religious idiocy

[cheimon]

Bitchboy had a good point, that it's mostly organized religion that people object to. That's certainly my take on things, since it's my belief that as soon as you put in a bureaucracy, everything goes to shit.

So, to put myself on a sort of limb here, I'm going to say that while I have nothing but respect for someone's right to believe in a god/goddess/gods/whatever, I lose a lot of respect for people who belong to an organized religion. This is just because I can't see any good in it. If you read the Bible, think about Jesus' message, and say, ok, I'm going to be gentle, forgiving, try to love everyone, and do good works, I applaud you. But if you feel the need to take along with that admirable message the whole business of Catholic/Baptist/Methodist/whatever bureaucracy and propaganda, I just don't understand the reasoning, and yes, I'd think you were an idiot.

I mean, what good does it do? I honestly can't think of anything organized religion does that is as good or better than what regular people believing in a Higher Power could do. The only thing I can think of that might work is a sense of community/belonging, but there's such a horrible downside to that sort of identification, one which in my mind outweighs the benefits.

So, my two cents. Feel free to reply, but please, don't get into a mud-slinging match; this post isn't intended to offend, it's just an accurate description of what I think.

[Greebo]

Atheism is not a fucking belief system. I can't believe I just read that!
Right lets get this straight right now - there are two types of atheist:

Strong Atheist: These guys assert outright that there is not god - which I suppose could be argued is a belief, but they do not make up the majority of atheists.

Weak or Agnostic Atheists: This what the majority of atheists are - myself included - they merely do not believe in any god. Please note that is NOT the same as saying there is no god, or that you believe there is no god.

A lot of weak atheists view god/the concept of god as the same as those little invisible pink unicorns in the sky - can't prove either way, but due to not having seen any evidence for them, don't believe in them. Same for 'god', no evidence, no belief.

[Guest]

Random useless fact:

More people died in one day of the American Civil War than in the total of people executed by the spanish inquisition.

[Biitchboy]

[s]Greebo wrote on 17:01, 5th Mar 2003:
Atheism is not a fucking belief system. I can't believe I just read that!


No, you're wrong, atheism definitely is a belief system. Agnosticism, however,is not, and you are mistaken if you believe that it is just a form of weak athiesm. Agnosticism is the "belief" that it is impossible to tell whether there is a God or not. They do not believe there is, they do not believe there is not, they're just not really sure. You are correct in saying that this is not a belief system. But atheism is different: it is a belief that God does not exist, and this is largely a belief since it is impossible to prove a negative.

So there.

[hr]
If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[Blessed Benediction]

religion isn't too much of a problem for me.

i probably fall into that weak atheist/agnostic bit. as i'm pretty weak in most respects.

on a side note: this board is too unchilled out for my delicate state of mind. is there a happy board somewhere? preferably one with a half green, half white colour scheme.

[hr]watches should have a smiley face on them as it's always time to be happy

[Anon.]

[s]Biitchboy wrote on 17:53, 5th Mar 2003:
[s]Greebo wrote on 17:01, 5th Mar 2003:[i]
Atheism is not a fucking belief system. I can't believe I just read that!


No, you're wrong, atheism definitely is a belief system. [/i]

'Fraid Biitchboy is right here Greebo.

Atheists believe that there is no god; agnostics don't know either way, neither believing nor disbelieving in a god.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

Believing that god does not exist is *a* belief. Where is the system?

[Anon.]

Dunno - what's "belief system" supposed to mean anyway?

[Greebo]

I didn't say anything about agnosticism
I referred to weak atheism by its alternate name.
And weak atheism is not a belief system - did you even read what I wrote?
Let's play spot the difference:

Weak Atheist: I do not believe in any god

Not weak atheist: I believe there is no god.

See it yet?
I have NEVER EVER said that I believe there is no god. That *would* be a belief.

It's like...well do any of you saying I'm wrong believe in invisible pink unicorns?

[Greebo]

[s]Anon. wrote on 18:23, 5th Mar 2003:
Atheists believe that there is no god; agnostics don't know either way, neither believing nor disbelieving in a god.


Nope - I do not believe in a god is not the same as believing there is not a god.

As for agnostics - they basically say we cannot know one way or the other...would be willing to bet there were a few agnostic christians - seeing as the existence of any god cannot be proven one way or the other.
Similarly with agnostic/weak atheists - don't believe in a god, but do acknowledge that it can't be proven one way or another (so indirectly acknowledge that theres a chance, however small, of a god existing).

[Anon.]

Agnostic atheism and agnosticism being different things, then?

[Anon.]

Right, I think I've got it.

(1) Theists believe there is a god.

(2) Atheists believe there is no god.

(3) Agnostic atheists (as you term them) do not believe there is a god, because they have seen no evidence for such a belief, but neither do they believe there isn't a god, for the same reason.

(4) Agnostics believe it is impossible to know one way or the other.


Actually, no, I'm still a bit hazy on the difference between (3) and (4) - could you clarify?

[Anon.]

[Rereads Greebo's posts]

Right - agnostic/weak atheists are agnostics who lean more towards atheism than otherwise, but are still fundamentally agnostics.

Yes?

[Greebo]

(1) Theists believe there is a god.

(2) Atheists believe there is no god.

(3) Agnostic atheists (as you term them) do not believe there is a god, because they have seen no evidence for such a belief, but neither do they believe there isn't a god, for the same reason.

(4) Agnostics believe it is impossible to know one way or the other.


Actually, no, I'm still a bit hazy on the difference between (3) and (4) - could you clarify?

Right
(1) is correct
(2) I object to because the vast majority of atheists are weak atheists - so change (2) to Strong atheists and I'll go along with that.

Right (3) and (4):
I'll re-explain (3) in a different way:
Baby is born without knowledge of any religion/god right? That baby cannot be said to believe there is no god - because it has no knowledge of the concept of god. Similarly it can't be said that the baby believes in god for the same reason.
Now in my view - that baby is in a state of weak atheism - does not believe in any gods, due to the fact that it has no concept of god. (I should've pointed out that "agnostic atheists" while a popular name for weak atheists isn't always *exactly* the same thing - for example in this case the baby does have any way of knowing of the concept of god and so can't decide if we can know either way).
Now weak atheists are in the same position as the baby except they have various concepts of god (presented by various religions) but they still do not believe in them. This usually leads to the term agnostic atheists because, like I said, they acknowledge the possibility of the existence of god - to do otherwise is to make an affirmative statement for or against the existence of god, leading to theism/strong atheism.

(4) Is correct- though it can be tagged onto theism/weak atheism.

[Greebo]

[s]Anon. wrote on 20:29, 5th Mar 2003:
[Rereads Greebo's posts]

Right - agnostic/weak atheists are agnostics who lean more towards atheism than otherwise, but are still fundamentally agnostics.

Yes?


I would've said atheists first, agnostics second....really depends if you'd acknowledge that agnostic christians are the same but leaning towards theism

[Anon.]

But the term atheist, by definition, means someone who does not believe in any god and rejects the whole concept of a deity. In my view, it is fairly black-and-white as to whether one is an atheist or not.

What you refer to as "weak atheists", however, reject those portrayals of deity which have been expounded by the sundry religions of the world, but are prepared to admit the possibility of existence of some sort of god - therefore they are not atheists, because they do not absolutely reject this possibility.

I see what you are saying, but disagree with your terminology.

[James]

Atheism is a world-view, it colours one's perception of reality in the same way as any religion would. In that respect, is has the same kinds of effects in people's lives as a religion, and it is still an assertion about life: rather than assert facts about a god, the atheist asserts the non-existence of a god, and works with that. So I am happy with calling it a belief system, even though it only really consists of the one main belief that there is no god.

"Agnostic Atheist" - how is that any kind of coherent term. It may well be explainable, but it's a very confusing name to use.

(And I smell at least one person here being on one of the current Philosophy of Religion courses.)

[Greebo]

Atheism = Without theism
There is no assertation there.
No assertation against the existence of god, no assertation of a belief of the non-existence of god.
It just means without the belief in a god.

But the term atheist, by definition, means someone who does not believe in any god and rejects the whole concept of a deity.

The bit in bold is right - the rest is not necessary to be an atheist.
Imagine a world that had no concept of god - everyone would be, by default, atheist because there was no belief in god - but they wouldn't be rejecting the concept of a deity because there was no concept.

Absolute rejection is saying that one knows outright about the existence of god (or lack of it) - but the lack of existence of a god CANNOT BE PROVED. You cannot prove the lack of existence of something if it isn't there. Therefore to take the stance of a strong atheist requires a belief - I've never denied that.

But one can lack belief and not assert that they KNOW there is no god - to do so implies perfect knowledge of the universe and anything outside

I see what you are saying, but disagree with your terminology.

Well sorry but that's the way the majority of atheists define themselves - surely it's down to us how we define ourselves?

Atheism is a world-view, it colours one's perception of reality in the same way as any religion would. In that respect, is has the same kinds of effects in people's lives as a religion, and it is still an assertion about life: rather than assert facts about a god, the atheist asserts the non-existence of a god, and works with that. So I am happy with calling it a belief system, even though it only really consists of the one main belief that there is no god.

I'll agree that it changes one's world perspective but there is no doctorine defining how to act or anything. The only thing you need to be an atheist is the lack of a belief in any god - NOT THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD, THAT'S A DIFFERENT THING FOR THE MILLIONTH TIME.

"Agnostic Atheist" - how is that any kind of coherent term. It may well be explainable, but it's a very confusing name to use.

It's just as coherent as an agnostic christian - one who believes in the christian deity but who also thinks it cannot be proved either way whether or not he exists. Which, by the way, is why it's called FAITH and not KNOWLEDGE

(And I smell at least one person here being on one of the current Philosophy of Religion courses.)

Oi I took a shower this afternoon!
But I've been doing this for ages - long before I did that course.

[Biitchboy]

I'm sorry Greebo, but your concept of a "weak atheist" is BS. Actually I'm not sorry. Anyway: an atheist is someone who believes that there is no God. End of story. An agnostic is someone who can't tell. What you call a weak atheist is really an agnostic. If there is any doubt involved concerning the existence of God or Gods or some kind of entity, then that is agnosticism. Atheists know exactly what they believe: that there is no God.

Re your baby theory: The baby is neither a theist nor an atheist. An atheist is not someone who doesn't believe in God. It is someone who believe that there is no God. Sounds similar, but the first includes people who have no beliefs. A baby is unable to formulate a belief system so can't be an atheist. It doesn't know what God is. The second definition thus excludes babies.

Please don't argue about it anymore or I'm going to throw a dictionary at you. One of the big, full sized, hardback ones. 'twould hurt.

Also in reference to another post somewhere back there, concerning atheism being a belief system. Granted, yes, believing there is no God is only one belief, but usually there are other beliefs which are attached to this idea, such as the rejection of an afterlife, and so on and so forth. The point about atheism colouring your world view is a valid point I think. Everyone's beliefs, religious or otherwise, affect how they see the world. Hence why communists explain everything in economical terms where others would blame it on x, y, or z.

*Sigh* Done now.

[hr]If I gave a shit, you'd be the first person I'd give it to.

[Pussycat]

Perhaps people are just going by the dictionary definition:

Atheism:

(a) Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

(b)The doctrine that there is no God or gods.

The above is from an American dictionary. Or as the Oxford dictionary puts it:

Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a God. Also, Disregard of duty to God, godlessness (practical atheism).


This is what my atheist friend told me too. Make of it what you will.