Atheism: new religion?

[buck]

So everybody, whether they believe in a religion or not, is religious?

 

That sounds like something religious people would say to try and prove that religion generally is the correct way of life.

 

In reality of course, not believing is any religion is not a religion.

possibly the correct word is not religion but obsession. Some atheists are more obsessed in affirming to the world that no god exists, who are more obsessed than the religious who are obsessed with proving that a god exists. What a person believes what he or she does is no concern of anyone else. Atheists come up with this silly sky pixie garbage all the time, which is pure trolling. For the most part, churchgoers have an hour with others on Sunday, run charities now and then, and probably feel a little superior. Let it be.

[six45ive]

possibly the correct word is not religion but obsession. Some atheists are more obsessed in affirming to the world that no god exists, who are more obsessed than the religious who are obsessed with proving that a god exists. What a person believes what he or she does is no concern of anyone else. Atheists come up with this silly sky pixie garbage all the time, which is pure trolling. For the most part, churchgoers have an hour with others on Sunday, run charities now and then, and probably feel a little superior. Let it be.

 

If only it were that simple as you living in the US should know only too well.

[onewheeldave]

As an atheist I'm always coming from the standpoint of a believer believing in a god and having a holy book which they believe to be the written word of god.

The reason most atheists ask for evidence of a deity comes from the understanding that 'beliefs inform actions' and if you are gullible/naive/ignorant to believe in 'belief without evidence' then you open yourself up to the vulnerable position of anything and everything being justifiable depending on your interpretation of your ambiguous holy book.

 

Fair enough. The fact remains that for many believers, proof of that kind is not necessary or relevant to them.

 

They do however have many other reasons and ideas about their beliefs, and, the strawman situation occurs when, for example, they are putting them forward to an interested atheist, who them proceeds to 'rebut' them, by constantly going on about the fact that they can't offer proof of God's existence.

 

In that situation, as the believer themselves has no need of, or interest in, proofs for God, and has not in the first place made any claim that they do have proof, then the atheist is basically arguing against a claim that the believer does not hold i.e. a strawman.

[onewheeldave]

In which case you would be attempting to build a strawman of what atheism is.

 

 

...........

But I'm not

 

 

 

 

 

PS. The Atheist Experience is on Ustream at 10.30.

Here's the link.

Enterprise Video Streaming

 

 

...........

 

I did elaborate in several previous posts my reasons for not getting into online vids- if what's on it makes sense, and, you understand it, then summarise it here and I'll take it from there.

[six45ive]

Fair enough. The fact remains that for many believers, proof of that kind is not necessary or relevant to them.

 

They do however have many other reasons and ideas about their beliefs, and, the strawman situation occurs when, for example, they are putting them forward to an interested atheist, who them proceeds to 'rebut' them, by constantly going on about the fact that they can't offer proof of God's existence.

 

In that situation, as the believer themselves has no need of, or interest in, proofs for God, and has not in the first place made any claim that they do have proof, then the atheist is basically arguing against a claim that the believer does not hold i.e. a strawman.

 

You seem to have ignored post 80 where I dealt with why it's important that beliefs are based on reason and evidence. Something you seem to have completely ignored.

[six45ive]

I did elaborate in several previous posts my reasons for not getting into online vids- if what's on it makes sense, and, you understand it, then summarise it here and I'll take it from there.

 

I posted the link, not necessarily for you, but for anybody else who might be reading the thread.....especially as the post is at the top of a new page.

So here's the link again which means I'll say goodnight as I'm going to watch it and then get off to bed.

Video Advertising

[buck]

If only it were that simple as you living in the US should know only too well.

Your freedom to be an atheist is a major part of the Constitution, or to be of any religion of your choosing. The ACLU carries on a giant war on attempts by any one religion to have precedence over any other. Most of the founding fathers who created the constitution were protestants of the Anglican, Baptist or Congregationalist faiths, so those faiths often got preference. But atheists have succeded in having religious symbols removed from government buildings, and such things as Christmas creches outside churches. I still believe that the fundamentals of the ten commandments are right for the proper guidelines of decent life, though I am not deeply religious.

[onewheeldave]

You seem to have ignored post 80 where I dealt with why it's important that beliefs are based on reason and evidence. Something you seem to have completely ignored.

 

No, not ignored-

 

As an atheist I'm always coming from the standpoint of a believer believing in a god and having a holy book which they believe to be the written word of god.

The reason most atheists ask for evidence of a deity comes from the understanding that 'beliefs inform actions' and if you are gullible/naive/ignorant to believe in 'belief without evidence' then you open yourself up to the vulnerable position of anything and everything being justifiable depending on your interpretation of your ambiguous holy book.

 

I just don't agree with your opinion. Fact is that many 'believers' do not share your opinion that they need to base it on reason or evidence.

 

Perhaps part of the problem is the term 'believer' which suggests that the basis of their feelings about God can be soley described in terms of facts which they believe.

 

If a person 'feels' the presence of God in their lives, as many 'believers' do, then they often will feel no need to find proofs to justify it.

 

And, of course, vocal atheists can immediately jump in with 'how do you know the feeling relates to a real God and isn't just a delusion' etc. And, that would, in that scenario, be a strawman, because the 'believer' never claimed that it wasn't- the fact is, they don't really care- from their perspective, they have a meaningful relationship with God, in comparison with which, finding 'proof' is not a priority, or of importance to them.

 

So, I did read your post, I didn't ignore it, I just don't agree with it.

[metaphoria]

Atheism is passé, IMO.

[Nagel]

Atheism is just the absence of Theism, meaning the belief in god. It should be a lazy kind of belief, meaning the atheist doesn't really care and personally has no belief in any religion.

 

Just recently it's come to mean something much more hardcore and I've heard Richard Dawkins described as a "devout atheist", which just about sums him up. I'm of the older lazier kind of atheist belief. I might even be an agnostic, which is an even lazier belief system...