Atheism: new religion?

[onewheeldave]

I contend that we are all atheists. I simply believe in one fewer God than some do. When they understand why they dismiss all the other possible Gods, they will understand why I dismiss theirs!

 

Wow, that's deep. Did you make that up yourself

[best sheff]

For god's sake, here we go again.

[Chris_Sleeps]

The other is atheism as a belief that there is no God i.e. a belief that God does not exist.

If belief is the acceptance of a truth, with or without empirical evidence, then can we believe in an untruth? I don't think we can.

 

I cannot see a unicorn, I cannot hear a unicorn, and I cannot touch a hunicorn, so all my experiences lead me to conclude there is no unicorn. I don't say "I believe there is no unicorn," because my acceptance is of the truth (lack of sight/smell/touch) and not of untruth.

 

If I cannot see a unicorn, hear a unicorn or touch a unicorn, yet I still think the truth is the uinicorn exists, despite the evidence, then I would have a belief.

[Stamen]

Wow, that's deep. Did you make that up yourself

 

I have reached the conclusion that the world is an enigma. It is a harmless enigma made terrible only by our own mad attempts to interpret it as though it has some underlying truth.

 

I did not make that up either, but I like it!

[onewheeldave]

Big names and high book sales are a sign of the authors intelligence in the area of science and current affairs. Maybe not in the area of airport novels, there is a difference as well you know.

 

Dawkins rational abilities are perfectly sensible e.g. waiting for evidence before believing in something irrational. Those that berate him believe in a fantasy because mummy and daddy told them to or because a book written by men tells them to.

 

I'm not denying that Dawkins is reasonably intelligent and has accomplished much in his field of evolution.

 

Nevertheless, when it comes to assessing a mans rational abilities, my approach would be to judge it, not on his book sale figures, but, on the content of his words.

 

And, with a fair bit of what Dawkins has said, I rate him fairly low.

 

Then again, when it comes to those who proclaim themselves to be rationalists, i set the standard fairly high, and, unfortunately, when it comes to the really vocal atheists, I'm often appalled by their use of sophistry, the incidence of things like straw-man arguments and a generally low quality of rational ability and focus on genuine, productive debate.

 

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

But this debate has been dragging on for years, with the same old cliches, the same flawed arguments, and, virtually zero progress.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Wow, that's deep.

It's a perfectly logical argument. If you accept monotheism and not polytheism then you have the basis for all atheistic argument. No amount of smug replies can ignore that.

[Mr Prime]

I'm not denying that Dawkins is reasonably intelligent and has accomplished much in his field of evolution.

 

Nevertheless, when it comes to assessing a mans rational abilities, my approach would be to judge it, not on his book sale figures, but, on the content of his words.

 

And, with a fair bit of what Dawkins has said, I rate him fairly low.

 

Then again, when it comes to those who proclaim themselves to be rationalists, i set the standard fairly high, and, unfortunately, when it comes to the really vocal atheists, I'm often appalled by their use of sophistry, the incidence of things like straw-man arguments and a generally low quality of rational ability and focus on genuine, productive debate.

 

That's just my opinion, of course.

 

But this debate has been dragging on for years, with the same old cliches, the same flawed arguments, and, virtually zero progress.

 

Well there never will be progress, most people continue to need an emotional crutch and a post death fantasy so they bury their rationality. In the meantime humanity's development continues to be stunted by the time, money and effort wasted on shouting into the void instead of conquering pollution and population growth.

 

Every religious person I debate with always presents me with the demented 'argument':

 

"prove God doesn't exist"

 

Despite the onus being on them to prove that behind the silence there is a God but never mind. I shrug and laugh, I'm not bothered either as long as it doesn't infect my life.

[onewheeldave]

Well there never will be progress, most people continue to need an emotional crutch and a post death fantasy so they bury their rationality. In the meantime humanity's development continues to be stunted by the time, money and effort wasted on shouting into the void instead of conquering pollution and population growth.

 

Every religious person I debate with always presents me with the demented 'argument':

 

"prove God doesn't exist"

 

Despite the onus being on them to prove that behind the silence there is a God but never mind. I shrug and laugh, I'm not bothered either as long as it doesn't infect my life.

 

A proper debate with both sides focusing on debating respectfully with the other and avoiding pointless insults, and, with bothb sides making a concerted effort to understand what the other side is saying, could very well result in progress.

 

I guarantee you that outside the circle of religious people you debate with, are plenty religious people who are totally uninterested in proving either that God does exist, or that God doesn't exist.

[six45ive]

And, going beyond that, words as they are actually used in our culture do not necessarily remain true to their origins- language is in a constant state of change.

 

Some language changes occasionally but if it was in a constant change and words didn't have a clear, defined meaning or meanings then language would be pretty useless as a form of communication.

 

For one example, out of many possibilities- almost everyone uses the word 'hoover' to refer to... well.. Hoovers: yet, originally, hoover refered only to one particualr brand of hoover. nowadays it's considered entirely appropriate to use it to refer to hoovers in general. Right or wrong, that's now the common usage.

 

You're analogy is flawed in the respect that, regarding atheists, we're not talking about an inanimate object where the use of a particular name is fairly irrelevent. We're talking about a group of people who, by and large, choose to define themselves by a clear, unambiguous definition of atheism.....that being a 'lack of belief in a god/gods'.

On top of that each individual atheist can add terms such as weak/strong atheism, positive atheism, agnostic/gnostic atheism, antitheist etc but these people all share the fundamental definition of a 'lack of belief in a god/gods'.

[onewheeldave]

Some language is changes occasionally but if it was in a constant change and words didn't have a clear, defined meaning or meanings then language would be pretty useless as a form of communication.

 

True, of course.

 

To be usable in any kind of general sense, a language must fall into that area between the 2 extremes of being absolutely rigidly fixed, and, being so flexible that it becomes meaningless.

 

 

 

 

You're analogy is flawed in the respect that, regarding atheists, we're not talking about an inanimate object where the use of a particular name is fairly irrelevent. We're talking about a group of people who, by and large, choose to define themselves by a clear, unambiguous definition of atheism.....that being a 'lack of belief in a god/gods'.

On top of that each individual atheist can add terms such as weak/strong atheism, positive atheism, agnostic/gnostic atheism, antitheist etc but these people all share the fundamental definition of a 'lack of belief in a god/gods'.

 

Yes. but in these debates, only a portion of the people involved are atheists, many of the rest are the general public who use dictionaries, some of which use the 2nd definition.

 

And, if atheists have a big problem with that second definition, then really they should consider taking it up with the makers of dictionaries- putting their case and arguing that dictionaries should stop using that 2nd definition.

 

Whilever contemporary dictionaries are using the 2nd definition, it's inevitable that the people using those dictionaries will tend to take it on board.

 

Fortunately, when it comes to hardened veterans of religious/atheist debates like you and me, it's not a problem because we are capable of understanding the difference between the 2 definitions, thus preventing it being a source of confusion