Atheism is a religion

[Zen Badger]

Doublet:
The fallacy has nothing to do with what atheists think about God, it has to do with the statement that they "lack belief". It isn't that they don't belief God "exists", it's that the are aware of an idea called "God" yet somehow "lack" any belief in it.

If I ask you, what is "bocephilitus"? And you say, "I have no idea, a word you just made up I guess", you have just made multiple statements of your belief in "bocephilitus"
1. You don't know what it is
2. A word
3. Something I made up

To the state that you lack belief in it commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. The very fact that I said the word and you heard it forces you to form a belief about it.

If I say, "don't think about a white elephant" and you say you didn't... Invincible ignorance.

It sounds to me that you are confabulating "a belief about god" with "a belief in god"

The two ideas are not necessarily interchangable.

I can believe that Superman would beat Batman in a fight.

That does not mean that I believe in Superman.

[Mister Agenda]

If thy dictionary offend thee, pluck it out and go some place where they don't care if you make up your own meanings for words.

many words have multiple definitions. Definitions are often different depending on which dictionary you use. Until I understand a concept, I try to stick with the dictionary. Once I get it, I define it myself.

Good luck with that.

A definition can't commit a fallacy. If I define bleck as the very definition of the fallacy of invincible ignorance, that does not mean the definition commits that fallacy. What's committed is those of us who are agnostic or weak atheists saying 'we don't believe in any God or gods' and you finding passive-aggressive ways to say we're all liars without actually coming out and saying so.

I get what you are getting at, but I stick with my original statement. You cant "lack belief" in something you have formed thoughts about. That atheists "lack belief in God or gods" commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. I'll give you this: the definition by itself does not commit the fallacy, anytime an someone uses that definition in response to a question about what atheism is, the person is committing the fallacy.

I think you can reasonably say 'you can't lack beliefs about something you have thought about. To say you can't lack belief in something you've thought about is nonsense. I've thought about Sherlock Holmes, I have beliefs about Sherlock Holmes, but that in no way means I believe in Sherlock Holmes. And invincible ignorance is ignoring evidence and rejecting arguments no matter what. Saying I lack belief in something is a report of my internal state. Invincible ignorance isn't even properly a fallacy, when you accuse someone of invincible ignorance you are presuming that you understand the arguments and know the evidence and have presented them in such a way that no reasonable person could possibly reject them, so you conclude they can't be convinced because of some flaw on their part, while rejecting the notion that you are the one who might actually be wrong. It's basically a cheap shot to take at someone when you can't win an argument.

I have knowledge of that word: which letters compose it, what order they're in, and so forth. I have no beliefs (or idea) of what the word is supposed to mean or if it correlates to anything real. I don't know if you made it up or if you got it somewhere else. I don't know if a meaning has already been assigned, if you plan to make one up, or if it hasn't been defined, if you plan on letting it remain so. I completely lack a belief regarding whether or not anything it may refer to is real.

Words have no meaning beyond that which we personally ascribe them, they are simply constructs of language. If you go up to someone who speaks a different language and start talking they will not understand you. Nevertheless, they will be forced to form beliefs. probably that you are trying to communicate with them. Complete knowledge of anything is beyond our comprehension. We ONLY have beliefs about things, no actual knowledge. If I ask you to prove something exists, anything, you would not be able to do it. You could have all the evidence in the world and yet you could not prove something to 100% certainty. We start with axioms which we assume to be true but can not prove, say "reality exists" we build off that. When you say "knowledge" I hear "belief" the fact that many of us share the same believes does not automatically make them true.

What you're arguing about here: it's not what we're disagreeing about.

And let's be clear: the Abrahamic God is clearly the result of generations of a game of 'my god is better than yours'. It's a ridiculous pile of omnis that contradict each other and can't possibly exist. But it's possible some other version of God may exist or some 'small g' god exists; although I think it's unlikely I don't set the probability at zero. I'm an agnostic atheist because I don't rule out the possibilty of some sort of god (although I lack belief in any); but I'm a 'gnostic' atheist toward versions of God that are self-contradictory or contradict observable reality. And speaking of forming beliefs about strings of letters, I question whether a word like God that seems to have hundreds of definitions which many proponents shift freely to suit their arguments can meaningfully be said to actually have a definition.

"the Abrahamic God" , or "Allah", or "Yahweh", or "Odin" or "Zeus" have no inherent meaning to them beyond that which we ascribe them. If God exists, God exists independently of our beliefs about what that God is. That people have made up many definitions for God is simply human nature and our need to understand and label things. God is incomprehensible. That someone would assume to know God's will is travesty. Although the attempt to know God is nobel, many people are not.

How do you conclude attempting to know God is noble after noting that God is incomprehensible and claiming to know God's will is worse? The rest I grant, while noting we have much less trouble agreeing on defintions of entities that can be demonstrated to exist.

Sure. What I believe about any God or god I've heard of is that belief in it's existence is unjustified by logic or evidence, even if it's possible that it really does exist. My belief about the Abrahamic God based on his most commonly-ascribed attributes is that he doesn't exist. Your version of God isn't the only one, even many of your co-religionists don't mind throwing that version under the bus if another is more defensible. I'm reminded of a debate I attended on whether the God of the Bible exists. The proponent never even attempted to prove more than an ill-defined creator God. I believe the Abrahamic God doesn't exist. I don't believe the Deist God does exist. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe any God or god exists. We can have all kinds of other beliefs. We can even believe God doesn't exist, but it's not required, anymore than theists are required to never have doubts that God exists

I might stop here because I think the crux of our are disagreement begins with the axiom which we base our knowledge on. It seems that you start from a point of "things are real because they are" whereas I start from "I percieve".

I would say that I start from the axiom that what I perceive really exists, although my perception has flaws and limits.

From your starting point a conclusion that God exists is near impossible to prove whereas that conclusion is an inevitability from my starting point. You need proof that the things we observe through your conscious perception are true, yet for some reason the statement that your perceptions are inherently true is assumed without proof.

Proof that reality exists is impossible, but it's useless to proceed as if it doesn't.

There is no evidence that our conscious perceptions of reality are real. The axiom is circular reasoning.

I think I'll need to add 'circular reasoning' to the list of terms you use that you don't understand. It's an axiom, a starting point, you don't reason your way up to an axiom, you reason your way down to it and admit you can't drill down any farther and still have a useful framework.

Starting from, "I percieve", however, no assumptions are initially made beyond the assumption that I am perceiving things.

Of course when you do it, it's not circular reasoning.

From there my belief in reality is based on a belief, not knowledge, that my perceptions and observations are real.

I don't know if my perceptions are real, either. I'm just afraid I'll come to a bad end if I behave as though they're not.

If perceptions are real consciousness must be real.

No, if perceptions are real, perceptions are real. They don't make consciousness real. That's an additional assumption. I happen to agree with it because I perceive myself to be conscious and I've already decided to accept it as axiomatic that my perceptions refer to something real. I also acknowledge that my perceptions certainly don't reflect reality perfectly. Some people make a case that consciousness is an illusion and I know for a fact that my perceptions can be fooled by illusions. So, I can't conclude that because I perceive consciousness, it is real. You can if you want, but it's a fallacy because it doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.

If consciousness is real it must exist independently of my ideas about it.

Sure.

The only things we believe exist independently of our ideas about them are those forces which created and bind all things in the universe and the universe itself. If consciousness is a force that is responsible for the creation of the universe it can be called "God".

And then you wander out into space. There's no reason to think a consciousness can exist without a brain. It's a brain function, you can switch consciousness off like a light by interfering with communication between certain parts of the brain. I believe apples exist independently of my ideas about them, that doesn't make them one of the "forces which created and bind all things in the universe and the universe itself." Consciousness is not a force, it is the state of being aware and being aware that you're aware. "If consciousness is a force that is responsible for the creation of the universe it can be called "God"": that's one of the biggest 'ifs' I've ever seen. What I'm saying is that you seem to think you can derive 'God' from 'I perceive'. If so you haven't been able to express it in terms of conclusions that must follow from your premises, you just pile more premises on top of your original one.

I honestly believe that "I percieve" is the only logical assumption one can make. It is the only thing one is capable of "knowing". Everything else requires belief.

Sure, and if it helps you feel calmer, I am happy to say I believe reality is real.

---

Your right Master, it is aggravating to me hear someone say that they lack any beliefs about something they are aware of. It doesnt compute with me. It honestly seems like such a obvious reality that how someone can hold the belief that they "lack belief" in thins they are aware of is somehow offensive. You, however, are not. I really do enjoy discussing with you, you are one of a select few on here who actually consider anything I say. So I thank you for that.

So why are you aggravated? No one is saying they lack any beliefs about something they are aware of. We're just saying we lack one specific belief: that a particular thing that you claim to exist actually exists. I think if you really had a valid point you wouldn't have to repeatedly wander off to 'doesn't believe in anything' and 'has no beliefs about'. We don't believe in God. It's a simple phrase that can't reasonably be translated as 'We don't believe in anything' or 'We have no beliefs about God as a concept'.

---

Doublet:
The fallacy has nothing to do with what atheists think about God, it has to do with the statement that they "lack belief". It isn't that they don't belief God "exists", it's that the are aware of an idea called "God" yet somehow "lack" any belief in it.

If I ask you, what is "bocephilitus"? And you say, "I have no idea, a word you just made up I guess", you have just made multiple statements of your belief in "bocephilitus"
1. You don't know what it is
2. A word
3. Something I made up

To the state that you lack belief in it commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance. The very fact that I said the word and you heard it forces you to form a belief about it.

If I say, "don't think about a white elephant" and you say you didn't... Invincible ignorance.

Stating I lack belief in something is a report on my internal state. It is not a rejection of arguments without considering them. Rejecting of arguments without conidering them, basically refusing to actually argue, is what invincible ignorance is. Telling you what we believe or don't believe is not invincible ignorance. Neither is telling you that we didn't think about the white elephant: that is self-contradiction, not invincible ignorance. If I said that, you could point out that I would have had to think about the white elephant in order to conclude I didn't think about it, and I would have to say something like 'oh, yeah, I guess I did think of it, after all. This is what happens when you decide to ditch your dictionary prematurely. And another thing: what a piss-poor analogy! Of course that's the only kind you can provide, since a good analogy destroys your point: If I say I lack a belief that Achilles was a real person, there's no 'gotcha' for you. Maybe there was an Achilles who was a great Greek warrior whose life and abilities were considerably embellished. I don't believe there was a 'real' Achilles. But there could have been, so I also don't believe there never was a 'real' Achilles. I lack both beliefs. And similar to my position on God, I do believe there was never an Achilles with magical invulnerability while not believing there wasn't a less unlikely Achilles while still not believing there was one. And since you're so good at distinguishing between knowledge and belief when I use those words, I expect that you won't be confused that not knowing and not believing aren't the same thing.

[Faith No More]

Faith: I just saw your question...

Before I reply I'd just like to say that I am here to discuss whatever I find interesting or worthy of discussion. I do not see everything and will not be on here enough to respond to all queries. When I am I will do my best to answer any honest question posed to me.

No problem. I did feel that you were ignoring it, but apparently I was wrong.

Do I believe it is possible for a person to not be a part of any religion?

- well, first and foremost that would depend on how you define religion.

Well, I would like to hear your definition since you are the one claiming atheism is a religion

But yes

. If you ACTUALLY form your own beliefs by thinking for yourself then regardless of what those beliefs are and regardless of how similar those beliefs are to any religion you would not be a part of that religion, unless of course you chose to be.

Well, that is how I came to call myself an atheist. I actually was one by age 15, but it wasn't until I was 31 that I learned that my beliefs fell under the category of atheist. So you admit that I am not part of any religion.

However, since religion is illusory whether or not someone "belongs" to a particular religion doesn't is meaningless. I colt call myself an atheist if I wanted to.

Well, this was actually a stepping stone to another point I was going to make about the absence of religion, but I've realized it won't work until we agree on a definition of religion. So again I ask, what is your definition of religion?

[amkerman]

I think you can reasonably say 'you can't lack beliefs about something you have thought about.

That's your belief

To say you can't lack belief in something you've thought about is nonsense.

That's your belief...
(to make this statement you must believe that consciousness exists apart from the brain. If consciousness doesn't exist apart from the brain, consciousness isn't "real". It would simply be a construct which only exists because of our ideas about how the brain works. Brains arent "real". They do not exist apart from our beliefs about them. We believe that the forces of physics and gravity created the universe and everything within it. That is out idea of how reality exists. If those forces did not exist we believe brains would and could not exist. We do not believe brains exist independantly of our ideas about them. Therefore brains aren't real. they are ideas we have about the effects of certain physical interactions in the universe. there is nothing inherently true about the brain. Our brains did not create themselves. Brains exist in reality, they did not create reality, they are not "real"

I've thought about Sherlock Holmes,

your belief...

I have beliefs about Sherlock Holmes,

your belief... I think you get the point

but that in no way means I believe in Sherlock Holmes. And invincible ignorance is ignoring evidence and rejecting arguments no matter what. Saying I lack belief in something is a report of my internal state. Invincible ignorance isn't even properly a fallacy, when you accuse someone of invincible ignorance you are presuming that you understand the arguments and know the evidence and have presented them in such a way that no reasonable person could possibly reject them, so you conclude they can't be convinced because of some flaw on their part, while rejecting the notion that you are the one who might actually be wrong. It's basically a cheap shot to take at someone when you can't win an argument.

Ugh... You can't "lack a belief" If you say "Achilles was not a real man" that is a statement of belief. If you say "I can't be sure whether or not Achilles was a real man" that is another statement of belief. If you then say, "Achilles was possibly a real man", that is a statement of belief, on which is based on two, contraditcotry, beliefs: 1. Achilles was not a real man, and 2. Achilles was a real man.

I am not going to respond to your argument about "invincible ignorance". I believe your reasoning is flawed, but honestly I don't care one way or the other right now.

How do you conclude attempting to know God is noble after noting that God is incomprehensible and claiming to know God's will is worse?

I believe it.

I would say that I start from the axiom that "what I perceive really exists, although my perception has flaws and limits."

That's a pretty convoluted axiom. "I percieve" coupled with "reality exists" coupled with "I percieve reality" coupled with "I percieve reality correctly" coupled with "I percieve reality correctly BUT ONLY sometimes AND ONLY to a point"... Really? Where do you go from there?

It's like you beleve everything you percieve actually "exists" apart from reality. Life the chair your sitting on would still be there if all the known laws of the universe came crashing down tomorrow, and everything as we know it ceased to be; the chair would still exist. It makes no sense. It's basically a belief that everything is a god unto itself; that everthing has created itself and exists independently of everything else.

Honestly if you can explain how you reason that something is "real", or even how you come to a conclusion, starting from your above stated axiom I would be interested in looking at it. It's so intruiging to me.

Proof that reality exists is impossible, [b]but it's useless to proceed as if it doesn't.[b]

Unfounded conclusion. a proof that reality exists is not impossible if we start from the axiom, "I perceive" and accept the inev.

1. I perceive
2. I believe my perceptions are real...
3. I percieve reality
4. Therefore reality exists.

Faith is requried to believe anything is real. You say you believe in reality, or maybe you say that you "know" it exists, but both statements require faith. It doesn't make any sense to place your faith in the thing you are trying to prove, it's a circular argument.

reality exists because I have faith in it, I have faith in it because it exists...
Reality is real because I perceive it as real, I percieve it as real because reality is real...

No, if perceptions are real, perceptions are real.

Yes.

They don't make consciousness real. That's an additional assumption.

We percieve things through consciousness. If consciousness is not real perceptions can't be real either. consciousness must be real in order for perceptions to be. It is not an assumption. Explain how perceptions can be real but consciousness not real.

Things that are real do not exist "in" reality, they create it. they are reality.

I happen to agree with it because I perceive myself to be conscious and I've already decided to accept it as axiomatic that my perceptions refer to something real. I also acknowledge that my perceptions certainly don't reflect reality perfectly. Some people make a case that consciousness is an illusion and I know for a fact that my perceptions can be fooled by illusions. So, I can't conclude that because I perceive consciousness, it is real. You can if you want, but it's a fallacy because it doesn't necessarily follow from the premise.

perceptions aren't "fooled" by illusions, they are still your perceptions. whether or not you believe them is another story. if you percieve consciousness, you perceive it. if you believe your perceptions are real, then consciousness must be.

Stating I lack belief in something is a report on my internal state

what internal state are you talking about? stating you lack belief in something is stating you lack belief in something... imore correctly it's stating you dont believe in it. lets try it the other way;

Theism is simply a lack of disbelief in God. It's not a belief in God.

Telling you what we believe or don't believe is not invincible ignorance. Neither is telling you that we didn't think about the white elephant: that is self-contradiction, not invincible ignorance.

Hilarious. If you are contradicting yourself you are refusing to acknowledge the evidence that has been given to you by yourself, your initial belief/claim/ whatever.

If i say don't think about a white elephant and you say you didn't, how is that self- contradictory? Where is the contradiction? Is it in the fact that obviously if you heard me say it and had beliefs about what "white" and "elephant" meant that you thought of a "white elephant'? If so the contradiction lies in the fact that you are refusing to accept the incontrovertable evidence, "your thought about the white elephant" and your statement "I didn't." Invincible ignorance argument. If you actually believe that you never thought about the white elephant, or that you lack belief that you thought of a white elephant, you are a sociopath.

Don't believe in God...

acceptable responses include "fuck you, God is a mythical figure fools worship, and God is not real."

non acceptable responses: "I don't", "I lack belief in God"; they mean the same thing, and they both are invincibbly ignorant.

If I say I lack a belief that Achilles was a real person, there's no 'gotcha' for you. Maybe there was an Achilles who was a great Greek warrior whose life and abilities were considerably embellished. I don't believe there was a 'real' Achilles. But there could have been, so I also don't believe there never was a 'real' Achilles. I lack both beliefs.

Ridiculous. You start by saying you lack belief in some "Achilles" you are aware of. You then go on to state your belief "Maybe there was an Achilles who was a great Greek warroir".. Then you go even further and state more of your beliefs about Achilles, "[his] life and abilities were considerally embellished.

Next, you make the statement, "I don't believe there was a 'real' Achilles"
- this is an inverse of the statement , "I believe that achilles wasn't real". The statement, "I don't believe" is technically a misnomer because we can't not believe in things we are aware of. Everyone uses it all the time to aviod cognitive dissonance, including me. Just realize that you can't not believe (lack belief) in things you are aware of. it's impossible.

You then go on to state that you believe there could have been a real Achilles...
- Incredible. somehow you believe Achilles wasn't real and believe that he could have been real at the same time... yet the world continues to spin.

Next you state that you "don't believe there was never a real Achillles".
- My heads starting to hurt. So you also believe that at some point in time there was a real Achilles, or "wasn't not one..."

Finally you end by again stating that you lack a belief about whether Achilles was real, after stating you believed he wasnt, that he might have been, and that he was.
-
B.R.A.V.O.

-Why don't you just admit you don't know, pick one belief and stand by it, or just continue to hold all these contradictory beliefs and just understand that they are contradictory and that it's ok (which, by happenstance, would be agreeing with me)?

I forgot what we were even talking about after that Achilles thing... oh yeah, invincible ignorance. You're committing it if you state that you lack a belief in something you are aware of... Still. Whether it is about God or a toaster. You have beliefs about everything you are aware of.

"God exists."

You are now on notice.

You can rationally say you dont know what you believe: agnostic

You can rationally say that you don't believe God exists (that you believe he does not). : atheist

You can rationally say you believe that God exists: theist

You can hold all three beliefs simultaneously and it's ok.: human

You no longer can "lack" belief that "God exists".: unconscious.

[amkerman]

Well, I would like to hear your definition since you are the one claiming atheism is a religion

A group of individuals who think the same way about God.

Well, that is how I came to call myself an atheist. I actually was one by age 15, but it wasn't until I was 31 that I learned that my beliefs fell under the category of atheist. So you admit that I am not part of any religion.

Religions aren't real things. It is a word to describe a group of people who think the same way about God. That's what I am willing to admit. You can't be part of something that isn't real. Whether or not you believe you are is a different story. I believe atheism is a religion just as much as Catholocism or Judeasm are. I don't believe religions are real things. I make no claims whether or not YOU are part of atheism, or any other religion for that matter. If you blindly follow whatever other people say, you are a part of "a religion", but only in opinion. Depending upon what you are following I would determine which religion I believed your beliefs fell under.

Note: I am not saying religion is necessarily bad, I just read what I wrote and it seems to come off that way. Religion is just an idea, its a construct people use to label others or themselves depending on what they believe or percieve others believe. Religion is not real, so it is inherently harmless. PEOPLE, however, are not. Individuals and groups of individuals commit atrocities. If you mistakenly place blame on the religion when the blame should go on the people you are predjudiced. I believe that prejudice is not a innate quality, it is not a logical conclusion. If you are predjudiced about anything, towards any one or group of people, I believe that you are probably following the beliefs of others instead of thinking for yourself. In that sense I would consider anyone who holds prejudiced a part of a "religion" to some extent.

It could be possible that someone who is prejudiced is just thinking incorrectly; or that I am though.

A Catholic is not Catholocism; and atheist is not atheism. You can be one without being a member of that religion in my opinion, for you to be part of the "religion" you must blindly accept the beliefs of the religion.

---

[dloubet]

Doublet:
The fallacy has nothing to do with what atheists think about God, it has to do with the statement that they "lack belief". It isn't that they don't belief God "exists", it's that the are aware of an idea called "God" yet somehow "lack" any belief in it.

Yes, I am aware of an idea called god, and lack the belief that it exists. That's commonly phrased as "I lack belief in god." or "I lack any belief in god."

If I ask you, what is "bocephilitus"? And you say, "I have no idea, a word you just made up I guess", you have just made multiple statements of your belief in "bocephilitus"

No. The common understanding of the phrase "belief in bocephilitus" means that the speaker believes that bocephilitus exists. In this context it would mean he has this belief in the existence of bocephilitus without even knowing what the word means, which would be stupid.

1. You don't know what it is
2. A word
3. Something I made up

To the state that you lack belief in it commits the fallacy of invincible ignorance.

No it does not. You have not presented any evidence for me to reject, or even defined the word. Withholding belief in that situation is logically justified, otherwise all claims must be accepted at face value which again would be stupid.

The very fact that I said the word and you heard it forces you to form a belief about it.

Yes. ABOUT it, but not IN it.

If I say, "don't think about a white elephant" and you say you didn't... Invincible ignorance.

No. You obviously don't know what the fallacy is.

[organiccornflake]

To correctly answer this, one must first define "religion." what is your definition of religion?

[amkerman]

Dloubet:

"God exists."

You are now on notice.

You can rationally say you dont "know" if you believe God exists or if you believe God does not exist: agnostic

You can rationally say that you believe God does not exist (more commonly incorrectly phrased that you "don't believe in God") : atheist

You can rationally say you believe that God exists: theist

You can hold all three beliefs simultaneously and it's ok.: human

You no longer can "lack belief" that "God exists".: unconscious.

[Minimalist]

"Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color."
--Don Hirschberg

[amkerman]

Are you asking me organic? I have stated my definition before, many people don't like it.

Religions are man made labels for groups of people who share similar beliefs. Usually when the word "religion" is used the beliefs we are referring to are beliefs about God, but I don't think the beliefs about God are central to "religion". Conservatism and Liberalism, for example, could be called religions under my definition.