully recognize, and he may never be able to fully repair many of them. It is extremely hard to undo conditioning that has been imposed on somebody for the first 20 years of their life.
Sure, haven't you? Of course, they don't call it alcoholism, they just call it "drinking," but that's the same game that religions play...putting on a positive spin, or down-playing negative aspects of a given behavior, in order to convince yourself that it's okay. People often choose to pursue dangerous, unhealthy, and unsafe activities, and they usually do it by convincing themselves that it's not really a big deal, or even that it's the right thing to do.

Hmm, sounds more like issue with his upbrining than with religion itself. Of course, I don't know the guy, so I'm only guessing based on what you said here.

You seem to assume that all religion is dangerous, unhealthy and unsafe. That's a valid opinion, but it's only opinion. I seriously doubt that there is any conclusive evidence to back it up. Supposition and conjecture don't count.

I agree that religion, like alcohol, is unsafe and unhealthy in the hands (or, in this case, the minds) of certain people, but I don't make wild claims that alcohol (or religion) is inherently unsafe or unhealthy as long the person using it knows what they're doing and doesn't let it control their lives. But then, I also disagree that religion and alcoholism are even remotely analogous.


Also, the vast majority of serious alcoholics share a major factor in common with the majority of the strongly religious: heredity. Children who grow up in alcoholic homes are at very high risk for developing substance abuse issues, just as children who grow up in religious homes are at very high risk for developing superstition-dependence. They don't "consciously" choose to go down this road; the decision was largely made for them. They may learn to overcome their problem, or they may be lucky enough to simply dodge the bullet entirely, but many will simply give in.

This is true, and I do have a problem with this. I tend to think people need to deal honestly and seriously with their own spirituality (or lack thereof), and not just go the way their upbringing has led them because it's easier. If they, after serious consideration and exploration, choose to go back to the faith they were brought up in, or choose another, or eschew spirituality altogether, I think that's great. If people don't think about it for themselves, I don't think it's all that healthy, but in the end it's not really any of my business. Of course, as I said, I think the idea that alcoholism is analagous to religion is a ridiculous notion.

No. An atheist (regardless of whatever made-up categories someone tells you) has an affirmative belief. There is/are no god/gods. If you have not been exposed to the concept of a higher power, you cannot make a willing choice to reject religion.

Agnostic is a more proper term for an infant, unless someone can find an infant who can explain his/her belief system to us and refute logical conclusions. If you do not know about god, then "you don't know".

This is just silly. I am an Atheist. My Atheism is defined not by the fact that I actively believe there are no 'Gods'.... but, by virtue of the fact that I have looked for truth in MANY places.... including religion, and I cannot 'believe' in any gods.

I don't state that there are none. I do not know.

I certainly don't believe in any, though....

You seem to think Atheism is about 'rejecting' religion.... but I am not 'rejecting' it... I just don't accept it.

Well you as a muslim pray to god, so does the christians the jews, and maybe some other i don't know, the other religions i have never understoood.

Islam, anyways is in realety just an edition of chritianety where jesus isn't digged as much, and you are forbidden to eat bacoen


You didn't just say that... Goodness me... I hope you were joking because, even though im not muslim, i take offence to that...
Thats like saying "Harry Potter" is like an edition of "Lord Of The Rings" simply because they're both printed on paper.

Also, if you don't understand something... feel free to ask, and use Wikipedia - if you do actually care, you'll be intrigued, i assure you.

Though mind you, i'm sure you meant that in good faith - just... its not an edition or variation of christianity.

The Islamic (i believe) and Jewish faiths were born many years before christ. And the Old Testament will probably create strong links between Judaism and the Quran (I think thats how its spelt). As for the particulars - I leave that to those who know them.

This is just silly. I am an Atheist. My Atheism is defined not by the fact that I actively believe there are no 'Gods'.... but, by virtue of the fact that I have looked for truth in MANY places.... including religion, and I cannot 'believe' in any gods.

I don't state that there are none. I do not know.

I certainly don't believe in any, though....

You seem to think Atheism is about 'rejecting' religion.... but I am not 'rejecting' it... I just don't accept it.
Yes; you have looked for a "truth" of god in many places and not found anything you can believe in. This creates a philosophical stance, one that says, "I cannot believe in God or gods."

The child, the infant, cannot have a philosophical stance, it cannot even conceive of such; so to call a child a theist, atheist or agnostic is equally silly, in my opinion.

Though mind you, i'm sure you meant that in good faith - just... its not an edition or variation of christianity.

The Islamic (i believe) and Jewish faiths were born many years before christ. And the Old Testament will probably create strong links between Judaism and the Quran (I think thats how its spelt). As for the particulars - I leave that to those who know them.

Islam was, I believe, founded in the 6th Century AD, so it was some time after Christ. Judaism is, obviously, quite a bit older than Christianity.

I saw a documentary last night called "Children of Abraham", which was a very interesting look at the three big Abramic faiths; their differences and similiarities. I'd recommend it to anyone who's looking for a bit of basic information on the three faiths and how they linked historically and interact with each other in modern times.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

What kind of "ingrained religious beliefs"? Are you talking about a way of looking at the world, morality, what? How do these harm him?… we all have had experiences that have drastically changed our worldviews, whether we like it or not.

I don't want to go on too much of a hijack, but basically what it boils down to is that he must "re-invent the wheel" when it comes to morality, now that he has realized that all his moral beliefs were resting on a series of false premises. He still will have knee-jerk reactions to certain things (his gut reaction saying "that's wrong!" or "that's wicked!"), even though he consciously knows that the only reason he has those reactions is because he was taught they were hell-worthy offenses.

It's a bit like clinical depression, when negative thoughts spring into your head unbidden; you find yourself thinking, "I'm worthless, there's no point in living, I'm a failure," even when your rational mind knows that these things are untrue. It can take a very long time to learn how to cope with these feelings, even after you identify them as products of your illness.


This might be relevant if whatever religion you're talking about encouraged unhealthy behaviour or selfish behaviour

Well, this is another area where we are unlikely to be able to agree, because I believe that superstitious delusions are themselves unhealthy in any adult of mature mental capacity. Religions that encourage any superstitious beliefs are, therefore, encouraging unhealthy behavior.


What is superstition-dependence? As far as I know it's not a recognised psychological condition.
Superstition-dependence is extremely widespread. For instance, you will often encounter people who insist that without God there is no reason to be good. Some go even farther, saying that without God/gods there is no reason to live at all. Many people openly admit that they could not "get through it" without their superstitious beliefs.

Whether or not this dependence is unhealthy is the subject of much debate. I view it as equivalent to drug addiction; for some people, it is amazingly destructive and unhealthy, while for others it is just kind of a background vice. Some people are able to do amazing things while addicted to drugs or religion (often both). Some people turn to drugs/religion in times of pain or loss, and some find themselves "hooked" thereafter. There is no one picture of superstition addiction, just as there is no simple picture of drug addiction, gambling addiction, or sex addiction.

Naturally, superstition addiction is not recognized as a psychological disorder, because the vast majority of human beings are superstitious; a disorder is clinically defined, in broad terms, as an abnormal and maladaptive behavior, but superstition is both normal and often praised in society. It's kind of like how blindness wouldn't be refered to as a "handicap" if 90% of humans were blind.

However, the mental health profession faces an ongoing dilema with superstition. Right now, a person who deeply believes that aliens are monitoring us from space is considered to suffer from a delusion, but a person who believes that an all-powerful all-seeing diety is monitoring us from space is considered "normal." These definitions are becoming increasingly problematic as cases of religious fanaticism become more prominent.

Could I possibly suggest a slight variation on the initial challenge? One that can possibly extend to the less theistic among us too?

Try living a week where your view of spirituality is undriven by what other human organisations have fed you with. Momentarily throw aside everything anyone has ever said about God or Spirits and analyse your spirituality in that context. Pick at that little internal rationale that resonates with what you currently believe; is there any way to make it ring in this quoteless environment? Can you explain what it is by exploring it independently of what other people have attributed it to?

Similarly, the challenge to Atheists is to completely ignore organisational statements about divinity and instead focus on the personal issues. Is your opposition to the notion of deity so strong without the agenda of human groups promoting it? What is it about the idea that seems inherently mistaken? Is there any way in which, Mythologically, there might be some insight to be gained in looking at the world as if there was a benevolent power overlooking it or by personifying various aspects of our existence with these abstract "God" figures? Might there, perhaps, be a more effective way to do the same thing?

A week where Religious Organisation is overlooked, Historical attributation to the supernatural set aside and we pretend Pat Robertson never existed. What have you got to lose?

Yes; you have looked for a "truth" of god in many places and not found anything you can believe in. This creates a philosophical stance, one that says, "I cannot believe in God or gods."

The child, the infant, cannot have a philosophical stance, it cannot even conceive of such; so to call a child a theist, atheist or agnostic is equally silly, in my opinion.

An "Atheist" is someone who doesn't believe. That may be based on a "philosophical stance", but that is not necessarily so. It's basically just a lack of belief for whatever reason.

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Sir Stephen Henry Roberts (1901-1971)

Welcome! I see you avoided the use of the gun-smilies. A promising start!

That's a catchy quote, of course. Personally, I don't dismiss any gods. I am, I suppose, what you would call "Agnostic-Theist" in regards to gods other than my own bunch. I have had no dealings with other gods myself, so I don't know anything about them for sure, but I give them the benefit of the doubt.

hmm, does anyone understand that if you believe in god you cant just stop for a week?

you cant just wake up in the morning and say theres no god, and the same the other way around. quite frankly you have to be convinced one way or another.

Could I possibly suggest a slight variation on the initial challenge? One that can possibly extend to the less theistic among us too?

Try living a week where your view of spirituality is undriven by what other human organisations have fed you with. Momentarily throw aside everything anyone has ever said about God or Spirits and analyse your spirituality in that context. Pick at that little internal rationale that resonates with what you currently believe; is there any way to make it ring in this quoteless environment? Can you explain what it is by exploring it independently of what other people have attributed it to?

<snip!>

A week where Religious Organisation is overlooked, Historical attributation to the supernatural set aside and we pretend Pat Robertson never existed. What have you got to lose?

This is essentially what I did for a couple of years after I realised my period of atheism was most likely just a result of my angsty teenaged mind rebelling against what I considered the evil oppression of my Catholic extended family. My immediate family was and is beautifully apathetic when it comes to matters spiritual, but I had to rebel against something, right? I can tell you, I really believed the tired, old rhetoric I was spouting at the time too. After a while it just began to ring hollow in my own ears.

But after that, I started exploring my spirituality. I was (and still am, to an extent) fiercely individualstic about those things and refused to let my personal spirituality be governed by some organisation, so I did all the "work" myself. My own experiences during this period, including one extremely profound experience, led me to where I am now. These days, I find my thinking often runs along similar lines to that of Per-Ankh, though I'm not a member of the temple(s).

I tried the atheist bit for a few months, at the behest of a beautiful woman. ( I have tried several silly things at the behest of beautiful women---except illegal stuff. That I refused, cause I don't want to go to jail or have a criminal record)

She had ridiculed my constant praying and Bible reading. So I decided to give it a try.

No praying, no Bible, no singing hymns, no church, etc.

I noticed the difference. I began to feel empty. I missed talking to God. And my life began to change, in subtley bad ways. Began to be late to work, began to miss bus connections, life became gloomier, darkness began to close in...

I had to go back to God. And He welcomed me back. All was well again. Life was still full of crap, my employer still wouldn't hire me full time (I worked at the same company as a temp for 8 years!), but I sure felt better, and the little things began to go right again.

Interestingly, I later found out that the reason I was not hired for 8 years, was because my supervisor didn't like me being a Christian and a conservative and black...:rolleyes:

Yes; you have looked for a "truth" of god in many places and not found anything you can believe in. This creates a philosophical stance, one that says, "I cannot believe in God or gods."

The child, the infant, cannot have a philosophical stance, it cannot even conceive of such; so to call a child a theist, atheist or agnostic is equally silly, in my opinion.

Atheism can, at heart, be defined as a lack of Theism.

The infant has no 'Theism'.

Thus, we are born Atheists.

I tried the atheist bit for a few months, at the behest of a beautiful woman. ( I have tried several silly things at the behest of beautiful women---except illegal stuff. That I refused, cause I don't want to go to jail or have a criminal record)

She had ridiculed my constant praying and Bible reading. So I decided to give it a try.

No praying, no Bible, no singing hymns, no church, etc.

I noticed the difference. I began to feel empty. I missed talking to God. And my life began to change, in subtley bad ways. Began to be late to work, began to miss bus connections, life became gloomier, darkness began to close in...

I had to go back to God. And He welcomed me back. All was well again. Life was still full of crap, my employer still wouldn't hire me full time (I worked at the same company as a temp for 8 years!), but I sure felt better, and the little things began to go right again.

Interestingly, I later found out that the reason I was not hired for 8 years, was because my supervisor didn't like me being a Christian and a conservative and black...:rolleyes:

I think, my friend, you may be placing Descartes before the horse...

You make a connection between your 'thinking' and 'am-ing' that is not necessarily true.

I am an Atheist, and I have been late to work twice, in a decade... (one time because I was driving on black ice...)

You make some cause-and-effect assertions, but, perhaps you have them in reverse? Perhaps, whatever was keeping you up SO late you couldn't get up for work, also caused you to question your faith?

I see no evidence to automatically link Atheism (or any other religious opinion) with any of the negative effects you suggest.

Atheism can, at heart, be defined as a lack of Theism.

The infant has no 'Theism'.

Thus, we are born Atheists.
Yes, but I am much more comfortable with the way you define it.

Yes, but I am much more comfortable with the way you define it.

Even in my definition, the child still 'lacks belief'... and that seems like the fingerprint of the Atheist (Implicit, at least) to me.

Atheism can, at heart, be defined as a lack of Theism.

The infant has no 'Theism'.

Thus, we are born Atheists.

That's true, if we take the word "Atheism" at face value without thinking about what it means in common usage. However, the word doesn't exist in a vacuum, so I would hesitate to attach it to infants (or, say, rocks which also have no grasp of the concept of "God").

That's true, if we take the word "Atheism" at face value without thinking about what it means in common usage. However, the word doesn't exist in a vacuum, so I would hesitate to attach it to infants (or, say, rocks which also have no grasp of the concept of "God").

Indeed. I am just exploring etymology as an evidence.

Of course, you can argue that Theism implies a CAPACITY for understanding or belief.... In which case (you could argue) a-theism is the CAPACITY, without the understanding or belief..... no?

Originally Posted by Swilatia
This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

Hon, that's like asking a alcoholic to go dry for a week and then report the results. Even if they could do it (which many of them can't), they're still just a dry alcoholic. If people really could kick the God habit that easily then there'd be no more religion in the world.

Although,.. if one accepts the proposition that atheism is an a-theistic
religion, then you've described a distinction without a difference.

If everyone (under the proposed proposition) is a religion addict, then there's
no difference WHICH religion is the drug,.. and your side-taking (that non-
atheists are all drug addicts while atheists are "sober") is rather silly and not
overly nice.

-Iakeo :)

Indeed. I am just exploring etymology as an evidence.

Of course, you can argue that Theism implies a CAPACITY for understanding or belief.... In which case (you could argue) a-theism is the CAPACITY, without the understanding or belief..... no?

Sounds reasonable to me. I think to really be "theistic" or "atheistic" you must have come in contact with the concept of God, understood it and done something with it. In the theist's case, embraced it in some way or in the atheist's case, dismissed it.

I'm not sure really what you would call a person (like an infant) who cannot even grasp the concept so that they might mentally do something with it.

Actually, my best friend is a fellow who has been struggling to kick his religious addiction for years. He identifies as an atheist right now, but constantly has to deal with many ingrained religious beliefs that he consciously knows are not healthy. His strict religious upbringing has left him with many emotional and psychological issues that it has taken years for him to fully recognize, and he may never be able to fully repair many of them. It is extremely hard to undo conditioning that has been imposed on somebody for the first 20 years of their life.

What you're describing is not a "religious person",.. you are describing a cult
member.

I agree with you entirely that the institution that "inflicted" this maltreatment
on your friend was an evil enterprise,.. but I contend that it was not an
institution of religion.

It was a cult of personality (which nearly all cults are) that work for the
agrandizement of "the leader" (and his/her subordinates).


Sure, haven't you? Of course, they don't call it alcoholism, they just call it "drinking," but that's the same game that religions play...putting on a positive spin, or down-playing negative aspects of a given behavior, in order to convince yourself that it's okay. People often choose to pursue dangerous, unhealthy, and unsafe activities, and they usually do it by convincing themselves that it's not really a big deal, or even that it's the right thing to do.

Also, the vast majority of serious alcoholics share a major factor in common with the majority of the strongly religious: heredity. Children who grow up in alcoholic homes are at very high risk for developing substance abuse issues, just as children who grow up in religious homes are at very high risk for developing superstition-dependence. They don't "consciously" choose to go down this road; the decision was largely made for them. They may learn to overcome their problem, or they may be lucky enough to simply dodge the bullet entirely, but many will simply give in.

My belief is that religion is not hereditary,.. it is biologically inherent in all
living things (including humans).

Religion is not a drug. Stupid beliefs and submission to cults is a drug.

Religion is simply that place where one's beliefs (world view) intersects with
reality, and how one deals with reality.

Your religion contains a "tenet" to fight evil cults that hurt people.

That is also part of my religion.

-Iakeo

I think, my friend, you may be placing Descartes before the horse...

You make a connection between your 'thinking' and 'am-ing' that is not necessarily true.

I am an Atheist, and I have been late to work twice, in a decade... (one time because I was driving on black ice...)

You make some cause-and-effect assertions, but, perhaps you have them in reverse? Perhaps, whatever was keeping you up SO late you couldn't get up for work, also caused you to question your faith?

I see no evidence to automatically link Atheism (or any other religious opinion) with any of the negative effects you suggest.

To be honest I have noticed an emptiness in my life too when i became an agnostic, but as a quote by Winston Chruchill (i think) "Occasionally people stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and go on like nothing happened" which goes with truth hurts and ignorance is bliss. Also, I can't bring myself to blindly follow anything. Although can christians answer the question that stated me on this path? If the wourld was made in 7 days and we were here from the (almost) beginning, where was the dinosaurs?

sorry for going a bit off topic there

Sounds reasonable to me. I think to really be "theistic" or "atheistic" you must have come in contact with the concept of God, understood it and done something with it. In the theist's case, embraced it in some way or in the atheist's case, dismissed it.

I'm not sure really what you would call a person (like an infant) who cannot even grasp the concept so that they might mentally do something with it.

Well, I don't find that 'blissful ignorance' incompatible with the definition of Implicit Atheism. After all, as the saying suggests, EVERYONE is someone's 'atheist'... even those who 'HAVE' a 'god', lack belief in (or deny) a whole world of other gods.... and are probably unaware of most of those...

Even in my definition, the child still 'lacks belief'... and that seems like the fingerprint of the Atheist (Implicit, at least) to me.
No conscious being lacks beliefs... but, of course, you meant a specific belief.

Originally Posted by AllCoolNamesAreTaken
No. An atheist (regardless of whatever made-up categories someone tells you) has an affirmative belief. There is/are no god/gods. If you have not been exposed to the concept of a higher power, you cannot make a willing choice to reject religion.

Agnostic is a more proper term for an infant, unless someone can find an infant who can explain his/her belief system to us and refute logical conclusions. If you do not know about god, then "you don't know".

Nope.

I do not: Believe that there are no gods.

I do: Don't believe.

So: No belief here.

Therefore: My Implicit Atheism is not based on belief, but the LACK thereof.

You speak nonsense.

When you say you simply "Do not believe" what do you not believe in?

And why do you hold that belief? (trick question)

You certainly hold an opinion as to whether you have a belief.

What is the difference between opinion and belief?

-Iakeo

What you're describing is not a "religious person",.. you are describing a cult
member.

I agree with you entirely that the institution that "inflicted" this maltreatment
on your friend was an evil enterprise,.. but I contend that it was not an
institution of religion.

It was a cult of personality (which nearly all cults are) that work for the
agrandizement of "the leader" (and his/her subordinates).



My belief is that religion is not hereditary,.. it is biologically inherent in all
living things (including humans).

Religion is not a drug. Stupid beliefs and submission to cults is a drug.

Religion is simply that place where one's beliefs (world view) intersects with
reality, and how one deals with reality.

Your religion contains a "tenet" to fight evil cults that hurt people.

That is also part of my religion.

-Iakeo


I could argue based on what you said that catholicism is the world's largest cult but Im not in the mood right now and since this probably would end up causing flaming and this is a nice thread so far

Well, I don't find that 'blissful ignorance' incompatible with the definition of Implicit Atheism. After all, as the saying suggests, EVERYONE is someone's 'atheist'... even those who 'HAVE' a 'god', lack belief in (or deny) a whole world of other gods.... and are probably unaware of most of those...

I suppose it depends on what 'kind' of Implicit Atheism. I tend to think there is a difference between "lack of belief in the object of the concept" and "lack of any contact with or a basic grasp of the concept". But maybe you're right. It does fit, but it just seems.. a little clumsy, I suppose. Imprecise.

I suppose it depends on what 'kind' of Implicit Atheism. I tend to think there is a difference between "lack of belief in the object of the concept" and "lack of any contact with or a basic grasp of the concept". But maybe you're right. It does fit, but it just seems.. a little clumsy, I suppose. Imprecise.
Thank you!

What is the difference between opinion and belief?
The difference is one of conviction. An opinion is just something you have. A belief is something you're proud to have and will act on.

Thank you!

Nekhtet! You're most welcome.

Now... what did I do?:confused:

This is just silly. I am an Atheist. My Atheism is defined not by the fact that I actively believe there are no 'Gods'.... but, by virtue of the fact that I have looked for truth in MANY places.... including religion, and I cannot 'believe' in any gods.

I don't state that there are none. I do not know.

I certainly don't believe in any, though....

You seem to think Atheism is about 'rejecting' religion.... but I am not 'rejecting' it... I just don't accept it.

You simply don't believe that "gods" (whatever that means to you) exist.

That is a belief (as I know it). A belief you have "faith" in (as I know faith).
(A *VERY* worthy faith and belief in my opinion!)

That is all that is required for ME to proclaim your "belief and faith" a religion
(as I know it).

My proclaiming your belief and faith as a religion is utterly irrelevent to your
operation in this world, unless you find it pleasing or annoying or whatever,
and is for you to deal with as you wish.

I don't believe in "Gods", or even "the God of a people", by the way. I do
believe in God (the one) though, and I know [just as the atheist KNOWS)
that it is a universal principle.

(I *DO* believe in the fun make-believe gods and spirits that allow us to play
games with each other. As long as they are acknowledged as make-believe.)

-Iakeo

Nekhtet! You're most welcome.

Now... what did I do?:confused:
Heh. I am having increasing difficulty with words as the years pass. You put into words something that was on the "tip" of my brain.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

You think belief is something people can switch on and off?

This is ridiculous. All religious people were once atheists. Besides, you can't "try atheism." Also, by claiming that you can, you are admitting that atheism is an affirmative belief system. The only real "I don't know" view is agnosticism, which is a system of unfinished logical deductions.

You speak nonsense.

When you say you simply "Do not believe" what do you not believe in?

I don't believe in gods.

And why do you hold that belief? (trick question)

I do not hold a belief. I lack it.

You certainly hold an opinion as to whether you have a belief.

Yes, I do. I don't have any beliefs.

What is the difference between opinion and belief?

Well, some would say that you can't choose to believe. You do believe or you don't.

You can change your opinion in an active process, but not so your belief.

A belief requires a leap of faith. An opinion does not.

An opinion may have the possibility to be proven. A belief not.

I'm sure there's more.

Even in my definition, the child still 'lacks belief'... and that seems like the fingerprint of the Atheist (Implicit, at least) to me.
The child 'lacks knowledge', and that is a different thing. 'Having a belief' is a specific context that requires an object of belief, something to believe about. That requires knowledge of the object.

'Lacking belief' in a general sense is not atheistic. Atheism is a lack of belief in god.

<snip!>
(I *DO* believe in the fun make-believe gods and spirits that allow us to play
games with each other. As long as they are acknowledged as make-believe.)

-Iakeo

So no prayers to Lathander or Umberlee for you, eh? :D

Heh. I am having increasing difficulty with words as the years pass. You put into words something that was on the "tip" of my brain.

Ahh, I see. Well then... Good! Happy to be of service.

To be honest I have noticed an emptiness in my life too when i became an agnostic, but as a quote by Winston Chruchill (i think) "Occasionally people stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and go on like nothing happened" which goes with truth hurts and ignorance is bliss. Also, I can't bring myself to blindly follow anything. Although can christians answer the question that stated me on this path? If the wourld was made in 7 days and we were here from the (almost) beginning, where was the dinosaurs?

sorry for going a bit off topic there

I believe I understand what you mean by "emptiness"... when I 'lost my faith', it was hard to accept that there was 'nobody up there'.... that, maybe 'nobody had a big picture'. My grief became my own. My guilt became my own. I became responsible for EVERY bad word and deed.

I felt an 'emptiness'... just as one might if they lost a family member or friend.... but MORE than that... because I was admitting I no longer believed in a support, a justification.... a certainty.

But, I've felt that 'emptiness' at other times, too... when you find out you can't trust a friend, for example.

That 'emptiness' is a realisation of SELF. Of individuality. A realisation that you have nobody to blame, but yourself.... and that what you do, is YOUR decision.


Refarding the dinosaur thing.... some Christians say fossils are an invention of Satan.... some claim that the Biblical "Leviathan" and "Behemoth" refer to dinosaurs.... and some take a more 'realistic' approach, and view the 'seven days" as a metaphor.

An "Atheist" is someone who doesn't believe. That may be based on a "philosophical stance", but that is not necessarily so. It's basically just a lack of belief for whatever reason.

Doesn't believe IN WHAT..!!?

An atheist is one who has (believes in) no GOD(s).

Specifically,. NO GOD(s)..!!

The only point in question about who is or isn't an atheist is their opinion of
the existence of GOD(s).

Belief is simply what one takes as (at any particular point) worth considering
as TRUE (believable).

Atheism is not a non-religion. It is a religion (set of beliefs) that has no need
(or belief) for God(s).

Most atheists are EXTEMELY RELIGIOUS, because they are FORCED to find
their moral compass from something other than theistic sources, which is a
more difficult path than inculcation from "the norm".

To sum up,.. atheists are NOT non-believers,.. they are otherwise-believers..!

-Iakeo

No conscious being lacks beliefs... but, of course, you meant a specific belief.

Oh, decisions, decisions....

Should I quibble 'degrees' of consciousness?

Or, should I demand evidence for the assertion "No conscious being lacks beliefs"???

Atheism with added beer, strippers, pirates and heaven.

Great taste, less fulfilling! :p

I suppose it depends on what 'kind' of Implicit Atheism. I tend to think there is a difference between "lack of belief in the object of the concept" and "lack of any contact with or a basic grasp of the concept". But maybe you're right. It does fit, but it just seems.. a little clumsy, I suppose. Imprecise.

That's the nature of the beast, though....

We don't use precise terms, because they are too restrictive....

All of our terms carry blurred boundaries.... when we call a man a Christian, we take as read his lack of faith in the saving virtue of Islam, and his implied lack of acceptance of the Bhagavad Gita.

Atheism can, at heart, be defined as a lack of Theism.

The infant has no 'Theism'.

Thus, we are born Atheists.

YES..!!!!!!!!

Leave it Grave to state the blindinly freakin' obvious, and essential truth.

..and to add,.. We are born Atheistic Super-religionists, because infants have
nothing BUT belief (believing completely what they percieve) to work with,
and are utterly dedicated to observation and growth as a human being.

Thus,.. the perfect person template.

The Super-religious Atheist.

(Which I suspect describes many MANY people here, if they'd agree on a few
simple terms, and get rid of their prejudicial/biased/angry
histories/personalities.)

-Iakeo

You simply don't believe that "gods" (whatever that means to you) exist.

That is a belief (as I know it). A belief you have "faith" in (as I know faith).
(A *VERY* worthy faith and belief in my opinion!)

That is all that is required for ME to proclaim your "belief and faith" a religion
(as I know it).

My proclaiming your belief and faith as a religion is utterly irrelevent to your
operation in this world, unless you find it pleasing or annoying or whatever,
and is for you to deal with as you wish.

I don't believe in "Gods", or even "the God of a people", by the way. I do
believe in God (the one) though, and I know [just as the atheist KNOWS)
that it is a universal principle.

(I *DO* believe in the fun make-believe gods and spirits that allow us to play
games with each other. As long as they are acknowledged as make-believe.)

-Iakeo

Just know that I will tick the 'none' box and religious sections of forms, and understand why... and I'll be happy for you to tick whichever box pleases you. :)

A wise philosopher once defined the nature of 'god', as "it is"...

I believe I understand what you mean by "emptiness"... when I 'lost my faith', it was hard to accept that there was 'nobody up there'.... that, maybe 'nobody had a big picture'. My grief became my own. My guilt became my own. I became responsible for EVERY bad word and deed.

I felt an 'emptiness'... just as one might if they lost a family member or friend.... but MORE than that... because I was admitting I no longer believed in a support, a justification.... a certainty.

But, I've felt that 'emptiness' at other times, too... when you find out you can't trust a friend, for example.

That 'emptiness' is a realisation of SELF. Of individuality. A realisation that you have nobody to blame, but yourself.... and that what you do, is YOUR decision.


Refarding the dinosaur thing.... some Christians say fossils are an invention of Satan.... some claim that the Biblical "Leviathan" and "Behemoth" refer to dinosaurs.... and some take a more 'realistic' approach, and view the 'seven days" as a metaphor.


The emptiness, I think, stems more from a sense of belonging that I don't have anymore now that I am not part of the club, and by the way as far as I know the enitre rest of my familiy is christian. Of course you're also as likely to be correct since I am too deep in the trees to see the forest.

Oh, decisions, decisions....

Should I quibble 'degrees' of consciousness?

Or, should I demand evidence for the assertion "No conscious being lacks beliefs"???

I demand evidence for consciousness!

And with that, I shall retire. I have to say, this thread turned into quite an interesting discussion. Have fun kids! I'll see where you rapscallions have taken this thread when I get my butt out of bed tomorrow.

That's true, if we take the word "Atheism" at face value without thinking about what it means in common usage. However, the word doesn't exist in a vacuum, so I would hesitate to attach it to infants (or, say, rocks which also have no grasp of the concept of "God").

Explain what you MEAN,.. not what you think someone might interpret what
you thought you might have meant given the current state of the cheese in
your refrigerator that you might or might not have eaten the day before.

Do not rely on "conventional wisdom", or conventional word meaning to fully
explain what you mean.

Simply work with the person you're trying ot communicate with, using
whatever words become appropriate, to mutually understand each other.

Go for understanding, not to impress or conquer.

-Iakeo

... I noticed the difference. I began to feel empty. I missed talking to God. And my life began to change, in subtley bad ways. Began to be late to work, began to miss bus connections, life became gloomier, darkness began to close in...

I had to go back to God. And He welcomed me back. All was well again. Life was still full of crap, my employer still wouldn't hire me full time (I worked at the same company as a temp for 8 years!), but I sure felt better, and the little things began to go right again...
Couldn't it be argued that your mistake was one of immediate transition?

Perhaps you could learn something from this. Don't you think there's something a little worrying about the fact that not attending church or reading the Bible results in a sense of isolation? That not engaging in a few built-in human motions directly affects you emotionally?

I think there's a middle road to reach here. The key is to not tie God down to ritual. You don't go to Church because you want an encounter with God or because you want to worship him; you can do either of those anywhere and any time you want! No, you go because there you can share the experience with those around you and enjoy each others' company in the process. You don't sit in and read the bible to learn about God; going out into society and helping those less fortunate than us teaches us more about his nature than sitting in the Wardrobe and musing quietly to ourselves. Prayer is not something reserved for five to ten minutes at night, nor is it something we explicitly need to make ourself do; it's an ongoing process of interaction and oneness with the divine that should be on constantly in the background.

So maybe your lady-friend has a point when she notes the bizarreness of your solo-bible reading and spontaneous prayer bursts. If our actions are repelling people from what we stand for, perhaps it's time to re-evaluate them. But that doesn't mean you have to give up the whole thing. The thing to remember is that the rituals we create are just an aid; not the be-all and end-all of what we believe.

I think, my friend, you may be placing Descartes before the horse...

You make a connection between your 'thinking' and 'am-ing' that is not necessarily true.

I am an Atheist, and I have been late to work twice, in a decade... (one time because I was driving on black ice...)

You make some cause-and-effect assertions, but, perhaps you have them in reverse? Perhaps, whatever was keeping you up SO late you couldn't get up for work, also caused you to question your faith?

I see no evidence to automatically link Atheism (or any other religious opinion) with any of the negative effects you suggest.

Not trying to suggest that anyone, atheist or theist, has anything happen in their lives solely due to their belief or lack thereof.

Just relating what happened to me. For me, there are immediate consequences for my actions, as though someone were watching me and zapping me or blessing me accordingly.

Doesn't mean that will happen for anyone else. After all, I may just be certifiable! Lord knows, it runs in my family...:p

The child 'lacks knowledge', and that is a different thing. 'Having a belief' is a specific context that requires an object of belief, something to believe about. That requires knowledge of the object.

'Lacking belief' in a general sense is not atheistic. Atheism is a lack of belief in god.

Perhaps true.... but, I would argue that our infant, being pure tabula rasa lacks belief in anything. Or, everything, if you prefer.

It is only because we are discussing religion, that we choose to focus on the infant's (lack of) belief in god/s... and thus, his/her 'atheism'.

You are confusing your own belief 'mechanism' with that of the neonate. Our newborn doesn't believe in elephants... or cars... or 'up'... or 'god', with equal intensity. It is only in your advanced state, that you can differentiate those lacks of belief.

Doesn't believe IN WHAT..!!?

An atheist is one who has (believes in) no GOD(s).

Specifically,. NO GOD(s)..!!

The only point in question about who is or isn't an atheist is their opinion of
the existence of GOD(s).

Belief is simply what one takes as (at any particular point) worth considering
as TRUE (believable).

Atheism is not a non-religion. It is a religion (set of beliefs) that has no need
(or belief) for God(s).

Most atheists are EXTEMELY RELIGIOUS, because they are FORCED to find
their moral compass from something other than theistic sources, which is a
more difficult path than inculcation from "the norm".

To sum up,.. atheists are NOT non-believers,.. they are otherwise-believers..!

-Iakeo

A religious belief is quite different from a non-religious belief. That's why I used the term conviction earlier and only used "belief" in the religious sense.

You cannot substitute the term conviction with concept of religious "belief" - but you can with the non-religious one. A Theist is not merely "convicted" that god(s) exist - he has faith. Thus, your claim that actually Atheists and Theists both hold beliefs comes from the fact that you throw very different concepts together - belief and conviction.

Therefore: an Atheist does not hold any (religious) beliefs, but may have convictions.

Sorry, that I can't make it any clearer than that. :(

Oh, decisions, decisions....

Should I quibble 'degrees' of consciousness?

Or, should I demand evidence for the assertion "No conscious being lacks beliefs"???
Heh. Sorry, generalising *slaps her hand*.

What the heck is "degree" of consciousness (and how do you quantify that)?

I will say, rather, that belief requires knowledge, something consciousness is constantly producing knowledge; and hence beliefs develop about states of everything and anything in the world around us.

YES..!!!!!!!!

Leave it Grave to state the blindinly freakin' obvious, and essential truth.

..and to add,.. We are born Atheistic Super-religionists, because infants have
nothing BUT belief (believing completely what they percieve) to work with,
and are utterly dedicated to observation and growth as a human being.

Thus,.. the perfect person template.

The Super-religious Atheist.

(Which I suspect describes many MANY people here, if they'd agree on a few
simple terms, and get rid of their prejudicial/biased/angry
histories/personalities.)

-Iakeo

Mahalo â nui, friend.

To be honest I have noticed an emptiness in my life too when i became an agnostic, but as a quote by Winston Chruchill (i think) "Occasionally people stumble over the truth, but most pick themselves up and go on like nothing happened" which goes with truth hurts and ignorance is bliss.

Also, I can't bring myself to blindly follow anything. Although can christians answer the question that stated me on this path? If the wourld was made in 7 days and we were here from the (almost) beginning, where was the dinosaurs?

sorry for going a bit off topic there

The dinosuars never came up in the big story (bible) because the people that
wrote it had no experience with dinosaurs (or their remnants).

The world was created in 7 "symbolic periods", whatever the heck that
means, that the author of that part of the story chose to call "days".

We were here from the "almost beginning", according to the story, because
the author couldn't conceive of people not have been around on earth rather
shortly after the creation of their "infra-structure" (reality in support of
humanity) by God.

(You folks come up with the EASIEST questions..!!)

Any further questions? :)

-Iakeo

Huh?

A counter-thread?

Thanks for copying.

:rolleyes:.

Perhaps true.... but, I would argue that our infant, being pure tabula rasa lacks belief in anything. Or, everything, if you prefer.

It is only because we are discussing religion, that we choose to focus on the infant's (lack of) belief in god/s... and thus, his/her 'atheism'.

You are confusing your own belief 'mechanism' with that of the neonate. Our newborn doesn't believe in elephants... or cars... or 'up'... or 'god', with equal intensity. It is only in your advanced state, that you can differentiate those lacks of belief.

You know, Grave, I find it interesting that you source the origin of words so often, but you ignore the origin of the word Atheism is Atheos, No God. Add -ism and it's the belief in no God. I don't want to start a debate, but certainly the claim that atheism is simply lacking theism is at the very least a point of contention, no?

The emptiness, I think, stems more from a sense of belonging that I don't have anymore now that I am not part of the club, and by the way as far as I know the enitre rest of my familiy is christian. Of course you're also as likely to be correct since I am too deep in the trees to see the forest.

There is that, too, my friend.

You are now an 'outsider'.

I think you will gain realisations about how and why you feel the way you do (now), as time progresses... and let me assure you, I'm not claiming to know exactly how it 'feels' for you.

To be Atheistic, or a non-Theistic Agnostic, can be difficult. It is accepting that there may BE no answers.... no ultimate reasons.

But, as with everything else, time is great 'healer'... it gets 'easier'.

(I also was the only Atheist - in my case, from a family of seven).

Not trying to suggest that anyone, atheist or theist, has anything happen in their lives solely due to their belief or lack thereof.

Just relating what happened to me. For me, there are immediate consequences for my actions, as though someone were watching me and zapping me or blessing me accordingly.

Doesn't mean that will happen for anyone else. After all, I may just be certifiable! Lord knows, it runs in my family...:p

Oh, I'm not trying to 'discredit' your story, either... just presenting the possibility that your experiences were coincidental... or related through some manner other than that which you have come to suppose.

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
What you're describing is not a "religious person",.. you are describing a cult
member.

I agree with you entirely that the institution that "inflicted" this maltreatment
on your friend was an evil enterprise,.. but I contend that it was not an
institution of religion.

It was a cult of personality (which nearly all cults are) that work for the
agrandizement of "the leader" (and his/her subordinates).


My belief is that religion is not hereditary,.. it is biologically inherent in all
living things (including humans).

Religion is not a drug. Stupid beliefs and submission to cults is a drug.

Religion is simply that place where one's beliefs (world view) intersects with
reality, and how one deals with reality.

Your religion contains a "tenet" to fight evil cults that hurt people.

That is also part of my religion.

-Iakeo

I could argue based on what you said that catholicism is the world's largest
cult but Im not in the mood right now and since this probably would end up
causing flaming and this is a nice thread so far

I wouldn't argue with that assessment in the least,.. THOUGH, I believe that
on the whole that that "society" (cult) does more good than ill, and serves as
a "power supply" for doing good in the world.

But it definately comes under "cult" status for yours truly.

But then again,.. ALL organized religions are cults under my definition, so I
look to their works as to just how "evil" they are.

-Iakeo

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
What is the difference between opinion and belief?

The difference is one of conviction. An opinion is just something you have. A belief is something you're proud to have and will act on.

OK,.. I'll accept that.

But a deeply held opinion is precisely equivalent to a belief, to me.

And a superficially held belief is the exact equivalent to an opinion.

Do atheists "act on" the belief that there ar no God(s)..?

By the activity on these forums from atheists when the subject of religion
and God(s) comes up,.. I'd posit that they certainly do.


-Iakeo

Heh. Sorry, generalising *slaps her hand*.

What the heck is "degree" of consciousness (and how do you quantify that)?

I will say, rather, that belief requires knowledge, something consciousness is constantly producing knowledge; and hence beliefs develop about states of everything and anything in the world around us.

Bad Willamena... for shame! :D

By degrees of consciousness, I am refering to - well, let me illustrate:

A dog is aware. A dog can learn. A dog can (appears to be able to, at least) take part in on-productive actions, for the sake of amusement.

So - my dog is aware... even, I might argue, conscious.

What does my dog 'believe'. (And, how can I tell).

Obviously I used dogs as the example because everyone KNOWS (subconsciously, at least) that cats REMEMBER when they walked the world as gods, and we were their pets and entertainment. (And food... you know cats dream about hunting us...)

This is ridiculous. All religious people were once atheists.

I say all people were originally Hyper-Religious atheists (as infants), that got
the choice to become whatever combination
of "religious"/"atheist"/"theist"/"milktoast" that they chose (or were influenced
to choose).

What'aya got to say about THAT,.. eh..!!? :)


Besides, you can't "try atheism." Also, by claiming that you can, you are admitting that atheism is an affirmative belief system. The only real "I don't know" view is agnosticism, which is a system of unfinished logical deductions.

I'd like to "try" being an ostrich next week.

That might be fun. :)

-Iakeo

You know, Grave, I find it interesting that you source the origin of words so often, but you ignore the origin of the word Atheism is Atheos, No God. Add -ism and it's the belief in no God. I don't want to start a debate, but certainly the claim that atheism is simply lacking theism is at the very least a point of contention, no?
Surely, if Atheism was anything other than a lack of Theism, it would have some sort of structural definition set down as to exactly what it believed did not exist?

It's a little hard to say something doesn't exist if you don't really say what the thing is (or isn't, as the case may be). If it depends on the "Generic Religion #19" definition of God (some sort of monotheistic extraplanar controller with heaven and optional hell extras) then it can only be said to be reactionary. On the other hand, belief in an explicit No God would require a specific reasoning refuting any possible higher power.

Both of these are Atheists in that they have "no God". Only the second Believes in "No God". The first just don't have one. In that respect, I suppose, kids are automatically the first at birth, but not the second. Soo... the etymology isn't really that important here... maybe... <_<

You know, Grave, I find it interesting that you source the origin of words so often, but you ignore the origin of the word Atheism is Atheos, No God. Add -ism and it's the belief in no God. I don't want to start a debate, but certainly the claim that atheism is simply lacking theism is at the very least a point of contention, no?

Greetings, friend!

Long(ish) time, no see.

Glad to see you making your presence felt in the thread, even if you are playing Devil's Avocado. :)

If the origin of the English word "Atheism" is "Atheos".... what is the origin of "Atheos"?

The reason for atheism is simple :

Let's say you where an infinitely powerful being, would you just watch the rest of the world ???


I can create life too


How can a so nice and good being accept war, treachery, slavery ad all those things, when it is so easy for him to stop that ??

The answer is : because he does not exist !


God is like Santa Claus, a nice sotry for child (also understand : people who need to be reassured about their life, the after-ligfe and so ...)

The reason for atheism is simple :

Let's say you where an infinitely powerful being, would you just watch the rest of the world ???

I can create life too

How can a so nice and good being accept war, treachery, slavery ad all those things, when it is so easy for him to stop that ??

The answer is : because he does not exist !

God is like Santa Claus, a nice sotry for child (also understand : people who need to be reassured about their life, the after-ligfe and so ...)
How about... He can't do anything about it? How about... He didn't know it was going to happen? How about... it was the first response to a particular problem he could think of? How about... He wants to make us earn his respect?

You're still stuck with the prejudice that God must be all loving, all knowing and all powerful if he is anything at all. Free your mind from Christian Propaganda! xD

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
You speak nonsense.

When you say you simply "Do not believe" what do you not believe in?

I don't believe in gods.

OK,.. that's fine. :)



And why do you hold that belief? (trick question)

I do not hold a belief. I lack it.

Do you believe you believe you don't believe in God(s)?



You certainly hold an opinion as to whether you have a belief.

Yes, I do. I don't have any beliefs.

You simply refuse to call an opinion a belief. Why is an opinion not a belief?



What is the difference between opinion and belief?

Well, some would say that you can't choose to believe. You do believe or you don't.

I'm interested in what YOU have to say on this matter. :)

To me, an opinion and a belief are identical.


You can change your opinion in an active process, but not so your belief.

A belief requires a leap of faith. An opinion does not.

An opinion may have the possibility to be proven. A belief not.

I'm sure there's more.

If you can't change a belief, then what happens when a belief of yours is
invalidated (to your satisfaction)..?

Are you somehow "magically oblidged" to retain that belief?

This is why I see no distinction between a belief and an opinion, except in
the relative vehemence of the holders wish to hang onto it.

If that's not your experince, that's fine.

I think that calling all belief "utterly irrevocable" degrades the word "belief"
into complete unusability because I don't believe that such a thing can exist.

Nothing is "unprovable" except that which is truly unprovable, and can and
never will be unproved.

No opinion or belief of mine, in any case, is utterly unprovable. They just
haven't been disproved to my satisfaction yet. :)

-Iakeo

Greetings, friend!

Long(ish) time, no see.

Glad to see you making your presence felt in the thread, even if you are playing Devil's Avocado. :)

If the origin of the English word "Atheism" is "Atheos".... what is the origin of "Atheos"?

Theos - I know we agree on that. God and No god were the opposing beliefs. Anyway, we know we'll never agree on this point. I hold your view on the word reasonable, but I don't agree with them. I don't want to derail the whole topic on it.

Perhaps true.... but, I would argue that our infant, being pure tabula rasa lacks belief in anything. Or, everything, if you prefer.

It is only because we are discussing religion, that we choose to focus on the infant's (lack of) belief in god/s... and thus, his/her 'atheism'.

You are confusing your own belief 'mechanism' with that of the neonate. Our newborn doesn't believe in elephants... or cars... or 'up'... or 'god', with equal intensity. It is only in your advanced state, that you can differentiate those lacks of belief.
The infant has consciousness, taking in input which is knowledge of things. It (and the child who has begun to develop concepts) believes in everything it knows, although the amount and type of knowing might differ.

It is only because the word is "atheism" that we are choosing to focus on the infant's (lack of) belief in god/s.

It is only the advanced state that allows for 'disbelief', as critical thinking intervenes.

Theos - I know we agree on that. God and No god were the opposing beliefs. Anyway, we know we'll never agree on this point. I hold your view on the word reasonable, but I don't agree with them. I don't want to derail the whole topic on it.

Thanks for your time, my friend.

"The mirror catches all those wishes and returns them to you in silver".

Just know that I will tick the 'none' box and religious sections of forms, and understand why... and I'll be happy for you to tick whichever box pleases you. :)

A wise philosopher once defined the nature of 'god', as "it is"...

Yes,.. but you do "CHECK A BOX"..!! You don't leave it empty. You make a
moral choice (as all choices are), thus demonstrating that you have beliefs
(you believe you should check that box) and are "faithful to your beliefs"
enough to act in accord with them, which is my (rather minimalistic) definition
of religion. :D

That you don't believe in goofy dumb-assed gods is not only beside the point,
but a very worthy choice on your part, in my opinion.

Here here..!!

You are one of my heros. :)

-Iakeo

Oh, I'm not trying to 'discredit' your story, either... just presenting the possibility that your experiences were coincidental... or related through some manner other than that which you have come to suppose.

I no longer believe in "coincidence" as a function of the universe's random number generator.

On the other hand, I don't think Ariel Sharon or New Orleans were being punished by God for their transgressions.

Some other manner=some other non-logical cause, at least in my mind. So I will stick with the God of the Bible. :D

I demand evidence for consciousness!
There you go! Well done!

The infant has consciousness, taking in input which is knowledge of things. It (and the child who has begun to develop concepts) believes in everything it knows, although the amount and type of knowing might differ.

It is only because the word is "atheism" that we are choosing to focus on the infant's (lack of) belief in god/s.

It is only the advanced state that allows for 'disbelief', as critical thinking intervenes.

I disagree - if you raised a child in absolute isolation from any exposure to religion, I don't accept that the child would 'default' to a belief in 'god'.

Just as, in isolation, I wouldn't expect a child to 'spontaneously' conceptualise elephants.

[QUOTE=Revasser]I'm impressed! Usually mentioning Netjer results only in blank looks all around. Dua Netjer, indeed!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

If you can't change a belief, then what happens when a belief of yours is
invalidated (to your satisfaction)..?

Are you somehow "magically oblidged" to retain that belief?

This is why I see no distinction between a belief and an opinion, except in
the relative vehemence of the holders wish to hang onto it.

If that's not your experince, that's fine.

I think that calling all belief "utterly irrevocable" degrades the word "belief"
into complete unusability because I don't believe that such a thing can exist.

What I meant is that you cannot actively change a belief. You cannot choose to stop believing. But you can surely lose your faith.



Nothing is "unprovable" except that which is truly unprovable, and can and
never will be unproved.

No opinion or belief of mine, in any case, is utterly unprovable. They just
haven't been disproved to my satisfaction yet. :)

-Iakeo

You cannot prove or disprove supernatural beings. Therefore a belief cannot be proven.

---

I guess I adressed most of your other points in my last post. I basically think that there's a difference between a religious belief and a non-religious belief (what I called opinion or conviction).

Originally Posted by Iakeonui
Doesn't believe IN WHAT..!!?

An atheist is one who has (believes in) no GOD(s).

Specifically,. NO GOD(s)..!!

The only point in question about who is or isn't an atheist is their opinion of
the existence of GOD(s).

Belief is simply what one takes as (at any particular point) worth considering
as TRUE (believable).

Atheism is not a non-religion. It is a religion (set of beliefs) that has no need
(or belief) for God(s).

Most atheists are EXTEMELY RELIGIOUS, because they are FORCED to find
their moral compass from something other than theistic sources, which is a
more difficult path than inculcation from "the norm".

To sum up,.. atheists are NOT non-believers,.. they are otherwise-believers..!

-Iakeo

A religious belief is quite different from a non-religious belief. That's why I used the term conviction earlier and only used "belief" in the religious sense.

I disagree. All belief is the same. "Conviction" is merely the amout of clinging
the holder of said opinion/belief has about it.


You cannot substitute the term conviction with concept of religious "belief" - but you can with the non-religious one. A Theist is not merely "convicted" that god(s) exist - he has faith. Thus, your claim that actually Atheists and Theists both hold beliefs comes from the fact that you throw very different concepts together - belief and conviction.

Therefore: an Atheist does not hold any (religious) beliefs, but may have convictions.

Sorry, that I can't make it any clearer than that.

The theist believes in God(s).

The atheist believes in no God(s).

To use your terms,.. the atheist is "convicted" that the concept of God(s) is
silly and refuses to believe in them.

That refusal to believe in them (to in any way ACT as if they exist) is based
on the firmly (or not so firmly) held belief that God(s) does not exist.

That is a belief. Whether it's a belief that might be given up later, should the
believer (the atheist) be satisfied with proof that it's untrue, is entirly
irrelevant to whether the believer (the atheist) holds a belief.

I think you're exhausted, so thanks for the chit-chat..! :)

-Iakeo

I disagree - if you raised a child in absolute isolation from any exposure to religion, I don't accept that the child would 'default' to a belief in 'god'.

Just as, in isolation, I wouldn't expect a child to 'spontaneously' conceptualise elephants.

Well, I think you're being too specific. A child may not default to my version of Creator/Supreme Being or Willamena's or Ghandi's view Pat Buchanan's (hopefully), but it is reasonable to expect that a child will conceptualize a Creator or Supreme Being just as it is reasonable to expect that a child will eventually assume there is more to the world than what s/he sees, more animals, more land, more creatures, in general, and I believe it likely that they would conceptualize a creator of everything around them. The question really lies in what form that creator will take.

Why does it seem that everyone on NS is inherently biased against religion? I know its not everybody and I know organized religion has done some bad things, but I am sick of atheists and agnostics looking down their nose at religious types. I've tried to be atheist as much as I've tried to be heterosexual, and neither works for me. SO, I'd appreciate it if everyone would just quit haranguing eachother about their values. It would do wonders in the way of lowering my blood pressure.


AMEN!

Yes,.. but you do "CHECK A BOX"..!! You don't leave it empty. You make a
moral choice (as all choices are), thus demonstrating that you have beliefs
(you believe you should check that box) and are "faithful to your beliefs"
enough to act in accord with them, which is my (rather minimalistic) definition
of religion. :D

That you don't believe in goofy dumb-assed gods is not only beside the point,
but a very worthy choice on your part, in my opinion.

Here here..!!

You are one of my heros. :)

-Iakeo

As I just wished to Jocabia, so to you:

"The mirror catches all those wishes and returns them to you in silver".

I disagree - if you raised a child in absolute isolation from any exposure to religion, I don't accept that the child would 'default' to a belief in 'god'.

Just as, in isolation, I wouldn't expect a child to 'spontaneously' conceptualise elephants.

The utterly isolated child would have to have NO relations with ANY other
human beings, OR THEIR ARTIFACTS, to be any sort of sensible experiment.

And I contend, in this impossible-to-do experimental laboratory, that even
THEN the child would fill his world with spirits and demons of the reflected
self that he can't get away from.

And these would be his gods. But only if he came to an understanding that
the world is a unified whole, of which he is only a part, and which is there to
support him (otherwise he wouldn't BE at all or forlong enough to have
achived his "advanced" age) would he develop a concept of "God" (the one).

..of course it's possible this could be an extremely fleeting realization of God,
such as the ONE time in his life when he actually felt pleasure. But at that
point, he would know God, and the memory of it would not be "erasable" from
his being.


-Iakeo

I disagree. All belief is the same. "Conviction" is merely the amout of clinging the holder of said opinion/belief has about it.

I could agree with that all beliefs are a form of conviction, but not all convictions are a form of belief.



The theist believes in God(s).

The atheist believes in no God(s).

To use your terms,.. the atheist is "convicted" that the concept of God(s) is
silly and refuses to believe in them.

That refusal to believe in them (to in any way ACT as if they exist) is based
on the firmly (or not so firmly) held belief that God(s) does not exist.

That is a belief. Whether it's a belief that might be given up later, should the
believer (the atheist) be satisfied with proof that it's untrue, is entirly
irrelevant to whether the believer (the atheist) holds a belief.

Or you could say, the Atheist never "choose" to believe. He would not believe that "there is no God", but simply lacking belief in God. Thus his disbelief would be a lack of belief and not a belief itself.

Well, maybe we should just agree to disagree here.



I think you're exhausted, so thanks for the chit-chat..! :)

-Iakeo

Well, it's not easy to debate philosophical/theological stuff with relatively limited English skills, especially if the according German terms to belief and faith have different meanings and connotations than in English.

But it was nice. Gave me some stuff to think about.

Let's say you where an infinitely powerful being, would you just watch the rest of the world ???
I would think that would be all you could, in good conscience, do.

Well, I think you're being too specific. A child may not default to my version of Creator/Supreme Being or Willamena's or Ghandi's view Pat Buchanan's (hopefully), but it is reasonable to expect that a child will conceptualize a Creator or Supreme Being just as it is reasonable to expect that a child will eventually assume there is more to the world than what s/he sees, more animals, more land, more creatures, in general, and I believe it likely that they would conceptualize a creator of everything around them. The question really lies in what form that creator will take.

And, as a child... I did not imagine Africa. Nor Russia. Indeed... my world, at first reached little further than my arms could reach... then little further than my eyes could see.

I don't recall ever, at very young ages (i.e. before I saw maps and globes) thinking there MUST be more out there, than those same places I came and went to. I don't recall ever deciding there should be other nations, and other 'peoples'.

And then - when I did learn about such concepts, my world was very different from the world 'that is'... I imagined lands that will never grace this world, and peoples more alien than mundane.

The connections children make are the things they can learn (through sight, sound, touch, etc) and the things they can imagine on their flights of fancy.

You think it logical the child would imagine a creator? I look at the 'permanent' world around me, and I think... "why wouldn't a child just asssume this was ALWAYS here?"

What I meant is that you cannot actively change a belief. You cannot choose to stop believing. But you can surely lose your faith.


You cannot prove or disprove supernatural beings. Therefore a belief cannot be proven.

---

I guess I adressed most of your other points in my last post. I basically think that there's a difference between a religious belief and a non-religious belief (what I called opinion or conviction).

I don't believe that you can't actively change a belief.

When presented by evidence contradicting a belief, you have two choices.
To abandon the belief or hold to it.

You seem to be defining "belief" as that which is irrationally held regardless of
contradiction TO THE HOLDERS SATISFACTION.

That is a definition I can't accept.

If I have a belief that I am satisfied is contradicted (and I am the only one
who can make that judgement!) and I STILL hold to that belief, then it is not
a belief. It is an oppressive "dogma" I must deal with forced on me by some
external power.

But,.. it is NOT a belief any longer because I don't believe it.

You CAN choose to stop believing in something that WAS a belief, and have
no real choice but to do so, if you are satisfied with it refutation.

Beliefs are beliefs until they are not beliefs. If there is no way to choose to
disbelieve a previously held belief, then it is not a belief.

There is no belief that can't be disbelieved (refuted). The believer just hasn't
been convinced that it's worth disbelieving yet.

I don't believe in supernatural beings. Does that make me an atheist? Yes, in
the strict sense of the word.

Does being "that kind" of atheist make me not religious?

NO..!

I *DO* believe in God, because God to me is NOT supernatural.

Religion has nothing to do with God. It IS God.


-Iakeo

You certainly hold an opinion as to whether you have a belief.
Yes, I do. I don't have any beliefs.
You simply refuse to call an opinion a belief. Why is an opinion not a belief?
*psst* Lazy Otakus: one is stated verbally.
;)

I disagree - if you raised a child in absolute isolation from any exposure to religion, I don't accept that the child would 'default' to a belief in 'god'.

Just as, in isolation, I wouldn't expect a child to 'spontaneously' conceptualise elephants.
I am astounded that you somehow got that from what I said....

I am not claiming that no knowledge of god could result in a belief in god.

I dont understand why religion is beign discussed really. I mean if you believe in god, then go ahead believe in god. If you are a certain religion go ahead be that religion, and if you are atheist then go ahead be atheist. Its that simple, just dont be so ignorant of the fact of religion. I mean i hate when people try to impose their religion on me because i feel like they want to change me from being me. I personally am not religious, nor do i think in religious ways.

What I meant is that you cannot actively change a belief. You cannot choose to stop believing. But you can surely lose your faith.
You can find other things to believe in, and then the significance of the first belief can just drop away.

You cannot prove or disprove supernatural beings. Therefore a belief cannot be proven.
"...therefore supernatural beings cannot be proven," is the conclusion. I believe the sun will rise. I believe I won't stop breathing in the next minute (*crosses fingers*). These things can be proven.

I could agree with that all beliefs are a form of conviction, but not all convictions are a form of belief.

Conviction is a quality of belief.

Here's my definition of belief: Any generalization about something that may
recur in the future, that I've experienced happening in the past, that I might
base my future actions on, is a belief.

I "believe" this computer will crash one day. Thus, I back stuff up.

I "believe" that the universe is in supprt of me, and that if I watch my step it
will allow me to continue to survive. Thus, I get up in the morning happy to
do my business.

I "believe" I *COULD* hit the lottery today. Thus, I keep spare change in my
pocket in case I'm feeling extraordinarily stupid today.


I have very high conviction that the first two beliefs are valid, and are worth
believing in.

I have very low conviction about the lottery (aka the Tax on the
Mathematically Deficient), and could easily be proven invalid.


Or you could say, the Atheist never "choose" to believe. He would not believe that "there is no God", but simply lacking belief in God. Thus his disbelief would be a lack of belief and not a belief itself.

All people choose to believe or not believe in a concept that when it is
presented to them.

The atheist chooses (wisely) not to believe in silly God(s), after being
presented with them (even if they've believed in them in the past).

There is no "not making a choice". To say "there is no god" is to choose to
not believe in a concept that has been presented to you.

There is no "lack of belief",.. only active non-belief. Which is a perfectly valid,
in fact mandatory, choice if you're not convinced the belief is supported.


Well, maybe we should just agree to disagree here.

Well, it's not easy to debate philosophical/theological stuff with relatively limited English skills, especially if the according German terms to belief and faith have different meanings and connotations than in English.

But it was nice. Gave me some stuff to think about.

I applaud you heartily..!

I can't even imagine trying to get my thoughts across in a language that I
don't have good facility with. But you seem to have really very good facility
with the english, so maybe you don't deserve quite so much praise..! :)

-Iakeo

*psst* Lazy Otakus: one is stated verbally.
;)

Troublemaker..!!


:D


..and that's a BS argument, by the way. Hae ae ae... I can CERTAINLY have
unexpressed opinions, as well as publicly knows (edit: KNOWN) beliefs.


-Iakeo

I can create life too

How can a so nice and good being accept war, treachery, slavery ad all those things, when it is so easy for him to stop that ??

I can, and have created life.

I am a good father and a very nice man.

I cannot stop my children from misbehaving.

Do I not exist?

I dont understand why religion is beign discussed really. I mean if you believe in god, then go ahead believe in god. If you are a certain religion go ahead be that religion, and if you are atheist then go ahead be atheist. Its that simple, just dont be so ignorant of the fact of religion. I mean i hate when people try to impose their religion on me because i feel like they want to change me from being me. I personally am not religious, nor do i think in religious ways.


Hear hear..!!

I think you ARE religious, just not in a way that YOU recognize as "religious".

And for someone to try to take that away form you, or to try to replace
yours with theirs is a nasty evil crime.

You be you. That is what us humans are supposed to do. That's what God
not only wants (as if he had any wants), but that's what God set the
universe up to have happen, whether we like it or not.

-Iakeo

And, as a child... I did not imagine Africa. Nor Russia. Indeed... my world, at first reached little further than my arms could reach... then little further than my eyes could see.

I don't recall ever, at very young ages (i.e. before I saw maps and globes) thinking there MUST be more out there, than those same places I came and went to. I don't recall ever deciding there should be other nations, and other 'peoples'.

And then - when I did learn about such concepts, my world was very different from the world 'that is'... I imagined lands that will never grace this world, and peoples more alien than mundane.

The connections children make are the things they can learn (through sight, sound, touch, etc) and the things they can imagine on their flights of fancy.

You think it logical the child would imagine a creator? I look at the 'permanent' world around me, and I think... "why wouldn't a child just asssume this was ALWAYS here?"

Really? You weren't afraid of the dark, or the monsters under your bed or in your closet. I think children are the most likely to dream up fantastic explanations for things (assuming you believe God to be a fantasy, as you do). Granted, very, very small children are literally incapable of conceptualizing things they are not receiving sensory input for, but certainly at the point the imagination kicks in, it's not unreasonable to think a child would conceptualize a creator of all things.

My nephew swears he remembers a past life, and for the life of me I can't figure out where he would have encountered the idea of reincarnation, but he firmly believes that people are reincarnated. He's eight and he's believed it for a number of years now. Of course, he's not isolated and could have gotten from a movie, book or television, but it's certainly not something his parents taught him or encouraged him to believe.

I don't believe that you can't actively change a belief.

When presented by evidence contradicting a belief, you have two choices.
To abandon the belief or hold to it.

You seem to be defining "belief" as that which is irrationally held regardless of
contradiction TO THE HOLDERS SATISFACTION.

That is a definition I can't accept.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you cannot actively choose to stop believing.

That does not mean that you can not stop believing if you are presented contrary evidence, it may be most likely, but is it an active choice?

Maybe I'm wrong here - after all it hasn't happened to me yet. I've never been religious. I've based the argument on the idea that one cannot actively choose to belief or not to belief. Do ex-believers not often say that they somehow "lost" their faith? I have not heard that someone actively made a decision to stop believing.

Besides, there is another alternative - changing aspects of the belief. Christians have done so for centuries, when presented evidence contrary to the Bible.

If I have a belief that I am satisfied is contradicted (and I am the only one
who can make that judgement!) and I STILL hold to that belief, then it is not
a belief. It is an oppressive "dogma" I must deal with forced on me by some
external power.

But,.. it is NOT a belief any longer because I don't believe it.

OK, that's your definition. I would call that belief, too.

You CAN choose to stop believing in something that WAS a belief, and have
no real choice but to do so, if you are satisfied with it refutation.

Beliefs are beliefs until they are not beliefs. If there is no way to choose to
disbelieve a previously held belief, then it is not a belief.

Which would of course depend on your definition of belief and the assumption wether you are able to actively change it.

There is no belief that can't be disbelieved (refuted). The believer just hasn't been convinced that it's worth disbelieving yet.

You could say so.

I don't believe in supernatural beings. Does that make me an atheist? Yes, in
the strict sense of the word.

Does being "that kind" of atheist make me not religious?

NO..!

I *DO* believe in God, because God to me is NOT supernatural.

Religion has nothing to do with God. It IS God.


-Iakeo

I guess many religious folks won't agree with you on that.

I can, and have created life.

I am a good father and a very nice man.

I cannot stop my children from misbehaving.

Do I not exist?

To add to your point, there are certain things you could do that would prevent them from some types of misbehavior, but they are things you are unwilling to do because it would require micromanaging and would stunt their maturation. In some cases the misbehavior you are not stopping puts them in danger, i.e. not being careful enough while riding a bicycle, but you know you can't shield from all things and expect them to grow or to enjoy the world. Not only does it not make you a bad parent, it is, in fact, evidence you are a good parent.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you cannot actively choose to stop believing.

That does not mean that you can not stop believing if you are presented contrary evidence, it may be most likely, but is it an active choice?

Maybe I'm wrong here - after all it hasn't happened to me yet. I've never been religious. I've based the argument on the idea that one cannot actively choose to belief or not to belief. Do ex-believers not often say that they somehow "lost" their faith? I have not heard that someone actively made a decision to stop believing.

To extend your point, I want to believe I'm having sex every time I masturbate. I try to believe and I choose to believe, but no matter how hard I try I always end up realizing I'm not having sex. There's no getting around it. Choosing to explore a belief is a choice. Choosing to espouse a belief is a choice. Choosing to support a belief is a choice. Choosing to actually believe is not a choice by the very nature of belief.

but you know you can't shield from all things and expect them to grow or to enjoy the world.

Bingo!

What a lot - and I mean religious and nonreligious - of people fail to realise is that God wants, and sometimes demands, that we experience life. The problem is that what they don't realise is that someday they will stand before the Almighty and be held accountable for all the fruits of Creation* that they refused to enjoy.


* Metaphore. Nobody start harping on me about that 7 days garbage. I believe in evolution and a +/-15 billion year old Universe.

Really? You weren't afraid of the dark, or the monsters under your bed or in your closet. I think children are the most likely to dream up fantastic explanations for things (assuming you believe God to be a fantasy, as you do). Granted, very, very small children are literally incapable of conceptualizing things they are not receiving sensory input for, but certainly at the point the imagination kicks in, it's not unreasonable to think a child would conceptualize a creator of all things.
When I was a kid, I very much took things for granted. I took for granted that my parents and family where there, always were there, and always would always be there. I took for granted that the world was there, always was and would always be there. There was no curiosity about how the world came to be; it just was. Hence, I tend to think that other children would do the same.

I was introduced to the concept of "God" by my parents, and until that time I had no belief about God one way or the other. This is similar to my contention earlier, that until there is knowledge of a concept (something to believe about) there is no belief. Children have loads of beliefs (like the taken-for-granted ones I mentioned above), they are chalk full of them.

One could take the backdoor route Iakeo does and say that what they do, how they act as a result of those beliefs, that IS god although it is not labelled as such by the child. And one could take the route that you do, though I don't believe that myself. But I think Grave is aiming at a more concrete idea of constructing the image of God, which is only done through learning, through listening and pondering. One would have to have a certain capacity for conceptualization for that.

Preferable a religion that does not force you to sacrifice humans or anything like that. :)

Well that leaves out Judaism and by extension Christianity and Islam

Conviction is a quality of belief.

Here's my definition of belief: Any generalization about something that may
recur in the future, that I've experienced happening in the past, that I might
base my future actions on, is a belief.

I "believe" this computer will crash one day. Thus, I back stuff up.

I "believe" that the universe is in supprt of me, and that if I watch my step it
will allow me to continue to survive. Thus, I get up in the morning happy to
do my business.

I "believe" I *COULD* hit the lottery today. Thus, I keep spare change in my
pocket in case I'm feeling extraordinarily stupid today.


I have very high conviction that the first two beliefs are valid, and are worth
believing in.

I have very low conviction about the lottery (aka the Tax on the
Mathematically Deficient), and could easily be proven invalid.



I guess that's the difference between what I called a conviction and religious belief. A conviction can be based on many things - experience, probability, logic, etc. - but a religious belief is basically based on faith, it would be nothing without it.

All people choose to believe or not believe in a concept that when it is
presented to them.

The atheist chooses (wisely) not to believe in silly God(s), after being
presented with them (even if they've believed in them in the past).

There is no "not making a choice". To say "there is no god" is to choose to
not believe in a concept that has been presented to you.

There is no "lack of belief",.. only active non-belief. Which is a perfectly valid,
in fact mandatory, choice if you're not convinced the belief is supported.


Or you could say that to say "there is no god" is not to actively non-believe, instead it is simply the result of a lack of believe.

Again, I don't think we will get any further with this. I'll leave you your believe that Atheism itself is a belief and you leave me my conviction that it is not.

:)

I applaud you heartily..!

I can't even imagine trying to get my thoughts across in a language that I
don't have good facility with. But you seem to have really very good facility
with the english, so maybe you don't deserve quite so much praise..! :)

-Iakeo

Well, thanks. I'm reading a lot of English stuff, but writing is still pretty tough, since I have little practice.

Well that leaves out Judaism and by extension Christianity and Islam

Ok I have to ask ....

How and where does Judaism force human sacrifice?

When I was a kid, I very much took things for granted. I took for granted that my parents and family where there, always were there, and always would always be there. I took for granted that the world was there, always was and would always be there. There was no curiosity about how the world came to be; it just was. Hence, I tend to think that other children would do the same.

I was introduced to the concept of "God" by my parents, and until that time I had no belief about God one way or the other. This is similar to my contention earlier, that until there is knowledge of a concept (something to believe about) there is no belief. Children have loads of beliefs (like the taken-for-granted ones I mentioned above), they are chalk full of them.

One could take the backdoor route Iakeo does and say that what they do, how they act as a result of those beliefs, that IS god although it is not labelled as such by the child. And one could take the route that you do, though I don't believe that myself. But I think Grave is aiming at a more concrete idea of constructing the image of God, which is only done through learning, through listening and pondering. One would have to have a certain capacity for conceptualization for that.

I don't entirely agree, but we're not that far apart. I don't think a concrete idea of God is necessary for one to be a theist (for our purposes we'll limit that to - to believe in something(s) greater that created everything).

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.
Done it already,

Eventually I just went "WTF, this doesn't make sense...screw this, go Islam."

Although I don't follow main Muslim practices. I believe in core Muslim beliefs - one God, Jesus is a prophet and not a God, etc.

When I was a kid, I very much took things for granted. I took for granted that my parents and family where there, always were there, and always would always be there. I took for granted that the world was there, always was and would always be there. There was no curiosity about how the world came to be; it just was. Hence, I tend to think that other children would do the same.

I was introduced to the concept of "God" by my parents, and until that time I had no belief about God one way or the other. This is similar to my contention earlier, that until there is knowledge of a concept (something to believe about) there is no belief. Children have loads of beliefs (like the taken-for-granted ones I mentioned above), they are chalk full of them.

One could take the backdoor route Iakeo does and say that what they do, how they act as a result of those beliefs, that IS god although it is not labelled as such by the child. And one could take the route that you do, though I don't believe that myself. But I think Grave is aiming at a more concrete idea of constructing the image of God, which is only done through learning, through listening and pondering. One would have to have a certain capacity for conceptualization for that.

I was going to respond to Jocabia... but this pretty much sums it up.

Yes - I imagined monsters and stuff... but, to be honest, the first time I imagined there MIGHT be a monster under my bed or in my closet was after I managed to see a late night Twilight Zone, or something (The monster in the show was, I believe, called "Lizzie", and it was a pink anthropomorhic thing, with sharp teeth and eyes that glowed red... anyone that has seen the same Twilight Zone (or whatever) now knows which one I mean).

My parents were both 'of' religions, but neither EXCESSIVELY religious... but I was aware of 'God' and 'Heaven' fairly soon after I was able to talk coherently... so, by the time I went to school. But, UNTIL I learned about 'God', I was - as Willamena says - blissful in the knowledge that everything was as it ALWAYS had been.

Do you remember when you were 3 or 4 years old? You don't even know time is passing. You can remember things you did, and that you aren't doing them 'now'... but you have no idea about the fact that a 'year' has passed.

You see babies, and you know you aren't one. You see adults, and you know you aren't one. You see pets, and you are pretty sure you aren't one. All the rest of it, is a temporal haze... up until... I don't know.... you are 5 or 6, maybe? So - how would you have any ideas of a 'creator'... at that point, everything is eternal.

I was going to respond to Jocabia... but this pretty much sums it up.

Yes - I imagined monsters and stuff... but, to be honest, the first time I imagined there MIGHT be a monster under my bed or in my closet was after I managed to see a late night Twilight Zone, or something (The monster in the show was, I believe, called "Lizzie", and it was a pink anthropomorhic thing, with sharp teeth and eyes that glowed red... anyone that has seen the same Twilight Zone (or whatever) now knows which one I mean).

My parents were both 'of' religions, but neither EXCESSIVELY religious... but I was aware of 'God' and 'Heaven' fairly soon after I was able to talk coherently... so, by the time I went to school. But, UNTIL I learned about 'God', I was - as Willamena says - blissful in the knowledge that everything was as it ALWAYS had been.

Do you remember when you were 3 or 4 years old? You don't even know time is passing. You can remember things you did, and that you aren't doing them 'now'... but you have no idea about the fact that a 'year' has passed.

You see babies, and you know you aren't one. You see adults, and you know you aren't one. You see pets, and you are pretty sure you aren't one. All the rest of it, is a temporal haze... up until... I don't know.... you are 5 or 6, maybe? So - how would you have any ideas of a 'creator'... at that point, everything is eternal.

Oh, there is definitely no ability to conceptualize such things (with or without the interference of adults) at a very young age, but I think at the point you are able to understand such things, you begin to conceptualize such things (again with or without parental involvement). Children prior to a certain age have no views on the subject whatsoever. I do not hold that this makes them atheist by default.

The only reason people believe in God is because they are busy telling each other that He exists, but that there is no concrete evidence, and that to insist on evidence makes you "unfaithful" and might keep you out of heaven (for which there is also no evidence)

It is pretty ingenious as a self-perpetuating system, but viewed from the outside, not very convincing.

That's what I took away from trying to be a Christian for 25 years.

The only reason people believe in God is because they are busy telling each other that He exists, but that there is no concrete evidence, and that to insist on evidence makes you "unfaithful" and might keep you out of heaven (for which there is also no evidence)

It is pretty ingenious as a self-perpetuating system, but viewed from the outside, not very convincing.

That's what I took away from trying to be a Christian for 25 years.

One could say the same about atheism or nearly any faith. Most people would agree there is an absolute universe and there is an absolute truth in that universe (for example, the electron existed before we knew of it's existence). Most also accept that what we call science is limited by what we observe, so it's more like observed truth. The idea that one would claim that observed truth must necessarily be absolute truth is also kind of circular, isn't it? And in absense of that, you really have no argument against the theist.

I'm impressed! Usually mentioning Netjer results only in blank looks all around. Dua Netjer, indeed!
:confused: :confused: :confused:

(Fixing of quote tag mine)

Are you being facetious? :D

In case you're not, "Netjer" is an Ancient Egyptian word transliterated into pronouncable English (the actual one-to-one transliteration would be "nTr"). A rough translation would be "God", though the concept is quite different from the conventional Western idea of "God", which is most often the Abrahamic God. Modern day Kemetics (basically "Ancient Egyptian Reconstructionists") mostly use "Netjer" as it is the most accurate representation of how Egyptologists believe the word was probably pronounced. "Netjer" can mean the One (divinity as a whole), or refer to one of the Many (individual 'gods'.) "Netjeru" is the plural and "Netjert" is the female.

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

Someone who believes in god can't just stop believeing in god for a week any more then an atheist can start believeing in god for a week. Its a fairly silly challange as is the one you are responding to. Some people believe in a higher power, others don't, I don't see what all the fuss is about but then i probably wouldn't as I'm an atheist :rolleyes:

Someone who believes in god can't just stop believeing in god for a week any more then an atheist can start believeing in god for a week. Its a fairly silly challange as is the one you are responding to. Some people believe in a higher power, others don't, I don't see what all the fuss is about but then i probably wouldn't as I'm an atheist :rolleyes:


an athiest with a make believe god's name.

an athiest with a make believe god's name.

What?

What?


Ilmater is the name of a fictional (ha-ha, is there any other kind?) deity, in the Forgotten Realms series, by TSR, now Wizards of the Coast.

In other words, he's a D&D god.

from wikipedia: "Neurobiological research coupled with modern medical imaging, especially tomography, suggests that serotonin is generated in some areas of the brain of people having religious experiences, and may have specific effects. These include the ability of believers to better cope with stressful situations. Viewed from the perspective of evolutionary psychology, this would suggest that in an uncontrolled environment, religious faith would objectively increase fitness for individuals."

from the dictionary:"conviction: [...], strong opinion or belief in something (political, religious, etc..)"
Same goes for faith, doesn't have to be related to a god, thus atheists and agnostics may have stronger beliefs and be more faithful than religious people, to the point where the production of serotonin is comparable or even superior.

Imho religious people are just playing a mind game with themselves, but I wouldn't advise them to quit: see Plato's allegory of the cave.

In short: obey gravity, it's the law! :D

I don't entirely agree, but we're not that far apart. I don't think a concrete idea of God is necessary for one to be a theist (for our purposes we'll limit that to - to believe in something(s) greater that created everything).
Well, I don't believe a concrete idea of God is necessary either, but I think Grave does. But more importantly, being introduced to the concrete idea of God by others impresses that that is the reality, and for me moving to another concept of god was a matter of having to be introduced to the concept that a concept wasn't necessary (if that makes sense).

Oh, there is definitely no ability to conceptualize such things (with or without the interference of adults) at a very young age, but I think at the point you are able to understand such things, you begin to conceptualize such things (again with or without parental involvement). Children prior to a certain age have no views on the subject whatsoever. I do not hold that this makes them atheist by default.
Atheism is (something, whether you want to call it belief or idea) about god. It is lacking God, or lacking belief in God. God is the object of atheism.

I have no problem with people who answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" with either "No," or "I don't know," and call themselves atheist. I do, however, have a big problem with people who say, "I don't have to answer that question," or, "I have no answer," being called atheist, being assumed atheist on their behalf by others, especially when they do not identify themselves with either that label or anything "about god".

The child who has no concept of god, who gives a blank stare when asked about god, who has no answer to the question, should not have an ideology label imposed on them about an object that means nothing to them.

I have no problem with people who answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" with either "No," or "I don't know," and call themselves atheist. I do, however, have a big problem with people who say, "I don't have to answer that question," or, "I have no answer," being called atheist, being assumed atheist on their behalf by others, especially when they do not identify themselves with either that label or anything "about god".

Wouldn't answering, "I don't know," make them agnostic?

This thread is in response to the "challenge to Atheists/Agnostics"

To all religious people, I have a challenge for you.

Try atheism for a week, tell me the results.

I was an athetist for awhile, then God called me. It's hard to deny his existence after that. ;)

Atheism is (something, whether you want to call it belief or idea) about god. It is lacking God, or lacking belief in God. God is the object of atheism.

I have no problem with people who answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" with either "No," or "I don't know," and call themselves atheist. I do, however, have a big problem with people who say, "I don't have to answer that question," or, "I have no answer," being called atheist, being assumed atheist on their behalf by others, especially when they do not identify themselves with either that label or anything "about god".

The child who has no concept of god, who gives a blank stare when asked about god, who has no answer to the question, should not have an ideology label imposed on them about an object that means nothing to them.

Agreed (with the point of the post in the last paragraph. There are some points we don't agree on, but we both know that.)

Wouldn't answering, "I don't know," make them agnostic?

Yes.

Agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

We did a poll once. There are more religious people on NS than there are atheists. Being in the minority tends to cause people to become indignant and try to force change.



Funny thing is: when we religious types start talking about our differing beliefs, the conversation is generally pleasant and mild. There's a lot of mutual respect involved because we understand something on a level that atheists cannot. We are not slaves to the machine. Hence, there is solidarity, regardless of how and to whom we pray.

I did not know that differing religious groups actually talked to each other. Seems to me that they get out the "C4", mortars, a few rifles and.........................PARTY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, there is definitely no ability to conceptualize such things (with or without the interference of adults) at a very young age, but I think at the point you are able to understand such things, you begin to conceptualize such things (again with or without parental involvement). Children prior to a certain age have no views on the subject whatsoever. I do not hold that this makes them atheist by default.

It makes no real difference to me... and I respect your opinion too much to fight over it.

For me, Atheism is the default, when you don't have 'religion'... but I appreciate that's just how the thing seems logical to my perspective... and others may see something there I can't.

Atheism is (something, whether you want to call it belief or idea) about god. It is lacking God, or lacking belief in God. God is the object of atheism.

I have no problem with people who answer the question, "Do you believe in God?" with either "No," or "I don't know," and call themselves atheist. I do, however, have a big problem with people who say, "I don't have to answer that question," or, "I have no answer," being called atheist, being assumed atheist on their behalf by others, especially when they do not identify themselves with either that label or anything "about god".

The child who has no concept of god, who gives a blank stare when asked about god, who has no answer to the question, should not have an ideology label imposed on them about an object that means nothing to them.

There is a label attached already... it is called "child".

The only reason we are attacing the word 'Atheist' is because WE have chosen to talk about a qualitative value WE call 'god'.

The child is equally blissful in his/her ignorance of MANY things, and lacks equal belief in all of them... but, if WE are debating god, or godlessness, the 'value' of the child's belief corresponds to 'Atheist'.

There is a label attached already... it is called "child".

The only reason we are attacing the word 'Atheist' is because WE have chosen to talk about a qualitative value WE call 'god'.

The child is equally blissful in his/her ignorance of MANY things, and lacks equal belief in all of them... but, if WE are debating god, or godlessness, the 'value' of the child's belief corresponds to 'Atheist'.

And we disagree. You have attempted to define atheist in such a way that it includes a child. The child doesn't have no belief in god; it has no concept of anything related to god(s). Atheism is a choice and the child did not make one. An atheism must at the very least have disbelief. A child hasn't even reached that stage at the point we are talking about. They simply aren't capable of it.

Atheism - 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (the first definition refers to godlessness, an archaic use)

Wouldn't answering, "I don't know," make them agnostic?

Only if they answered "I don't know" to the question "Is it possible to KNOW if there is a 'god'.

There are Agnostic Atheists, and Agnostic Theists.

Agnosticism isn't about whether you believe in 'god' or not... it's about whether you think we can ever know for sure, either way.

And we disagree. You have attempted to define atheist in such a way that it includes a child. The child doesn't have no belief in god; it has no concept of anything related to god(s). Atheism is a choice and the child did not make one.

I made no choice to be an Atheist.

I was satisfied being a Christian, until I discovered I no longer believed in their 'god'.

It was the simple 'lack of god' that defines my 'belief' as Atheistic.

A child's 'disbelief' is multifaceted, but we only have names for some parts of it.

Only if they answered "I don't know" to the question "Is it possible to KNOW if there is a 'god'.

There are Agnostic Atheists, and Agnostic Theists.

Agnosticism isn't about whether you believe in 'god' or not... it's about whether you think we can ever know for sure, either way.

Not true. That is a misconception about agnosticism. Saying it's impossible to know is one type of agnosticism. Another says it's unknown now and unlikely that we'll know. Another broader sense of the term is anyone who is not committed to either belief in god(s) or belief there is no god(s). I posted the definition a couple of posts ago. You cannot be the broader form of agnostic and be a theist or atheist (by my definition). You can believe that it's likely there is a God or likely there is no God, but you cannot be committed to either belief.

Atheism - 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity (the first definition refers to godlessness, an archaic use)

And, I've seen dictionaries that defined Atheist as 'an evil person'.... the common parlance acceptance of a word is not always the purest definition of it's meaning.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you cannot actively choose to stop believing.

I simply do not agree with that. You WON'T stop believing something if you're
not convinced that it's WRONG, but why would you?

If you're not convinced that a belief is wrong, then there is no reason to
disbelieve it. If you simply disbelieve one of your "beliefs" with no reason to
do so, then it wasn't an actual BELIEF in the first place..!


That does not mean that you can not stop believing if you are presented contrary evidence, it may be most likely, but is it an active choice?

You ONLY stop believing something if you're presented with contradictory
evidence AND you're convinced that that evidence does actually contradict
your belief.

I'm not sure what you mean by "active choice", as ALL choices are active. A
choice is a "activity". If a choice is made for you, you haven't made the
choice at all. But all choices are active decisions.


Maybe I'm wrong here - after all it hasn't happened to me yet. I've never been religious. I've based the argument on the idea that one cannot actively choose to belief or not to belief.

You have too "profound" an interpretation of the word "belief".

There is NO DISTINCTION between a religious belief and any other form of
belief.

A "belief" is nothing more than something that you consider to be true, until
it's contradicted by some experience, which then prompts you to reconsider
it.

If you've EVER changed your mind, then you've changed (abandoned) a belief.


Do ex-believers not often say that they somehow "lost" their faith? I have not heard that someone actively made a decision to stop believing.

To "lose your faith" is to have the belief that underlies your faith IN THAT
BELIEF contradicted such that you accept that the belief is no longer
believable.

One does not suddenly, for no reason, wake up one day a decide, "Today I
will not believe in water being wet (or God) just BECAUSE I want to do that
today for no reason whatsoever."

You stop believing because a belief becomes unbelievable for some reason.


Besides, there is another alternative - changing aspects of the belief. Christians have done so for centuries, when presented evidence contrary to the Bible.

That's called "rationalization". Everyone (not just christians) does that
constantly. Once again, if a contradiction to a belief is not accepted, then
the belief still holds.



I don't believe in supernatural beings. Does that make me an atheist? Yes, in
the strict sense of the word.

Does being "that kind" of atheist make me not religious?

NO..!

I *DO* believe in God, because God to me is NOT supernatural.

Religion has nothing to do with God. It IS God.

I guess many religious folks won't agree with you on that.

Probably not, which doesn't bother me in the least, as other's opinions of my
beliefs have effect on my beliefs.

The only thing that has any effect on my beliefs is whether they (my beliefs)
are believable to me.

The question is: Why do you believe what you believe? Why do YOU (in
particular) believe "God(s)" is an unbelievable idea, and what DO you actually
believe in?

Do you believe in "trees"?

If you believe in trees, then you are a believer. You have faith in trees,
because when you need a tree, or tree byproduct, or a whole forest of trees,
you expect that you'll be able to find one.

Thus, you too are a person of faith. And as a faithful believer, you are
religious. To me. Whether you consider yourself so is not important to me at
all. I will treat you as *I* see you, not as *YOU* see yourself, just as I
expect everyone to treat everyone else (which is a natural law and inviolate).

..and that's what the wise folks from the past (and present) meant when
they saw God in each person. God is religion. Religion is in every person
inherently, because belief and faith in those beliefs in inherent,.. thus God is
a part of every person.

Very simple logic. Accept it or not. It really doesn't matter. :)

-Iakeo

I made no choice to be an Atheist.

Perhaps choice is the wrong word. However, you did look at the concept and settle on a belief that satisfies you. Whether that 'settling' was simply the result of a logical path or simply acceptance of a view is not really material. The point is that a child's position is neither of those things.

I was satisfied being a Christian, until I discovered I no longer believed in their 'god'.

It was the simple 'lack of god' that defines my 'belief' as Atheistic.

A child's 'disbelief' is multifaceted, but we only have names for some parts of it.
A child does not have a disbelief regarding god or god(s). They simply have no concept of god(s).

And, I've seen dictionaries that defined Atheist as 'an evil person'.... the common parlance acceptance of a word is not always the purest definition of it's meaning.

Yes, but those definition list that as the archaic use of the word (a use that really isn't used anymore but might be found in books so it has a place in the dicitionary). Check Mirriam-Webster.

Not true. That is a misconception about agnosticism. Saying it's impossible to know is one type of agnosticism. Another says it's unknown now and unlikely that we'll know. Another broader sense of the term is anyone who is not committed to either belief in god(s) or belief there is no god(s). I posted the definition a couple of posts ago. You cannot be the broader form of agnostic and be a theist or atheist (by my definition). You can believe that it's likely there is a God or likely there is no God, but you cannot be committed to either belief.

And, here, we get into the debate over Hard and Soft Agnosticism...

I think, if we wish to debate religion/a-religion... we need to agree on language.

Personally - I don't hold dictionary definitions to be very useful once one begins arguing 'technical' details of a subject.

To such ends - I have been looking for 'vocabulary'.

This site: http://home.inu.net/skeptic/Atheism.htm, suggests three groupings... the Implicit Atheist, the Emotional Atheist, and the Rational Atheist.

Defined as: "Implicit atheism refers to an absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. For example, a child not yet mature enough to understand theistic concepts has no belief in a god and is therefore an implicit atheist. Emotional atheism is the conscious rejection of god usually on irrational grounds. To reject god as an act of rebellion against oppressive believing parents, sexual molestation by a clergyperson, or a similar traumatic experience is to practice emotional atheism. In such cases atheism is taken a priori without an objective evaluation of the evidence. However, the rejection of god resulting from an objective evaluation of the evidence is rational atheism".


Ideas? Thoughts?

Perhaps choice is the wrong word. However, you did look at the concept and settle on a belief that satisfies you. Whether that 'settling' was simply the result of a logical path or simply acceptance of a view is not really material. The point is that a child's position is neither of those things.

A child does not have a disbelief regarding god or god(s). They simply have no concept of god(s).

Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

You keep trying to act as if disbelief relates to a specific conception rather than the entire concept of god(s) and deities.

You keep trying to act as if disbelief relates to a specific conception rather than the entire concept of god(s) and deities.

You said "They simply have no concept of god(s)."

I asked if you believe in Mewkinder, the Bloody.

I didn't say Mewkinder was a 'god'. You've leaped to that conclusion on your own. (And, it's a flawed conclusion, too).

So - I ask again... "Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

And, here, we get into the debate over Hard and Soft Agnosticism...

I think, if we wish to debate religion/a-religion... we need to agree on language.

Personally - I don't hold dictionary definitions to be very useful once one begins arguing 'technical' details of a subject.

To such ends - I have been looking for 'vocabulary'.

This site: http://home.inu.net/skeptic/Atheism.htm, suggests three groupings... the Implicit Atheist, the Emotional Atheist, and the Rational Atheist.

Defined as: "Implicit atheism refers to an absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it. For example, a child not yet mature enough to understand theistic concepts has no belief in a god and is therefore an implicit atheist. Emotional atheism is the conscious rejection of god usually on irrational grounds. To reject god as an act of rebellion against oppressive believing parents, sexual molestation by a clergyperson, or a similar traumatic experience is to practice emotional atheism. In such cases atheism is taken a priori without an objective evaluation of the evidence. However, the rejection of god resulting from an objective evaluation of the evidence is rational atheism".

Ideas? Thoughts?

I won't allow a group to define themselves in such a way that it forces others who do not choose to be a part of their ideology into their group. Many people actively avoid the monikers of atheist and theist by not committing to either concept. Extending the definition of atheism to include them really sort of degrades the entire point.

Particularly, redefining the idea and claiming it includes children is patently ridiculous. I reject the claims of the site.

Children have no belief or disbelief. They quite simply have conception of the subject at all.

I am going to start a theism site. Here is my definition of theism. By the way, they are patently incorrected about the origin of the word. One might debate their definition of the word, but their 'origin' is made up in order to support their definition. Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Theism - "Implicit theism refers to an absence of rejection of the possibility of deities and God(s). For example, a child not yet mature enough to understand atheistic concepts has not rejected the possibility of deities and God(s) and is therefore an implicit theist."

I say this is theism and children are implicit theists. In fact, anyone who doesn't claim God(s) and dieties are impossible is a theist.

You said "They simply have no concept of god(s)."

I asked if you believe in Mewkinder, the Bloody.

I didn't say Mewkinder was a 'god'. You've leaped to that conclusion on your own. (And, it's a flawed conclusion, too).

So - I ask again... "Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

I have no concept of "Mewkinder, the Bloody". He may or may not exist.

Originally Posted by Lazy Otakus
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that you cannot actively choose to stop believing.

That does not mean that you can not stop believing if you are presented contrary evidence, it may be most likely, but is it an active choice?

Maybe I'm wrong here - after all it hasn't happened to me yet. I've never been religious. I've based the argument on the idea that one cannot actively choose to belief or not to belief. Do ex-believers not often say that they somehow "lost" their faith? I have not heard that someone actively made a decision to stop believing.

To extend your point, I want to believe I'm having sex every time I masturbate. I try to believe and I choose to believe, but no matter how hard I try I always end up realizing I'm not having sex. There's no getting around it. Choosing to explore a belief is a choice. Choosing to espouse a belief is a choice. Choosing to support a belief is a choice. Choosing to actually believe is not a choice by the very nature of belief.

If you WANT to believe something that you are not convinced is believable,
then that's called "self delusion" (mental illness), and has nothing do to
with "belief".

One does not "explore" a belief by "pretending to believe".

When presented with an idea that MIGHT be believable, one checks that idea
against what one knows relevent to that idea to see if it really is believable.

If that idea is not proven "unbelievable", then a belief in that idea is created.

"Beliefs" are not THINGS. A "belief" is holding to the (apparent) truth of some
idea.

Your "wish" that maturbation was sex is a "wish", not a belief. Your belief
would be that regardless of how much you'd like masturbation to be sex, it
just isn't.

And I agree, belief is not a choice, it is a result. The result of finding
insufficient reason to disbelieve something presented to you.

-Iakeo

I have no concept of "Mewkinder, the Bloody". He may or may not exist.

That is not the question I asked...

I won't allow a group to define themselves in such a way that it forces others who do not choose to be a part of their ideology into their group. Many people actively avoid the monikers of atheist and theist by not committing to either concept. Extending the definition of atheism to include them really sort of degrades the entire point.
Particularly, redefining the idea and claiming it includes children is patently ridiculous. I reject the claims of the site.

I was born in Italy, I wouldn't want to be associated with the monikers of italians as a stereotype, or politically or whatever. I'm still an italian and I'd include some children in the definition, even if they haven't made a choice.
If you could come up with some better name I'd understand, Dante put unbaptized children in the limbo but he also put there other uncivilized people who never heard the word of god, aka atheists.

I won't allow a group to define themselves in such a way that it forces others who do not choose to be a part of their ideology into their group. Many people actively avoid the monikers of atheist and theist by not committing to either concept. Extending the definition of atheism to include them really sort of degrades the entire point.

Particularly, redefining the idea and claiming it includes children is patently ridiculous. I reject the claims of the site.

Children have no belief or disbelief. They quite simply have conception of the subject at all.

I am going to start a theism site. Here is my definition of theism. By the way, they are patently incorrected about the origin of the word. One might debate their definition of the word, but their 'origin' is made up in order to support their definition. Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god

Theism - "Implicit theism refers to an absence of rejection of the possibility of deities and God(s). For example, a child not yet mature enough to understand atheistic concepts has not rejected the possibility of deities and God(s) and is therefore an implicit theist."

I say this is theism and children are implicit theists. In fact, anyone who doesn't claim God(s) and dieties are impossible is a theist.

The sites you speak of already exist. The Christian religion is the incarnation of what you wish for.... it chooses to define all people into it's groups, based on it's own definition.

"Saved" or "damned".... and I get no choice as to which definition I get lumped into.

Curiously - I have argued the concept of Explicit and Implicit Theism, for some time...

But, you are going to have to pick a lane... I assume you do not really believe Theism to be a lack of Atheism...?

If Atheism is 'without god', then any that are 'without god' are Atheists...

Whether they 'conceive' god, or no.

"Do you believe in "Mewkinder, the Bloody"?

a) Yes! I love his hook and his wooden peg leg, and how he shouts "Yarr!" all the time. :D
b) Yes, I do believe he exists in your mind... :rolleyes:
c) No, I think you just made that up
d) Meowkinder the who?

hit me :p

Although I am pro-Christian, I left organized religion a long time ago because of the hypocrisy I saw in some of the churches I attended. There are some good Christians out there, but I have no use for the church as a whole.

:mp5: Steph :sniper:

... But, UNTIL I learned about 'God', I was - as Willamena says - blissful in the knowledge that everything was as it ALWAYS had been.

Do you remember when you were 3 or 4 years old? You don't even know time is passing. You can remember things you did, and that you aren't doing them 'now'... but you have no idea about the fact that a 'year' has passed.

You see babies, and you know you aren't one. You see adults, and you know you aren't one. You see pets, and you are pretty sure you aren't one. All the rest of it, is a temporal haze... up until... I don't know.... you are 5 or 6, maybe? So - how would you have any ideas of a 'creator'... at that point, everything is eternal.

..and THAT is God. That which "is". The "creator" is the impossible thing that
created and contains and infuses the eternal "everything" that the
perceiving "child" perceives.

God is naturally perceived by the child pretty much as he is. Then the needs
of dealing with the "beginings and endings" of the world make the old idea (to
the child) of God of less importance, and with the passage of time the old
idea is nearly completely forgotten.

Then, for some reason due to experience, the older person (formerly the
child) is "reminded" (generally through some "trauma" related to the
aforementioned "beginings and endings" of the world) of the simplicity of God
(as previously defined) and longs to recall that feeling as comfort.

Then, some goofy institution, who knows the utitlty of manipulating that
feeling (often for the better), substitutes an "adult" concept of God (which
contains that "adult" concepts of "beginings and endings" which in actuality
have no place being attached to the concept of God).

Thus, a "church" is formed (or joined) and inappropriate concepts, such as
placing God in a physical location in the universe, God having a "personality",
God wanting anything, God having a form, etc, are further attached to God.

Then, the contradictions begin to appear (as the aforementioned
attachments DEMAND) and the previously believable beliefs become
unbelievable. This DEMANDS a crisis of faith, because one can't have faith in
the unbelievable, and our older person must make come choices.

Continue to be churchgoing, without belief and faith (which MUST occur
together). This becomes a social club, aka a "cult".

Rework what is known such that the true "feeling" of God makes rational
sense and becomes believable, and can be followed with faith.

Those are the only two choices.

(( This is NOT for Grave's consumption, by the way, as he knows exactly
where I'm coming from. :) ))

-Iakeo

..and THAT is God. That which "is". The "creator" is the impossible thing that
created and contains and infuses the eternal "everything" that the
perceiving "child" perceives.

God is naturally perceived by the child pretty much as he is. Then the needs
of dealing with the "beginings and endings" of the world make the old idea (to
the child) of God of less importance, and with the passage of time the old
idea is nearly completely forgotten.

Then, for some reason due to experience, the older person (formerly the
child) is "reminded" (generally through some "trauma" related to the
aforementioned "beginings and endings" of the world) of the simplicity of God
(as previously defined) and longs to recall that feeling as comfort.

Then, some goofy institution, who knows the utitlty of manipulating that
feeling (often for the better), substitutes an "adult" concept of God (which
contains that "adult" concepts of "beginings and endings" which in actuality
have no place being attached to the concept of God).

Thus, a "church" is formed (or joined) and inappropriate concepts, such as
placing God in a physical location in the universe, God having a "personality",
God wanting anything, God having a form, etc, are further attached to God.

Then, the contradictions begin to appear (as the aforementioned
attachments DEMAND) and the previously believable beliefs become
unbelievable. This DEMANDS a crisis of faith, because one can't have faith in
the unbelievable, and our older person must make come choices.

Continue to be churchgoing, without belief and faith (which MUST occur
together). This becomes a social club, aka a "cult".

Rework what is known such that the true "feeling" of God makes rational
sense and becomes believable, and can be followed with faith.

Those are the only two choices.

(( This is NOT for Grave's consumption, by the way, as he knows exactly
where I'm coming from. :) ))

-Iakeo

Indeed. If this were for my consumption, it would have read something like:

"Aloha. Reminder: It Is"

:)

I was an athetist for awhile, then God called me. It's hard to deny his existence after that. ;)

Bwaaaang..!!

A ludicrously simple and powerful (whether it's serious or not) answer, which
pretty much sums it all up.

:D

-Iakeo

a) Yes! I love his hook and his wooden peg leg, and how he shouts "Yarr!" all the time. :D
b) Yes, I do believe he exists in your mind... :rolleyes:
c) No, I think you just made that up
d) Meowkinder the who?

hit me :p

a) er... no
b) er... no... reference to a 'real entity'
c) as b)
d) Bloody.

There is a label attached already... it is called "child".

The only reason we are attacing the word 'Atheist' is because WE have chosen to talk about a qualitative value WE call 'god'.

The child is equally blissful in his/her ignorance of MANY things, and lacks equal belief in all of them... but, if WE are debating god, or godlessness, the 'value' of the child's belief corresponds to 'Atheist'.

Wrong-O, but only in that your not COMPLETELY correct, oh wise one..! :)

My (equally valid point-of-view) is that the child is utterly enamored and
immersed in God, and is a complete and total theist, because the child's God
is the real God, which is the supporting universe.

The real God IS the infantile concept of God.

The Atheistic God is the non-god of one dissatisfied with the not-real god of
society,.. which they (wisely) don't believe in, but have belief and faith
(religion) that their belief is true and actionable on.

-Iakeo

Wrong-O, but only in that your not COMPLETELY correct, oh wise one..! :)

My (equally valid point-of-view) is that the child is utterly enamored and
immersed in God, and is a complete and total theist, because the child's God
is the real God, which is the supporting universe.

The real God IS the infantile concept of God.

The Atheistic God is the non-god of one dissatisfied with the not-real god of
society,.. which they (wisely) don't believe in, but have belief and faith
(religion) that their belief is true and actionable on.

-Iakeo

And, through your perspective of 'god', I would entirely agree on my 'wrongness'.:)

I made no choice to be an Atheist.

I was satisfied being a Christian, until I discovered I no longer believed in their 'god'.

It was the simple 'lack of god' that defines my 'belief' as Atheistic.

A child's 'disbelief' is multifaceted, but we only have names for some parts of it.

You were forced, by GOD (reality), to chuck the idea of God as you knew it
because you could no longer trust it (have faith in it) because you found it
unbelievable, and faith without belief is not faith, and very VERY harmful.

God finds that eminently satisfying, if he could find anything satisfying, which
he can't of course, which is why I'm allowed to speak for God, as God doesn't
want for anything, much less does he want me to not speak for him.

Thus, you and God agree. Silly gods are bad.

-Iakeo

A child is born atheist.
When you introduce him to the concept of god, you have just started corrupting (or spoiling, or enriching) him.


edit: It's not much different than telling him a tale about atoms and molecules and how they are everywhere... and he believes it. That doesn't mean he was born a scientist.

I was born in Italy, I wouldn't want to be associated with the monikers of italians as a stereotype, or politically or whatever. I'm still an italian and I'd include some children in the definition, even if they haven't made a choice.

Which is fine, so long as Italians don't extend the word to include anyone who was born within a thousand miles of Italy. I'm fairly sure there are a few countries who might take issue with that. Also, Italian is a word that has nothing to do with beliefs. Atheism doesn't have that luxury, so you used a false analogy.

If you could come up with some better name I'd understand, Dante put unbaptized children in the limbo but he also put there other uncivilized people who never heard the word of god, aka atheists.

Never heard is not the same as disbelief. Did Dante use the word Atheists? Hmmmm....

The sites you speak of already exist. The Christian religion is the incarnation of what you wish for.... it chooses to define all people into it's groups, based on it's own definition.

"Saved" or "damned".... and I get no choice as to which definition I get lumped into.

Are you seriously comparing Christianity to the basic concepts of theism and atheism? I mean if you want to consider atheism a religion, you'll get no objections to me, but I thought you were actually attempting to be rational.

Curiously - I have argued the concept of Explicit and Implicit Theism, for some time...

But, you are going to have to pick a lane... I assume you do not really believe Theism to be a lack of Atheism...?

If Atheism is 'without god', then any that are 'without god' are Atheists...

Whether they 'conceive' god, or no.

Atheism isn't without god, it's the belief there is no god.

I don't believe you have to pick a lane. I think they are both equally wrong.

I have no concept of "Mewkinder, the Bloody". He may or may not exist.

I do not think you unintelligent, my friend... as you know, I have the highest respect for you.

Thus, you see the question for what it is....

Will you answer it?

"Do you believe in Mewkinder, the Bloody"?