Bang on post, pirate man. D'you wanna high five (over the internet)

Arrr, I'd rather do this 'ere rum stuff!

*Clinks mug of rum with Lukec and downs it*

*Is allergic to rum, dies.*

Thanks for nothing!

Atheism isn't a reigion since its a non-religion or acctually a view of life and perhaps a philosophy.

It's more of an word then anything. It's easier to say that I'm a atheist then "I don't believe in any god, gods or anything supernatural what so ever".

(November 9, 2008 at 4:24 am)Jason Jarred Wrote: It doesn't matter how *you* define atheism. No seriously, it doesn't matter. Because *you're* not an atheist. You don't get to tell us what the definition is for the label we choose to use.

Not sure if you intended it or not but that seems to hint that we can decide for ourselves what atheism means and , if so (and I stress this is reading between the lines so I'm likely wrong), I've given this some thought and I think that's a flawed concept ... I think what atheism is, is based on definition pure and simple.

This is a reply I posted a couple of years ago on that subject:

Quote:"Theism" in its broadest sense is a label that defines someone who believes in a god or gods, it is based on the Greek word for God ("Theos") and essentially means "with God". To be a theist carries no philosophical implications in and of itself because you could be a believer that there is a god without believing that such a god left us any guidance directly of through human intermediaries'. You could be Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Deist but to be "a theist" means no more or less than to say that that person believes in a god or gods ... any specific religious beliefs are over & above the fact that that person is a theist.

The word "atheist" is wholly dependent on the definition of "theist" and in English grammar terms the use of the "a" in front of the word simply reverses the sense of the word to mean "not with god". Again, as with "theist", the word "atheist" carries no philosophical implications and people can have various beliefs within atheism but, to quote Aristotle, "It is the mark of an intelligent mind to be able to entertain an idea without necessarily accepting it." ... this is important to understand because someone can be "an atheist" and actively disbelieve in gods, they can also be an atheist and simply not accept current claims to the existence of god. At no point does the sense of the word "atheist" dictate that one must actively believe there is no god though I accept that many do but it is my experience that when challenged, the rational atheist accepts the possibility of god or gods whether they believe they exist or not. It is my experience that most rational atheists fit into one category ... that of rejecting all current claims to deity, of considering the likelihood of an as yet undiscovered deity to be low but of being intellectually prepared to accept the possibility of deity given the requisite evidence and that is roughly where I am.

I describe myself as a rational atheist, that is to say I am someone who arrived at a position of atheism by reviewing the evidence available to me and as such it is important to me that I extend that philosophy to include disbelief in deity, I don't think there are or ever have been any gods but I recognise I cannot know that because something which will not reveal itself in a scientific sense cannot be observed, cannot be validated and therefore is outside the remit of science i.e. gods are, in my opinion, something that must be taken on faith and personal experience alone. To my mind it is equally as illogical to claim there is no god as it is to claim there is one ... neither side of this particular argument can know whether they are right or wrong.

Of course that now leaves the door open to others claiming that that makes me (and just about every other rational atheist alive) agnostic and that is, of course true, but that isn't quite as easy a distinction as some would like to make.

Like "theism" & "atheism", "gnostic" mean knowledge (in this context "of god") in other words the gnostic "knows of god" or "has knowledge of god" and the agnostic "knows not of god" or "has no knowledge of god" and today that has changed slightly to mean that the agnostic "does not know if there is a god" or holds that "the existence of god is unknown or unknowable".

Now belief in something (the acceptance of a given explanation) is a two state affair, you either accept that explanation or you reject it i.e. I believe that science represents our best current understanding of the universe around us ... given the nature of science it is not hard to defend that POV nevertheless it is merely a belief on my part. The agnostic, by the very act of saying he/she "does not know" (or indeed by claiming that the existence of deity is unknown and unknowable") is essentially rejecting current religious *explanations* EXACTLY as an atheist does. In fact what is clear about the agnostic position is that it differs from atheism only in the way it is perceived by others and, indeed, historically the term is believed to have originated with T.H. Huxley as a term he used because he did not like the connotations associated with the "atheist". In other words, if the agnostic does not accept current claims to deity (and typically they don't but for various reasons they don't want to say there is no god) then the agnostic, at that point in time, is an atheist whether they want to be identified as such or not.

The other definition of agnosticism, that the existence of god is unknown and unknowable, is little more than a philosophical dodge ... of course the existence of god is not known or knowable because god won't come out and play nice with the scientists.

So logically, agnosticism and atheism are one and the same position ... one or the other is a redundant term. Since atheism (apparently) has precedence and the definition makes more rational sense in relation to "theism", agnosticism is, IMO, the redundant term.

Ultimately it's fairly straightforward logic combined with simple English grammar.

Kyu

I would have thought that Atheism is the compleat opposite of a religion. When you think about it isnt religion a belief, like, i's beleiving that theres a god, or gods or anything, and its beleiving how things work and how things are done, and following the rules of a religion how whatever gods in that religion have said so,(in my mind it makes sense:S). Anyway, Atheism is like the compleat opposite of it, it's not beleiving in any religions, or following a certain way of life, its just being compleatly yourself, how you want to be and not beleiving any of it.... i may have just confused myself something rotton but i hope it makes sense. hehe x

(April 24, 2009 at 4:34 pm)MetalVampire Wrote: I would have thought that Atheism is the compleat opposite of a religion. When you think about it isnt religion a belief, like, i's beleiving that theres a god, or gods or anything, and its beleiving how things work and how things are done, and following the rules of a religion how whatever gods in that religion have said so,(in my mind it makes sense:S). Anyway, Atheism is like the compleat opposite of it, it's not beleiving in any religions, or following a certain way of life, its just being compleatly yourself, how you want to be and not beleiving any of it.... i may have just confused myself something rotton but i hope it makes sense. hehe x

I disagree. I think non-religion is the opposite of religion, but whilst most atheists are non-religious, some aren't. Atheism is a disbelief in gods, and some Buddhists have atheistic beliefs whilst subscribing to a specific religious doctrine, as with Scientology, which as far as I am aware does not hold theistic beliefs meaning an atheist could easily be a member.

Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. (Bolded words are key). A single belief cannot be a religion, but a collection of them can. Thus atheism and theism are not religions, since they are single beliefs/disbeliefs, although they can both be aspects of religions.

Now atheists do have certain beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. For me, the cause is the Big Bang, the nature is that of non-intelligent complexity, and the purpose is non existent. However this is not a set of beliefs. Each of these beliefs is singular and I don't count them together. For a theistic religion, the three beliefs would be combined (i.e God caused the universe, he created the nature, and it exists for his purpose). The set of beliefs is linked by the "God".

(April 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Religion is defined as a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. (Bolded words are key). A single belief cannot be a religion, but a collection of them can. Thus atheism and theism are not religions, since they are single beliefs/disbeliefs, although they can both be aspects of religions.

That's awesome.

(April 24, 2009 at 8:08 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Now atheists do have certain beliefs about the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. For me, the cause is the Big Bang, the nature is that of non-intelligent complexity, and the purpose is non existent. However this is not a set of beliefs. Each of these beliefs is singular and I don't count them together. For a theistic religion, the three beliefs would be combined (i.e God caused the universe, he created the nature, and it exists for his purpose). The set of beliefs is linked by the "God".

I don't think that's correct. Religions concern themselves with non scientific matters around human spirituality. The beliefs are complimentary and not exclusive.

Just because they are complimentary doesn't mean they do not concern scientific matters. The beginning of the universe is a very scientific matter, as is nature. Theists holds that God is the main cause of these, and even if science shows that the Big Bang idea is true, God caused the Big Bang.

Quote:God caused the Big Bang.

I thought it was you Adrian who created us all. Have I been wrong all this time? hock: