Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[chaoticag]

I think saying that being an Atheist is believing in something is pretty false. For one thing, it isn't really faith based, since if an ultimate being(s) proved his/their existance and influence, the existance of a soul and so on, then there wouldn't be any athiests, whether or not you think said being(s) is/are good or evil.

Secondly, there is no set of beliefs that are in any way standardised that Atheists follow. An Atheist can believe in anything he/she wishes to, so long as they maintain a disbelief of the existence of gods. Lack of belief is zero, not a negative number, in the same way that dryness is a lack of water.

Finally, this thread needs not be killed, just cleared of unhealthy discussion before it festers a bit. Getting rid of misconceptions is the easiest way to do this, and benifits all people involved.

[G-Flex]

Atheism can be faith-based, in the sense that someone can have a faith-based belief that there isn't any deity out there. However, this is far from necessary.

[dreiche2]

I would be most interested in a Religion that does not hit the 'cause, nature and purpose of the universe' part.

You owe me a religion that doesn't meet any of the additional characteristics as well! 

But yeah, I don't know much about different religions, but I would imagine there could be religions that do not have a creation myth, and thus are agnostic towards the 'cause' of the universe.

As for the 'purpose', well, I guess in Christianity it's not clear what the purpose of the universe is, but it is kind of implied that there is a purpose due to the (ill-defined) omnipotence and infinite quality of god, or some such.

However, take a religion where the gods are not omnipotent but rather just higher powers, and where the universe itself wasn't created by gods or anything with a goal in mind, then you probably don't get a statement of belief about its purpose or the existence of a purpose. For example, here's a creation myth of the ancient Greek:

"Myths of origin" or "creation myths" represent an attempt to render the universe comprehensible in human terms and explain the origin of the world.[22] The most widely accepted version at the time, although a philosophical account of the beginning of things, is reported by Hesiod, in his Theogony. He begins with Chaos, a yawning nothingness. Out of the void emerged Eurynome,[citation needed] Gê or Gaia (the Earth) and some other primary divine beings: Eros (Love), the Abyss (the Tartarus), and the Erebus.[23] Without male assistance, Gaia gave birth to Oranos (the Sky) who then fertilized her. From that union were born [.... bla bla]

I don't see how that would imply any purpose to the universe more than a scientific theory of the origin of the universe would.

I think saying that being an Atheist is believing in something is pretty false. For one thing, it isn't really faith based, since if an ultimate being(s) proved his/their existance and influence, the existance of a soul and so on, then there wouldn't be any athiests, whether or not you think said being(s) is/are good or evil.

Secondly, there is no set of beliefs that are in any way standardised that Atheists follow. An Atheist can believe in anything he/she wishes to, so long as they maintain a disbelief of the existence of gods. Lack of belief is zero, not a negative number, in the same way that dryness is a lack of water.

I don't see how you are bringing new arguments to the table. To restate my own opinion on the matter: There are different forms of atheisms, and some do indeed involve a statement of belief, not just a lack thereof (e.g., "I believe gods do not exist", "I believe the biblical god does not exist", etc.).

I also don't think confusing things further by bringing "faith" into the discussion is helpful. Yet another term everyone is going to argue about...

[3]

However, take a religion where the gods are not omnipotent but rather just higher powers, and where the universe itself wasn't created by gods or anything with a goal in mind

See: Norse.

[Neruz]

I would be most interested in a Religion that does not hit the 'cause, nature and purpose of the universe' part.

You owe me a religion that doesn't meet any of the additional characteristics as well! 

I know, i'd actually just started looking for one when i realised we're both arguing from the same side of the fence. The reason i introduced that definition of Religion was to show that even if you strip away the 'extrainious' ritualized parts, Atheism still doesn't meet the criteria for a Religion.

I don't think i was trying to suggest that they were the only parts required, rather that even if they were, Atheism still wouldn't meet them. So yeah.


Also, in the primary Greek Religion, the purpose of the Universe was to be a place for the Gods to live. That was one of the reasons why Zeus got so pissed off at Promethius for making people; his shiny Universe was all dirty now.

However, take a religion where the gods are not omnipotent but rather just higher powers, and where the universe itself wasn't created by gods or anything with a goal in mind

See: Norse.

Pretty much all ancient religions are like this. In fact i think Catholicism and all it's derivitives are the only religions that have an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent god.

[Micro102]

Neruz i already stated why atheism has beliefs.

[Neruz]

Neruz i already stated why atheism has beliefs.

Your point?

[Ampersand]

Micro, I don't want you to take this offensively, but you really have not really said much of anything other than your own unsupported opinions.

[Micro102]

Well i would at least like a reaction? Otherwise I think "O they have no comeback so I must be right".

[Phmcw]

It seems to me that the problem right now is that the problem lies within the definition of atheism. Because when once say "I'm an atheist" that dosn't make him a strict follower of the "rules" of atheism that you can find in a dictionnary or in wikipédia. Atheism is not a religion because of that. It's a way of thinking, sort of, but he doesn't have holly word. This is the eternal problem with non-religious movment classification. No one, exept you, is to say if you're an atheist, no one will try to test the purty of your belief, and no one tells you how you should be an atheist. It's just someone that, a a point in his life say "well, these thing with their gods, I don't belive it. There is no god." And what they mean with there is no god is up to them.

And atheism can or can not be a belief. To use an example, if I say that I shall not give you a name, I have not named you "the anonym". But I could.
I do not belive. I can assume something (the sun will go up tomorow) but I don't have to belive it. I can however assume that someting is false. Actually that would be a better definition of my atheism : I think that these story about a god are so far fetched that i can assume that he doesn't exist. 

[Neruz]

Well i would at least like a reaction? Otherwise I think "O they have no comeback so I must be right".

Your statement that Atheism has beliefs is only valid when considering Strong Atheism, and even then remains irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

[Micro102]

Looked it up and yeah I'm more os a strong atheist, but why isn't strong atheism considered a religion?

[Neruz]

Because it is not a set of beliefs about the cause, nature and purpose of the universe and lacks all the extra bits as well.

[Micro102]

Dude, how can you say that the theories "big bang" "dark matter" "universe accelerating outwards" "evolution instead of creationism" "insert any of the 100's of the -ologies here" are not beliefs? There being a powerful being that created the world is a belief and atheists don't believe it. So why is something that atheists believe that other religions don't not considered a belief?

[3]

Because "science" and "atheism" are two entirely different things.