Ye atheists by name, lend an ear, lend an ear

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Your doctrine I must blame...
https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i-believe-why-do-i-doubt/

I know there are a few people here who basically think Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist. To those people, I'd like to ask what they think of the link above. Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.

Bonus points if you actually know what the title refers to lol

[OzyWho]

I haven't touched the link, but that religious people are on average happier and that religion can improve a person's life is nothing new.

On the other side is stuff like Islam's attitude towards non-muslims, or some Christian parents disowning their child when they become atheists.

There's good and bad. What's this topic about? Was it just about the assumption that Atheists think there's nothing good about religion?

[Helz]

Your doctrine I must blame...
https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i-believe-why-do-i-doubt/

I know there are a few people here who basically think Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist. To those people, I'd like to ask what they think of the link above. Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.

Bonus points if you actually know what the title refers to lol

I do not really qualify as someone who "thinks Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist." but my most significant issue with the way faith is pushed is that its often used to tie people to the 'power structure' behind a religion rather than to the religion itself.
I liked that article in that it addressed the subject of doubt although it also did some things I dislike such as 'speaking for god' in statements like "God never turns an honest doubter away." I am not gona say that is wrong but I am going to say that the author very likely has no permission from God to speak on their behalf.

I personally believe doubt is very healthy. It represents freedom of thought and it destroys the control of power structures.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I haven't touched the link, but that religious people are on average happier and that religion can improve a person's life is nothing new.

On the other side is stuff like Islam's attitude towards non-muslims, or some Christian parents disowning their child when they become atheists.

There's good and bad. What's this topic about? Was it just about the assumption that Atheists think there's nothing good about religion?

I don't believe you're an atheist who believes religion should be purged from the face of the Earth; therefore, this doesn't really apply to you lol. I was more talking to those who openly state what I said in the previous sentence because I remember people talking about an imaginary flying daddy in the sky.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I do not really qualify as someone who "thinks Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist." but my most significant issue with the way faith is pushed is that its often used to tie people to the 'power structure' behind a religion rather than to the religion itself.
I liked that article in that it addressed the subject of doubt although it also did some things I dislike such as 'speaking for god' in statements like "God never turns an honest doubter away." I am not gona say that is wrong but I am going to say that the author very likely has no permission from God to speak on their behalf.

I personally believe doubt is very healthy. It represents freedom of thought and it destroys the control of power structures.

Completely agreed on the principle.

About speaking for God, the Bible technically gives him that "right" if he uses quotes from it, since it's supposed to be quite literally the word of God. I thought it was actually not that bad here.

[SuperJack]

Religion doesn't need purging because it will die off eventually

[Helz]

Completely agreed on the principle.

About speaking for God, the Bible technically gives him that "right" if he uses quotes from it, since it's supposed to be quite literally the word of God. I thought it was actually not that bad here.

Sure, although I think anyone with a few brain cells can make an argument for anything they want given they are referencing an 800k word book. With that statement he was not referencing scripture, just making an over statement on what God does which I saw as just literally speaking for God.

I see those sorts of statements all the time. People say "God does X" or "God feels X way about this" and I always just shake my head and think to myself its one hell of a position to take to speak on behalf of an omnipotent creator. The fact its done so absolutely commonly and with so little consideration just speaks to an aspect I take issue with in preachers.

[DJarJar]

Your doctrine I must blame...
https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i-believe-why-do-i-doubt/

I know there are a few people here who basically think Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist. To those people, I'd like to ask what they think of the link above. Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.

Bonus points if you actually know what the title refers to lol

https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/

"Does that mean that a homo-exual can never be saved? No, not at all. Anyone can be saved no matter what sins they may have committed. But Paul is saying that no one can be saved who continues in his sin, who takes pleasure in it, who does it without reservation or guilt, who has no desire to change. For such a person there truly is no hope. They have chosen sin over salvation, bondage over deliverance, guilt over for-giveness, and death over life. Such a person will notcannotenter the kingdom of God. The issue is really not homosexuality at all. It is coming to grips with your own sinful behavior. Until you are willing to view it the way God views it, you cannot be saved, for until you truly believe that you are a sinner, you have nothing from which to be saved ."

"It is difficult to imagine a stronger condemnation of homosexuality. It is the result of a “depraved mind,” the action of someone willfully suppressing the truth of God and surrendering to the impure desires of the flesh."

"It is occasionally said that God does not single out homosexuality, that it is no worse than any other sin. In one sense that is true since no extra requirements are laid on homosexuals by God. They may be saved just as easily and quickly as anyone else. God’s grace is available to all people without distinction. God does not discrimi-nate in dispensing His grace. Anyone who comes to Jesus Christ will find their sins forgiven. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat. Without Jesus Christ, nobody has a chance.

Having said that, however, we must not miss the emphasis of this passage. Widespread homosexuality is a mark of a society that has forgotten God and rejected His word. In that sense, homosexuality is singled out for special treatment. Why? Because it is, as Howard Snyder puts it, “a primary symptom of total moral decay.” (Letter to The Other Side 14:6, 1978, p. 2)"

"The evidence is overwhelming. Homosexual behavior in any form is wrong. It is a degraded and degrading sin. It is a horrible lifestyle. There is nothing gay about it. Protestations about true love and meaningful relation-ships do not change God’s verdict. Furthermore, no one was ever created by God to be homosexual. What I am saying is that when it comes to homosexuality, the lifestyle is sinful, the behavior is sinful, and so is the lust that goes with it. For those who take the Bible seriously, there can be no other answer."


https://www.christianity.com/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/put-marriage-in-your-church-constitution.html

https://kbiqradio.com/articles/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/when-the-foundations-are-destroyed
"When the foundations are destroyed, there are many things the righteous can do, but above everything else, they must first get a right view of God. It happens that I am writing this sermon in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. It’s not that we didn’t see it coming. The larger culture has been trending that way for years. Perhaps the shock is the speed of the change. Many believers feel that this decision is a decisive attack on the very foundations of society itself.

I happen to agree with that assessment and believe that hard times are upon us.When a nation celebrates what God condemns, judgment from on high must eventually come. No one can say how or when or where that judgment will come. But as certainly as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as certainly as the great empires of history have fallen, even so no nation is promised exemption from judgment."








Marshmallow Marshall
Should a gay person view this guy as just a nice man trying to help people out?

[theoneceko]

Your doctrine I must blame...
https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i-believe-why-do-i-doubt/

I know there are a few people here who basically think Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist. To those people, I'd like to ask what they think of the link above. Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.

Bonus points if you actually know what the title refers to lol

yes

im fernvnent athehitst

[DJarJar]

made himself famous by taking a very public very hard stance against gay rights in his town, has over 30 books published, there are 6 donate buttons on the page including options to donate STOCKS and to put them as the sole beneficiary in your will lol

[theoneceko]

I do not really qualify as someone who "thinks Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist." but my most significant issue with the way faith is pushed is that its often used to tie people to the 'power structure' behind a religion rather than to the religion itself.
I liked that article in that it addressed the subject of doubt although it also did some things I dislike such as 'speaking for god' in statements like "God never turns an honest doubter away." I am not gona say that is wrong but I am going to say that the author very likely has no permission from God to speak on their behalf.

I personally believe doubt is very healthy. It represents freedom of thought and it destroys the control of power structures.

what i hte most abuut christiianity is its strct definition of morals.

when i learned suicide makes u go to hell, that was my turning point lmfao. BYE JESUS!!!

[theoneceko]

https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/

"Does that mean that a homo-exual can never be saved? No, not at all. Anyone can be saved no matter what sins they may have committed. But Paul is saying that no one can be saved who continues in his sin, who takes pleasure in it, who does it without reservation or guilt, who has no desire to change. For such a person there truly is no hope. They have chosen sin over salvation, bondage over deliverance, guilt over for-giveness, and death over life. Such a person will notcannotenter the kingdom of God. The issue is really not homosexuality at all. It is coming to grips with your own sinful behavior. Until you are willing to view it the way God views it, you cannot be saved, for until you truly believe that you are a sinner, you have nothing from which to be saved ."

"It is difficult to imagine a stronger condemnation of homosexuality. It is the result of a “depraved mind,” the action of someone willfully suppressing the truth of God and surrendering to the impure desires of the flesh."

"It is occasionally said that God does not single out homosexuality, that it is no worse than any other sin. In one sense that is true since no extra requirements are laid on homosexuals by God. They may be saved just as easily and quickly as anyone else. God’s grace is available to all people without distinction. God does not discrimi-nate in dispensing His grace. Anyone who comes to Jesus Christ will find their sins forgiven. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat. Without Jesus Christ, nobody has a chance.

Having said that, however, we must not miss the emphasis of this passage. Widespread homosexuality is a mark of a society that has forgotten God and rejected His word. In that sense, homosexuality is singled out for special treatment. Why? Because it is, as Howard Snyder puts it, “a primary symptom of total moral decay.” (Letter to The Other Side 14:6, 1978, p. 2)"

"The evidence is overwhelming. Homosexual behavior in any form is wrong. It is a degraded and degrading sin. It is a horrible lifestyle. There is nothing gay about it. Protestations about true love and meaningful relation-ships do not change God’s verdict. Furthermore, no one was ever created by God to be homosexual. What I am saying is that when it comes to homosexuality, the lifestyle is sinful, the behavior is sinful, and so is the lust that goes with it. For those who take the Bible seriously, there can be no other answer."


https://www.christianity.com/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/put-marriage-in-your-church-constitution.html

https://kbiqradio.com/articles/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/when-the-foundations-are-destroyed
"When the foundations are destroyed, there are many things the righteous can do, but above everything else, they must first get a right view of God. It happens that I am writing this sermon in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. It’s not that we didn’t see it coming. The larger culture has been trending that way for years. Perhaps the shock is the speed of the change. Many believers feel that this decision is a decisive attack on the very foundations of society itself.

I happen to agree with that assessment and believe that hard times are upon us.When a nation celebrates what God condemns, judgment from on high must eventually come. No one can say how or when or where that judgment will come. But as certainly as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as certainly as the great empires of history have fallen, even so no nation is promised exemption from judgment."








Marshmallow Marshall
Should a gay person view this guy as just a nice man trying to help people out?

i didn't read the article lol, now i sound like a homophobe.

seriously, how does someone grow up hating gay ppl?

[DJarJar]

i didn't read the article lol, now i sound like a homophobe.

seriously, how does someone grow up hating gay ppl?

MM linked a different page from the same site/author. I decided to see how long it would take for me to find something objectionable and it was like 30 seconds

[theoneceko]

i want to die now. what's supposed to be pure and right is actually defiled and evil

uw hewwo ;W;

[Renegade]

Even if god existed I wouldn't worship him. The guy has such low self esteem that he has to create us to praise him? Get a life god. What a loser.

[theoneceko]

Even if god existed I wouldn't worship him. The guy has such low self esteem that he has to create us to praise him? Get a life god. What a loser.

god would willingly put billions of us in everlasting hell? get a life god. what a lser

[theoneceko]

GOD IS FUCKING CRINGE

!!!

[OzyWho]

aamirus
I haven't read anything, but do I understand it right?
You ad hominem'd?

[theoneceko]

aamirus
I haven't read anything, but do I understand it right?
You ad hominem'd?

wdym?

[DJarJar]

aamirus
I haven't read anything, but do I understand it right?
You ad hominem'd?

“Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.” -MM

I did attack the man MM was talking about but I don’t think it’s irrelevant at all to his question - which I am interpreting as essentially “isn’t this guy’s christianness a good thing that is making the world better?”

[Marshmallow Marshall]

https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/what-the-bible-says-about-homosexuality/

"Does that mean that a homo-exual can never be saved? No, not at all. Anyone can be saved no matter what sins they may have committed. But Paul is saying that no one can be saved who continues in his sin, who takes pleasure in it, who does it without reservation or guilt, who has no desire to change. For such a person there truly is no hope. They have chosen sin over salvation, bondage over deliverance, guilt over for-giveness, and death over life. Such a person will notcannotenter the kingdom of God. The issue is really not homosexuality at all. It is coming to grips with your own sinful behavior. Until you are willing to view it the way God views it, you cannot be saved, for until you truly believe that you are a sinner, you have nothing from which to be saved ."

"It is difficult to imagine a stronger condemnation of homosexuality. It is the result of a “depraved mind,” the action of someone willfully suppressing the truth of God and surrendering to the impure desires of the flesh."

"It is occasionally said that God does not single out homosexuality, that it is no worse than any other sin. In one sense that is true since no extra requirements are laid on homosexuals by God. They may be saved just as easily and quickly as anyone else. God’s grace is available to all people without distinction. God does not discrimi-nate in dispensing His grace. Anyone who comes to Jesus Christ will find their sins forgiven. In that sense, we’re all in the same boat. Without Jesus Christ, nobody has a chance.

Having said that, however, we must not miss the emphasis of this passage. Widespread homosexuality is a mark of a society that has forgotten God and rejected His word. In that sense, homosexuality is singled out for special treatment. Why? Because it is, as Howard Snyder puts it, “a primary symptom of total moral decay.” (Letter to The Other Side 14:6, 1978, p. 2)"

"The evidence is overwhelming. Homosexual behavior in any form is wrong. It is a degraded and degrading sin. It is a horrible lifestyle. There is nothing gay about it. Protestations about true love and meaningful relation-ships do not change God’s verdict. Furthermore, no one was ever created by God to be homosexual. What I am saying is that when it comes to homosexuality, the lifestyle is sinful, the behavior is sinful, and so is the lust that goes with it. For those who take the Bible seriously, there can be no other answer."


https://www.christianity.com/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/put-marriage-in-your-church-constitution.html

https://kbiqradio.com/articles/blogs/dr-ray-pritchard/when-the-foundations-are-destroyed
"When the foundations are destroyed, there are many things the righteous can do, but above everything else, they must first get a right view of God. It happens that I am writing this sermon in light of the recent Supreme Court ruling that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states. It’s not that we didn’t see it coming. The larger culture has been trending that way for years. Perhaps the shock is the speed of the change. Many believers feel that this decision is a decisive attack on the very foundations of society itself.

I happen to agree with that assessment and believe that hard times are upon us.When a nation celebrates what God condemns, judgment from on high must eventually come. No one can say how or when or where that judgment will come. But as certainly as God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, as certainly as the great empires of history have fallen, even so no nation is promised exemption from judgment."








Marshmallow Marshall
Should a gay person view this guy as just a nice man trying to help people out?

If Hitler saved somebody's life, would you say he did an horrible thing "because he's Hitler"? I never said the guy was Jesus xD. I also hadn't read anything else from him and just randomly stumbled upon the article I linked. What you found doesn't remove any value from the words that were right.

On another topic, what you quoted is the exact reason why people tell the church to fuck off many times, and rightfully so when they have such retarded positions. Apparently, God didn't create gays... nah, they probably rose from the ground one Friday on the thirteenth of a month, right? :D

[Stealthbomber16]

HITLER MOMENT

HITLER MOMENT

https://d1xgwawrm1fpry.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/10055923/hi.jpg

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Ah yes, Hitler being slapped by a baby!

[DJarJar]

If Hitler saved somebody's life, would you say he did an horrible thing "because he's Hitler"? I never said the guy was Jesus xD. I also hadn't read anything else from him and just randomly stumbled upon the article I linked. What you found doesn't remove any value from the words that were right.

On another topic, what you quoted is the exact reason why people tell the church to fuck off many times, and rightfully so when they have such retarded positions. Apparently, God didn't create gays... nah, they probably rose from the ground one Friday on the thirteenth of a month, right? :D

k as long as we've established christianity is fine, it's just as good as hitler, i'm good with this outcome

[Marshmallow Marshall]

k as long as we've established christianity is fine, it's just as good as hitler, i'm good with this outcome

https://yves.brette.biz/public/autres_arts/monty_python_defenestration_suicide_au_travail.gif

[Stealthbomber16]

k as long as we've established christianity is fine, it's just as good as hitler, i'm good with this outcome

Have you been hitler recently?

[Oberon]

If Hitler saved somebody's life, would you say he did an horrible thing "because he's Hitler"? I never said the guy was Jesus xD. I also hadn't read anything else from him and just randomly stumbled upon the article I linked. What you found doesn't remove any value from the words that were right.

On another topic, what you quoted is the exact reason why people tell the church to fuck off many times, and rightfully so when they have such retarded positions. Apparently, God didn't create gays... nah, they probably rose from the ground one Friday on the thirteenth of a month, right? :D
Gays are a myth created by Emmanuel Goldstein in order to sow malthink and malbelief (thoughtcrime) and to cause carnal lust in the mind of a goodthinkful Party member, comrade.

[yzb25]

Christianity and Islam have done much more for the world than "making people happier" in some vague sense. Churches and mosques have functioned as critical community centres for like, forever. And they have also been used as places to politically organise against repressive regimes.

But that doesn't make Aamirus wrong either. They're also homophobic as fuck, and uniquely homophobic. Many societies and civilizations, while not great, had their own nuanced takes on human sexuality before empires of christian and muslim denomination came along and effectively shoved their perspectives down their throat. Or at least, that's what I've gathered from my limited understanding.

I don't really see the value in conversations about whether these religions are "good" or "bad" for the world, because I don't know how you could possibly go about imagining what a world without these religions would look like. And it's totally out of our hands when or even if these religions will die out. I imagine these conversations would be more productive and less draining if the premise of discussion was less vague and ambitious. Maybe ask instead how religion X affects factor Y in place and time Z.

[Oberon]

Fanatic atheism is cringe
Fanatic <anything> is cringe

[Oberon]

If Hitler saved somebody's life, would you say he did an horrible thing "because he's Hitler"? I never said the guy was Jesus xD. I also hadn't read anything else from him and just randomly stumbled upon the article I linked. What you found doesn't remove any value from the words that were right.

On another topic, what you quoted is the exact reason why people tell the church to fuck off many times, and rightfully so when they have such retarded positions. Apparently, God didn't create gays... nah, they probably rose from the ground one Friday on the thirteenth of a month, right? :D
Dunno it seems to me you're arguing with someone who hates religion and would take any chance they get to prove religion comparable to Hitler :)

[Oberon]

I do not really qualify as someone who "thinks Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist." but my most significant issue with the way faith is pushed is that its often used to tie people to the 'power structure' behind a religion rather than to the religion itself.
I liked that article in that it addressed the subject of doubt although it also did some things I dislike such as 'speaking for god' in statements like "God never turns an honest doubter away." I am not gona say that is wrong but I am going to say that the author very likely has no permission from God to speak on their behalf.

I personally believe doubt is very healthy. It represents freedom of thought and it destroys the control of power structures.
I agree. I feel like that tone is a bit passive aggressive. Usually when people say that they're looking down on you and subtly implying implying they're better than you :)

[Oberon]

I haven't touched the link, but that religious people are on average happier and that religion can improve a person's life is nothing new.

On the other side is stuff like Islam's attitude towards non-muslims, or some Christian parents disowning their child when they become atheists.

There's good and bad. What's this topic about? Was it just about the assumption that Atheists think there's nothing good about religion?
I think some do. Not all, to be sure.

[DJarJar]

Dunno it seems to me you're arguing with someone who hates religion and would take any chance they get to prove religion comparable to Hitler :)

Lol what? I believe religion is 100% necessary for the word considering how many stupid people there are and how dangerous stupid people can be. Just wanted to clear up for MM that his new idol was a cunt

[Oberon]

Lol what? I believe religion is 100% necessary for the word considering how many stupid people there are and how dangerous stupid people can be. Just wanted to clear up for MM that his new idol was a cunt
Like Hitler was necessary you mean?

[DJarJar]

Like Hitler was necessary you mean?

yes

[Frinckles]

Why can't we shit on Taoism or Buddhism for a change? I don't want to be reincarnated, sounds dumb.

[Stealthbomber16]

Why can't we shit on Taoism or Buddhism for a change? I don't want to be reincarnated, sounds dumb.

Christianity has a wider social media presence.

[Helz]

Lol what? I believe religion is 100% necessary for the word considering how many stupid people there are and how dangerous stupid people can be. Just wanted to clear up for MM that his new idol was a cunt

Wouldn't people just find something else to create a power structure around instead of religion? You could argue that social power structures like LGBTQ+, nations or political party's function in similar ways to religions in multiple respects.

[DJarJar]

Wouldn't people just find something else to create a power structure around instead of religion? You could argue that social power structures like LGBTQ+, nations or political party's function in similar ways to religions in multiple respects.

what? how would that create fear of what will happen when you die?

[Helz]

what? how would that create fear of what will happen when you die?

I did not mean that at all. I was thinking about the obsessive grouping into ingroups and outgroups, the recruiting people to their group and spreading ideals, the power structures that then use them and come up with ways to justify that giving them money somehow translates to morality, Etc..

My point is that if religions did not exist the same social patterns exist in other forms. Sure we can say they justify thought process' that are more irrational but I think the last few years as polarization of information dissemination has increased so has the irrational beliefs justified by groups. Maybe it won't be long until religious zealots are hardly a subject of real worry as other groups become more radical.

[BananaCucho]

Your doctrine I must blame...
https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i-believe-why-do-i-doubt/

I know there are a few people here who basically think Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist. To those people, I'd like to ask what they think of the link above. Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.

Bonus points if you actually know what the title refers to lol

False, atheism has no doctrine.

There are people that live just, moral lives who are both religious and not religious. Likewise there are people that live amoral lives who are both religious and not religious. A person's faith or no faith does not determine nor influence their morality. Their decisions do.

I know plenty of people that are caring, loving, understanding and nonjudgmental who are devout believing members of a religion. And just as many who are fake, super judgmental, and bigoted. Likewise I know plenty who are caring, loving etc who used to be religious and are now atheist.

Religion has its pros and cons. Obviously there are going to be some good things that come of it. But it's influence IMO is a net negative. However my experience with religion is influenced by radical Mormonism; had I grown up in a predominantly Catholic society (such as in Colombia) where most of the people are religious but very casual about it, I probably wouldn't have as many problems with religion.

[Helz]

False, atheism has no doctrine.

Depends on how you want to qualify atheism. I have mentioned it a few times before but study many of the 'satanic' religions and you will come to find they are varying degrees of extremes nihilists and atheists. Their main goals are more focused on the deconstruction of religions and their influence on aspects of society than the existence of any real religion of their own.

[BananaCucho]

Depends on how you want to qualify atheism. I have mentioned it a few times before but study many of the 'satanic' religions and you will come to find they are varying degrees of extremes nihilists and atheists. Their main goals are more focused on the deconstruction of religions and their influence on aspects of society than the existence of any real religion of their own.

Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in any gods. Any organized groups that have agendas or motives can consist of atheists, but there still is no atheist doctrine.

One can be a Satanist and atheist and adhere to that Satanist doctrine, sure, but that's Satanist doctrine not atheist doctrine. Being an atheist doesn't automatically make one a Satanist. It's not like Christianity where in order to be defined a Christian you do have a minimum set of doctrine or beliefs that you must adhere to. A belief in Christ, for example. And then you have your many different Christian religions that have their differences, but still have that core Christian doctrine. Atheism at it's core is a disbelief in a god/gods. There's no core set of beliefs that you have to adhere to to be atheist.

[Stealthbomber16]

Certified banana moment. 2 posts in to coming back and the topic immediately shifts to satanism

[Frinckles]

Certified banana moment. 2 posts in to coming back and the topic immediately shifts to satanism

He's right though. And frankly, I'm tired of the Pagan Wicca girls at my local mall wearing Nirvana shirts.

[OzyWho]

Why can't we shit on Taoism or Buddhism for a change? I don't want to be reincarnated, sounds dumb.
You meant Hinduism.
Buddhism is all about yoga, meditation and breathing techniques; though Buddha was originally Hindu.
Taoism sounds more like philosophy tbh.

Or whatever was the religion of Native Americans, they had reincarnation too, right?

[Lumi]

Why can't we shit on Taoism or Buddhism for a change? I don't want to be reincarnated, sounds dumb.

Uh oh, just for that you're getting reincarnated as a slug or a frog or something

[Oberon]

Hail Satan

[Oberon]

Your doctrine I must blame...
https://www.keepbelieving.com/sermon/if-i-believe-why-do-i-doubt/

I know there are a few people here who basically think Christianism (like other religions) is a load of bullshit that should not exist. To those people, I'd like to ask what they think of the link above. Doesn't this actually help people live better in your opinion, even though you believe they are mistaken in their faith? I think the author of this page really tries to help people and probably very much did, no matter whether his religion is right or not.

Bonus points if you actually know what the title refers to lol
You accuse us of having religion. Why didn’t you use the word? Our kingdom is of this Galaxy.
We do not have religion. We have history.

[Helz]

Atheism is the disbelief or lack of belief in any gods. Any organized groups that have agendas or motives can consist of atheists, but there still is no atheist doctrine.

One can be a Satanist and atheist and adhere to that Satanist doctrine, sure, but that's Satanist doctrine not atheist doctrine. Being an atheist doesn't automatically make one a Satanist. It's not like Christianity where in order to be defined a Christian you do have a minimum set of doctrine or beliefs that you must adhere to. A belief in Christ, for example. And then you have your many different Christian religions that have their differences, but still have that core Christian doctrine. Atheism at it's core is a disbelief in a god/gods. There's no core set of beliefs that you have to adhere to to be atheist.

I am not saying being an atheist makes someone a satanist. I am just pointing out there are chapters of athiests that operate under the banner of satanism to dismantle religious influence. I feel like arguing what qualifys as a 'core doctrine' is getting into semantics though. In your own statement there you said "Atheism at it's core is a disbelief in a god/gods."

Honestly you could draw many significant parallels between atheism and religions. Its a belief structure with some more zealous and involved than others and with many groups that advocate to push their ideology. Some even form a sort of anti-religion religion which functions... as a religion.

[theoneceko]

Certified banana moment. 2 posts in to coming back and the topic immediately shifts to satanism

LOL

[BananaCucho]

I am not saying being an atheist makes someone a satanist. I am just pointing out there are chapters of athiests that operate under the banner of satanism to dismantle religious influence. I feel like arguing what qualifys as a 'core doctrine' is getting into semantics though. In your own statement there you said "Atheism at it's core is a disbelief in a god/gods."

Honestly you could draw many significant parallels between atheism and religions. Its a belief structure with some more zealous and involved than others and with many groups that advocate to push their ideology. Some even form a sort of anti-religion religion which functions... as a religion.

Atheism isn't anything like religion though. You are pointing out "chapters of atheism" though as if atheism is a religion itself that those lesser chapters belong to. It's not. Atheist is basically a label for someone who doesn't believe in a god/gods. Lack of belief isn't the same as belief at all. There is no structure to atheism. No set of beliefs. There is no atheist doctrine lol. "I don't believe in any god" is not a belief pertaining to the "atheist doctrine" lmao

Please point out the atheist "belief structure" you're alluding to here. It simply does not exist.

Yes, there are those that form groups that are anti religious and function as a religion. Those people can be atheists, but any doctrine/structure that they have is unique to that organization, and I feel like you're conflating that with atheism which is wrong. Because atheism is the lack of belief in any gods and therefore has no belief structure. Wheras these groups DO form an actual belief structure in something, be it morality, humanism, the deconstruction of religion, etc... But that belief system has nothing to do with atheism lol. Atheism has no views on morality or anything else for that matter...

[Helz]

Atheism isn't anything like religion though. You are pointing out "chapters of atheism" though as if atheism is a religion itself that those lesser chapters belong to. It's not. Atheist is basically a label for someone who doesn't believe in a god/gods. Lack of belief isn't the same as belief at all. There is no structure to atheism. No set of beliefs. There is no atheist doctrine lol. "I don't believe in any god" is not a belief pertaining to the "atheist doctrine" lmao

Please point out the atheist "belief structure" you're alluding to here. It simply does not exist.

Yes, there are those that form groups that are anti religious and function as a religion. Those people can be atheists, but any doctrine/structure that they have is unique to that organization, and I feel like you're conflating that with atheism which is wrong. Because atheism is the lack of belief in any gods and therefore has no belief structure. Wheras these groups DO form an actual belief structure in something, be it morality, humanism, the deconstruction of religion, etc... But that belief system has nothing to do with atheism lol. Atheism has no views on morality or anything else for that matter...
I feel like we are splitting hairs on semantics here. The belief that there is no god is still a belief. Saying atheism has no beliefs is simply not true, that would be agnostic, and arguing about categorization is exhausting.

My point is not that the entirety of atheism has a defined level of doctrine, its a scale. Some simply shrug and say they dont believe there is a god while others spend tons of time attempting to convert others to this belief and attacking the opposing argument. But the belief that there is no god is a belief.

You could put the same scale on politics or many other social structures. My entire point is that there are parallels you can draw between religion and other social structures. Atheism is not an exception simply because they the core belief is that there is no god. Here is some examples: https://www.atheists.org/ https://www.atheistalliance.org/ https://ffrf.org/
Im sure someone with the time and motivation could visit the largest atheist organizations websites and find some common shared doctrine between them all. But we would probably fall back into semantics with you saying they are chapters, then I would point out The Vatican could equally just be called a 'chapter' of Catholicism and their founding doctrine is surly not shared by every catholic in the world.

If you disagree with my point we may need to just agree to disagree. I think our points are not mutually exclusive but rather just a matter of playing with words and categories.

[BananaCucho]

I feel like we are splitting hairs on semantics here. The belief that there is no god is still a belief. Saying atheism has no beliefs is simply not true, that would be agnostic, and arguing about categorization is exhausting.

My point is not that the entirety of atheism has a defined level of doctrine, its a scale. Some simply shrug and say they dont believe there is a god while others spend tons of time attempting to convert others to this belief and attacking the opposing argument. But the belief that there is no god is a belief.

You could put the same scale on politics or many other social structures. My entire point is that there are parallels you can draw between religion and other social structures. Atheism is not an exception simply because they the core belief is that there is no god. Here is some examples: https://www.atheists.org/ https://www.atheistalliance.org/ https://ffrf.org/
Im sure someone with the time and motivation could visit the largest atheist organizations websites and find some common shared doctrine between them all. But we would probably fall back into semantics with you saying they are chapters, then I would point out The Vatican could equally just be called a 'chapter' of Catholicism and their founding doctrine is surly not shared by every catholic in the world.

If you disagree with my point we may need to just agree to disagree. I think our points are not mutually exclusive but rather just a matter of playing with words and categories.

This is false. Nonbelief/absence of belief in something is not the same as a belief in something. If I tell you that there are magical fairies that live in water fountains, you saying "I don't believe you" is not a belief. It's nonbelief. It really isn't the same thing. "I don't believe that magical fairies live in water fountains" is not a belief lmao

Doctrine is "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group." This doesn't exist for atheism. The ONLY "belief" you are trying to argue here as atheist doctrine is non belief

From atheists.org that you linked (What is Atheism?): "Atheism is too-often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.”"

No doctrine listed here.

From atheistalliance.org:

"Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods’ or the ‘lack of a belief in a god or gods’.

We often hear theists say, “If you don’t believe in God, you must believe God does not exist!” but this is simply wrong. Lacking a belief in a god does not entail believing that no gods exist. A person could reasonably say she doesn’t know if any gods exist, and there are none that she currently believes in."

Actually I recommend you read that page entirely, it's very good and makes my point pretty clearly:

https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism/

Still no doctrine here. Because there isn't atheist doctrine.

[BananaCucho]

Read further down that page:

"There is nothing you have to believe to be an atheist. Not believing in any god, is the only qualification required. Beyond that, an atheist can believe in anything at all."

There's no atheist core set of beliefs lol

[DJarJar]

helz i think you're equating atheist to anti-theist and I think that annoys banana because someone identifying as atheist doesn't necessarily want to be associated with satanists and they don't have a more neutral word than atheist to use to describe their belief/lack of it unless you want to jump to agnostic atheist which is a slightly different belief

[BananaCucho]

helz i think you're equating atheist to anti-theist and I think that annoys banana because someone identifying as atheist doesn't necessarily want to be associated with satanists and they don't have a more neutral word than atheist to use to describe their belief/lack of it unless you want to jump to agnostic atheist which is a slightly different belief

Thanks for putting that another way. I have no problem with Satanists or these other atheist groups but I don't really belong to anything or subscribe to any belief system. I do consider myself atheist but I don't have any desire to be part of any groups at this time in my life. I'm just doing my own thing, have my own personal set of values/beliefs. And am in no way religious, it is pretty annoying to be told my religion is anti religion, that really makes 0 sense

[Helz]

We can put whatever 'label' we want onto it. Maybe lets call it a 'disbelief structure' instead of a 'belief structure' if it makes everyone happy? I still feel like were splitting hairs on semantics.

This is all a bit of a tangent to my original point as well that the social behaviors we see in non-religious groups (to include but in no way limited to groups of atheists) resemble those we see in religion; and that without religions there would just be other social constructs that would fill those shoes.

[Helz]

Actually I recommend you read that page entirely, it's very good and makes my point pretty clearly:

https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism/

Just read that article and had a good chuckle.

It flatly says We often hear theists say, “If you don’t believe in God, you must believe God does not exist!” but this is simply wrong. Lacking a belief in a god does not entail believing that no gods exist. as an argument for atheism being a lack of belief in god as opposed to a disbelief in god. This argument was made right under a giant picture of the dictionary definition of atheism which states "Disbelief or lack of belief god exists."

Somebody should tell the guy that wrote it that he should identify as agnostic.

[DJarJar]

Just read that article and had a good chuckle.

It flatly says We often hear theists say, “If you don’t believe in God, you must believe God does not exist!” but this is simply wrong. Lacking a belief in a god does not entail believing that no gods exist. as an argument for atheism being a lack of belief in god as opposed to a disbelief in god. This argument was made right under a giant picture of the dictionary definition of atheism which states "Disbelief or lack of belief god exists."

Somebody should tell the guy that wrote it that he should identify as agnostic.

well. Sure it's semantics but you just have definitions wrong here.

Gnosticism/agnosticism - having knowledge/not having knowledge (of the existence of deities/deity, or anything "supernatural")
theism/atheism - belief or non-belief in existence of a god or gods

nearly everyone is agnostic since it's just saying you don't know anything for sure

[Oberon]

That definition... by that definition everyone is agnostic. Even the most hardcore religious believer has some doubts, and don’t “know” for sure.

[Oberon]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Merriam Webster uses a different definition, with agnosticism being about neither believing that God(s) do(es)n’t exist nor that he/they do. There’s a different definition used there as well but that does not matter.

[Oberon]

Knowledge is based on facts, IMO. Not faith. So religious belief is not characterized by ‘knowledge’. I don’t even understand why the second definition exists. It doesn’t look like a position separate from theism and atheism. Like that seens to be just a theological position a theist would have, and for an atheist that would be more an immediate conclusion of their beliefs, because you can never prove that something doesn’t exist.

[DJarJar]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic
Merriam Webster uses a different definition, with agnosticism being about neither believing that God(s) do(es)n’t exist nor that he/they do. There’s a different definition used there as well but that does not matter.
How is that definition different from what I said?

[Oberon]

How is that definition different from what I said?
From your definition it follows that everyone is an agnostic; from Merriam Webster’s, it does not, as definitely all religious people and all atheists have a belief with regards to the existence of God(s).

[DJarJar]

From your definition it follows that everyone is an agnostic; from Merriam Webster’s, it does not, as definitely all religious people and all atheists have a belief with regards to the existence of God(s).

is english your first language? i guess you are taking the "broadly" as a different version of the definition presented?

[Oberon]

I got them mixed up. Yes I am taking that to be a different definition.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Why can't we shit on Taoism or Buddhism for a change? I don't want to be reincarnated, sounds dumb.

Because there's really no reason to shit on buddhism, you can just disagree but that is all unless you say they're "filthy pagans" lol. As for taoism... is that even a religion at all lol? I'm not educated enough on the topic to say for sure, but it looks more like a philosophy to me.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

well. Sure it's semantics but you just have definitions wrong here.

Gnosticism/agnosticism - having knowledge/not having knowledge (of the existence of deities/deity, or anything "supernatural")
theism/atheism - belief or non-belief in existence of a god or gods

nearly everyone is agnostic since it's just saying you don't know anything for sure

There's a key word missing here: believing. Believing that you do not know about how divine things work (and in a stricter meaning, that it cannot be known by humans) is agnosticism. "Not having knowledge" is just... well everyone lol because noone knows for sure, hence why your definition is bad and actually makes the word pointless.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

This is false. Nonbelief/absence of belief in something is not the same as a belief in something. If I tell you that there are magical fairies that live in water fountains, you saying "I don't believe you" is not a belief. It's nonbelief. It really isn't the same thing. "I don't believe that magical fairies live in water fountains" is not a belief lmao

Doctrine is "a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group." This doesn't exist for atheism. The ONLY "belief" you are trying to argue here as atheist doctrine is non belief

From atheists.org that you linked (What is Atheism?): "Atheism is too-often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as “a belief that there is no God.”"

No doctrine listed here.

From atheistalliance.org:

"Atheism is very simple, yet widely misunderstood. The word atheism comprises the word theism with the prefix ‘a’. So let’s break it down. Theism is the belief in a god or gods. The prefix ‘a’ means; ‘without’ or ‘lack of’. Therefore, atheism means ‘without a belief in a god or gods’ or the ‘lack of a belief in a god or gods’.

We often hear theists say, “If you don’t believe in God, you must believe God does not exist!” but this is simply wrong. Lacking a belief in a god does not entail believing that no gods exist. A person could reasonably say she doesn’t know if any gods exist, and there are none that she currently believes in."

Actually I recommend you read that page entirely, it's very good and makes my point pretty clearly:

https://www.atheistalliance.org/about-atheism/what-is-atheism/

Still no doctrine here. Because there isn't atheist doctrine.


Agnostic atheism has no doctrine, that is true. Gnostic atheism does, though: THERE IS NO GOD[, most often ONLY SCIENCE]. When people say they are "atheist" instead of "agnostic", they usually mean "THERE IS NO GOD" in my experience. And that is a doctrine, a belief, the hard statement that gods do not exist.

Under the definition of atheism you follow, you are absolutely right, though. The issue is that there seems to be a SCHISM in atheism ;)
(okay that's a stretch just to include a word that has something to do with religion :D)

[DJarJar]

Agnostic atheism has no doctrine, that is true. Gnostic atheism does, though: THERE IS NO GOD[, most often ONLY SCIENCE]. When people say they are "atheist" instead of "agnostic", they usually mean "THERE IS NO GOD" in my experience. And that is a doctrine, a belief, the hard statement that gods do not exist.

Under the definition of atheism you follow, you are absolutely right, though. The issue is that there seems to be a SCHISM in atheism ;)
(okay that's a stretch just to include a word that has something to do with religion :D)

okay but realistically, atheist should be an umbrella holding both agnostic and gnostic atheists, rather than just hard-associating it with gnostic ones. i believe that is banana's desire and it seems perfectly reasonable..

[OzyWho]

Because there's really no reason to shit on buddhism, you can just disagree but that is all unless you say they're "filthy pagans" lol. As for taoism... is that even a religion at all lol? I'm not educated enough on the topic to say for sure, but it looks more like a philosophy to me.

Implying Buddhism is a religion instead of basically a self-help book. :calix:

[Oberon]

okay but realistically, atheist should be an umbrella holding both agnostic and gnostic atheists, rather than just hard-associating it with gnostic ones. i believe that is banana's desire and it seems perfectly reasonable..
why do you always end your sentences in ellipses?

[DJarJar]

why do you always end your sentences in ellipses?

why do you always end your ... messages with smiley faces? we each have our quirks

[BananaCucho]

Agnostic atheism has no doctrine, that is true. Gnostic atheism does, though: THERE IS NO GOD[, most often ONLY SCIENCE]. When people say they are "atheist" instead of "agnostic", they usually mean "THERE IS NO GOD" in my experience. And that is a doctrine, a belief, the hard statement that gods do not exist.

Under the definition of atheism you follow, you are absolutely right, though. The issue is that there seems to be a SCHISM in atheism ;)
(okay that's a stretch just to include a word that has something to do with religion :D)

You're making the same mistake as Helz here by claiming that gnostic atheists believe in something. Gnostic/agnostic has nothing to do with "believing" something but rather with the degree that one knows (or perceives that they know) something. Or rather, how certain they are. An agnostic theist OR atheist will argue that there is no way to prove the existence or nonexistence of any god. Whereas a gnostic theist OR atheist will argue either that the nature of god can be known or that there is no evidence of any gods existing and therefore don't exist.

Someone else in this thread was arguing that technically everyone is agnostic since nobody can actually know for sure, but that's not the correct view on gnostic/agnostic. My mom swears up and down that she "knows" that her faith is the true faith, that she's had the spirit make her know and that she's felt god's presence. She is a gnostic theist.

A gnostic atheist does not believe in any gods likely because there is no evidence that exists for any of them. Some theists will argue that sacred texts are evidence, gnostic atheists will answer with "those texts were written by men, nothing links them to any actual supernatural beings". Theists my argue, like my mother, that there is a spirit that makes you "feel" things. Gnostic atheists will respond with "feeling is not evidence of truth.

Agnostic theists/atheists will both say "nobody really knows what happens when you die. Where a gnostic theist would say "I know what happens! You go to heaven/hell/Mars/etc". A gnostic atheist would also say "I know what happens when you die! Your brain stops functioning and your thoughts processes cease. Your body then will slowly decompose. That's it."

It is not necessary to believe" that there is no God". Not believing in a god not a belief! Imagine you are born into modern society but no religion exists. One day you ask yourself, "why am I here"? Then you study and find that through the scientific method we have learned (and continue to learn) things such as evolution and natural selection. You answer, "oh, cool". At this point, you are an atheist without even realizing it. You don't have any beliefs about supernatural beings. So is your belief in non belief?

The only reason you are arguing that nonbelief is somehow a belief is because you are arguing from the viewpoint of a believer in a culture heavily influenced by religion. But saying "there isn't any god because we have logical scientific explanations for the universe and natural selection and there's no reason for a god to exist, the idea sounds crazy" is not a belief. It's a rejection of a belief being pushed by someone else.

[BananaCucho]

Like guys this isn't hard. Non belief is quite literally anti belief. It is the absence of belief. It isn't belief at all lol

"I believe in a god" - belief

"I do not believe in any god" - not a belief. There's no stated belief here lol

There's a reason you're called "believers". You "believe in something". We non-believers don't.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

If you're not aware of something (such as in your example where religion does not exist, even though that world is utterly impossible since religion is an answer to questions humans ask themselves), then you can't believe in anything because it's simply not in your mind. Stone Age people did not believe Alpha Centauri existed, nor did they believe it didn't, for they simply were not aware of the possibility of its existence (as far as I know). But as soon as you are aware that something is possibly existent and take a position on whether it exists in reality or not, you believe that it exists or that it does not.

"I do not believe in any god" is not a belief, it's a statement of nonbelief, indeed. But that falls under agnostic atheism, as you're leaving the existence of a god undetermined. Gnostic atheism is the statement, the certainty that there is no god. And that is a belief.

A gnostic atheist would also say "I know what happens when you die! Your brain stops functioning and your thoughts processes cease. Your body then will slowly decompose. That's it."

Right. "I know what happens when you die!" = belief. Is it a religious belief? No. But it certainly is a belief, much like believing the Earth revolves around the Sun.

[Oberon]

I disagree with your defintion of belief. Nobody “believes” the Earth revolves around the Sun. Belief comes from faith.

[yzb25]

If you're not aware of something (such as in your example where religion does not exist, even though that world is utterly impossible since religion is an answer to questions humans ask themselves), then you can't believe in anything because it's simply not in your mind. Stone Age people did not believe Alpha Centauri existed, nor did they believe it didn't, for they simply were not aware of the possibility of its existence (as far as I know). But as soon as you are aware that something is possibly existent and take a position on whether it exists in reality or not, you believe that it exists or that it does not.

"I do not believe in any god" is not a belief, it's a statement of nonbelief, indeed. But that falls under agnostic atheism, as you're leaving the existence of a god undetermined. Gnostic atheism is the statement, the certainty that there is no god. And that is a belief.

Right. "I know what happens when you die!" = belief. Is it a religious belief? No. But it certainly is a belief, much like believing the Earth revolves around the Sun.

If belief is merely predicated on the awareness of a concept and a firm stance about it, can I make you believe more things by mentioning gibberish constructs? Lava lamps with wings, trees that bear playstations, flying sphagetti monster, etc. You presumably inwardly dismiss these things as absurd at their very mention, yet I don't think it's reasonable to suggest I've induced more beliefs within you, even if those constructs may exist somewhere.

[BananaCucho]

If you're not aware of something (such as in your example where religion does not exist, even though that world is utterly impossible since religion is an answer to questions humans ask themselves), then you can't believe in anything because it's simply not in your mind. Stone Age people did not believe Alpha Centauri existed, nor did they believe it didn't, for they simply were not aware of the possibility of its existence (as far as I know). But as soon as you are aware that something is possibly existent and take a position on whether it exists in reality or not, you believe that it exists or that it does not.

"I do not believe in any god" is not a belief, it's a statement of nonbelief, indeed. But that falls under agnostic atheism, as you're leaving the existence of a god undetermined. Gnostic atheism is the statement, the certainty that there is no god. And that is a belief.

Right. "I know what happens when you die!" = belief. Is it a religious belief? No. But it certainly is a belief, much like believing the Earth revolves around the Sun.

You completely ignored everything I said about how your definition of gnostic/agnostic is skewed/incorrect didn't you? Again it has nothing to do with belief, but with certainty. Stating "Your brain stops functioning and your thought processes cease" is not a belief bro. It's something that we know because we can observe evidence of this happening. When someone dies there is no more brain activity happening in their dead body. Observable evidence. Not belief. Same with the body decomposing. And that's exactly what happens when you die! Anything else tacked on without any observable evidence does require belief and that's what believers do.

One can be certain there is no god without exercising belief by simply refusing to believe in things in which there is no observable evidence or which haven't been proven through the scientific method. Saying "I'm certain there is no god because there is no evidence of a god being necessary and things such as the creation of the earth and life is explained already through the scientific method already" does not require belief. Rejecting things such as creationism that are contrary to proven scientific facts does not require belief. See what I'm saying here?

Agnostic atheism: "I don't believe in a god, but hey who knows really"

Gnostic atheism: "I don't believe in a god because the idea of a god is illogical and there's no evidence or reason for a god to exist. There's no evidence that my thoughts can exist outside of my brain which creates those thoughts and there's no evidence for supernatural beings or design in the origin of the universe or earth. Man created gods in an effort to explain the unexplained (at that time) rather than god created man."

Zero belief in any of that.


I disagree with your defintion of belief. Nobody “believes” the Earth revolves around the Sun. Belief comes from faith.

Right, this is proven to us through the scientific method lol. It doesn't require belief lmao

[BananaCucho]

Also I'm not "aware of god being possibly existent" lol. I'm aware of people pushing their beliefs in something made up with no evidence to support it's existence. The only "possibility of god existing" literally relies on having faith in what other people have said about a god's existence. So the only thing I'm aware of is a fantasy/fairytale that people think is true.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

If belief is merely predicated on the awareness of a concept and a firm stance about it, can I make you believe more things by mentioning gibberish constructs? Lava lamps with wings, trees that bear playstations, flying sphagetti monster, etc. You presumably inwardly dismiss these things as absurd at their very mention, yet I don't think it's reasonable to suggest I've induced more beliefs within you, even if those constructs may exist somewhere.

You just made me dismiss the existence of these things at their very mention, that is correct. But strictly speaking, you made me discover constructs that were not present in my mind before and take a stance based on that. I did not believe that those things existed or that they did not exist before, but now, I do. You certainly didn't change my perception of reality much through that, but the element "lava lamp with wings" was not present in my mind before, and thus I could not believe anything about it.

About the Earth revolving around the Sun, I'm sorry to tell you that it is a belief based on faith for most of us (and all of us, speaking very strictly, since we cannot know for sure whether or not what we perceive is somewhat close to reality; that is pointless to say though, so we should probably stick to saying most of us). This belief is based on the faith in the people who told us that the Earth revolved around the Sun and on the belief all of this isn't just a giant conspiracy. The only people who have evidence are those who calculated it themselves. The rest only believe. Of course, it's a very solid and justified believe that looks like it's 99.999999999 % true, but it's a belief nonetheless. Saying the Earth is flat also is a belief in a pretty similar way (faith in those who told you that it's flat); you can even say there's evidence that the Earth is flat: look outside, is the Earth turning upside down at some point?? Duh! The thing is, those two beliefs are not equal because the credibility of the elements we have faith in to believe the Earth revolves around the Sun and the credibility of elements we have faith in to believe the Earth is flat is very different. Same goes for almost every belief.

[Oberon]

Belief is based on faith IMO. If you call everything a belief then the whole notion of belief becomes meaningless. Aside from that, opinions and beliefs are not the same thing. Beliefs are hard to break whereas opinions are not. And the other difference (a consequence of what these both are) is that opinions based on reason lead to uncertainty, whereas belief does not.

[BananaCucho]

About the Earth revolving around the Sun, I'm sorry to tell you that it is a belief based on faith for most of us (and all of us, speaking very strictly, since we cannot know for sure whether or not what we perceive is somewhat close to reality; that is pointless to say though, so we should probably stick to saying most of us). This belief is based on the faith in the people who told us that the Earth revolved around the Sun and on the belief all of this isn't just a giant conspiracy. The only people who have evidence are those who calculated it themselves. The rest only believe. Of course, it's a very solid and justified believe that looks like it's 99.999999999 % true, but it's a belief nonetheless. Saying the Earth is flat also is a belief in a pretty similar way (faith in those who told you that it's flat); you can even say there's evidence that the Earth is flat: look outside, is the Earth turning upside down at some point?? Duh! The thing is, those two beliefs are not equal because the credibility of the elements we have faith in to believe the Earth revolves around the Sun and the credibility of elements we have faith in to believe the Earth is flat is very different. Same goes for almost every belief.

Except for that observable evidence and the scientific method doesn't require faith or belief to trust. It's not like someone is just telling us "the earth revolves around the sun, yo, trust me". There is actual observable evidence to support it. Saying that anyone who says the earth revolves around the sun is stating a belief based on faith because no one can really know for sure is kinda an ignorant statement.

[yzb25]

You just made me dismiss the existence of these things at their very mention, that is correct. But strictly speaking, you made me discover constructs that were not present in my mind before and take a stance based on that. I did not believe that those things existed or that they did not exist before, but now, I do. You certainly didn't change my perception of reality much through that, but the element "lava lamp with wings" was not present in my mind before, and thus I could not believe anything about it.

About the Earth revolving around the Sun, I'm sorry to tell you that it is a belief based on faith for most of us (and all of us, speaking very strictly, since we cannot know for sure whether or not what we perceive is somewhat close to reality; that is pointless to say though, so we should probably stick to saying most of us). This belief is based on the faith in the people who told us that the Earth revolved around the Sun and on the belief all of this isn't just a giant conspiracy. The only people who have evidence are those who calculated it themselves. The rest only believe. Of course, it's a very solid and justified believe that looks like it's 99.999999999 % true, but it's a belief nonetheless. Saying the Earth is flat also is a belief in a pretty similar way (faith in those who told you that it's flat); you can even say there's evidence that the Earth is flat: look outside, is the Earth turning upside down at some point?? Duh! The thing is, those two beliefs are not equal because the credibility of the elements we have faith in to believe the Earth revolves around the Sun and the credibility of elements we have faith in to believe the Earth is flat is very different. Same goes for almost every belief.

I agree with Oberon's last post (#83). Your definition of belief seems consistent, it just seems a bit nebulous due to its breadth. It appears to include "literally every statement we cannot know for certain is true". It also doesn't really seem to align much with how people use the word informally. I'd be more interested to know what you don't define to be based in belief lol. Would mathematical statements also be belief?

Maybe we'd benefit from different terminology, but not believing in an abrahamic god and "disbelieving" in an abrahamic god are clearly not on the same level in terms of number of assumptions you need to make about reality and how you perceive / interact with reality. Hence, one requires a hell of a lot more "belief". For example, even if you reject the existence of an abrahamic god, you can just believe in some other kind of supernatural being that forces you to live in a certain way or validates your existence by some other contrivances. In that sense, nonbelief includes realities very similar to realities with an abrahamic god, as well as ones that make far less assumptions about reality. On the other hand, believing in an abrahamic god necessitates many unfalsifiable things that directly impact how you perceive and interact with the world. You will have a much more clearly defined and restricted view of reality.

[yzb25]

Except for that observable evidence and the scientific method doesn't require faith or belief to trust. It's not like someone is just telling us "the earth revolves around the sun, yo, trust me". There is actual observable evidence to support it. Saying that anyone who says the earth revolves around the sun is stating a belief based on faith because no one can really know for sure is kinda an ignorant statement.

well it requires trust in the people who understand it in the cases where you do not, it requires belief that the current model doesn't just happen to work for the small subset of cases we've tested it on and, more trivially, it requires trust in the accuracy of the instruments and experiments. It may seem pedantic, but all of these things have lead scientists to incorrect assumptions at one point or another. The earth revolving around the sun case is a bit extreme tho. Nonetheless, you might find this video interesting --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqTGYzLXziU

[BananaCucho]

well it requires trust in the people who understand it in the cases where you do not, it requires belief that the current model doesn't just happen to work for the small subset of cases we've tested it on and, more trivially, it requires trust in the accuracy of the instruments and experiments. It may seem pedantic, but all of these things have lead scientists to incorrect assumptions at one point or another. The earth revolving around the sun case is a bit extreme tho. Nonetheless, you might find this video interesting --

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqTGYzLXziU

Trust, yes. Saying that faith or belief is required here is a huge stretch though, which is why I mentioned that those elements are not required to trust the statement is true.

[Oberon]

Also if something is a very solid and justified belief, it is not a belief anymore. That is even true of things you believed in which you had no justification for initially (not even gut-based), but later acquired evidence in support of. So if you believe in something and then you acquire evidence for said belief, it ceases to be a belief. This sounds very philosophical but it's not. I'm speaking from personal experience.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Except for that observable evidence and the scientific method doesn't require faith or belief to trust. It's not like someone is just telling us "the earth revolves around the sun, yo, trust me". There is actual observable evidence to support it.


If you actually understand that evidence, sure, it isn't faith or belief and becomes personal intellectual evidence. But if you don't understand how it works and just think "hey why should I bother, it's obvious because everyone says so", like many people do, then it's a belief based on faith. If we push it even further, understanding the evidence yourself also implies some degree of faith, since you have to believe the data other people gave to you about it was correct.

And I never said
Saying that anyone who says the earth revolves around the sun is stating a belief based on faith because no one can really know for sure is kinda an ignorant statement.

[Oberon]

FTR I respect MM's motives but I disagree with the arguments he is putting forward. I do think atheism implies belief. There's no evidence that God exists, and there's no evidence he doesn't exist, either.

[Oberon]

If you actually understand that evidence, sure, it isn't faith or belief and becomes personal intellectual evidence. But if you don't understand how it works and just think "hey why should I bother, it's obvious because everyone says so", like many people do, then it's a belief based on faith. If we push it even further, understanding the evidence yourself also implies some degree of faith, since you have to believe the data other people gave to you about it was correct.

And I never said
well that's actually a heurestic in my opinion. its not a belief, no more than you believe that the sky is blue. they are both opinions or attitudes or w/e you wanna call them that are very hard to break, but they are not beliefs.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Check the definitions, everyone... Now, if you say "no, belief does not mean what the Webster says it means!", then we're arguing about different concepts and acting like they're only one concept.

Also, the sky is blue is not a belief: you have immediate evidence of it through your senses. But if you were born blind, you'd have to believe it's blue.


Also if something is a very solid and justified belief, it is not a belief anymore. That is even true of things you believed in which you had no justification for initially (not even gut-based), but later acquired evidence in support of. So if you believe in something and then you acquire evidence for said belief, it ceases to be a belief. This sounds very philosophical but it's not. I'm speaking from personal experience.

Earth is flat.
This belief is very solid and justified from the perspective of Antiquity. It's a belief nonetheless, it doesn't become a certainty because it looks solid... proof is, Earth isn't flat lol.

[Oberon]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Check the definitions, everyone... Now, if you say "no, belief does not mean what the Webster says it means!", then we're arguing about different concepts and acting like they're only one concept.

Also, the sky is blue is not a belief: you have immediate evidence of it through your senses. But if you were born blind, you'd have to believe it's blue.



Earth is flat.
This belief is very solid and justified from the perspective of Antiquity. It's a belief nonetheless, it doesn't become a certainty because it looks solid... proof is, Earth isn't flat lol.
-.-

I feel like that definition isn't consistent with how you used the word. You implied that if something is 100% known to be true then you don't believe it is true, you know it's true. But that doesn't follow from the definition given in Merriam Websters, which does not specify whether the belief has to be placed in something that is not given to be true.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

If a dictionary says "considered to be true", it means "considered to be true". If you apply that word to something "known to be true", then you're misusing it and giving your sentence the meaning of, for example, "X is considered to be true" when it's in fact known to be true.

Also, your new profile picture looks like Hal 9000 when you don't look at it directly.

[Oberon]

I mean, from your perspective the sky being blue is a belief cuz you don't know that your eyes are working properly. You don't even know if your brain is interpreting the information correctly. Maybe you're just a Boltzmann brain and you're floating around in the vacuum of space and chance electrical impulses moving through your are creating your "sensations". It's unlikely, but it's not impossible.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I mean, from your perspective the sky being blue is a belief cuz you don't know that your eyes are working properly. You don't even know if your brain is interpreting the information correctly. Maybe you're just a Boltzmann brain and you're floating around in the vacuum of space and chance electrical impulses moving through your are creating your "sensations". It's unlikely, but it's not impossible.

Very strictly speaking, that is correct. But that leads to nothing of interest, and therefore we must assume our senses work correctly.

[Oberon]

Very strictly speaking, that is correct. But that leads to nothing of interest, and therefore we must assume our senses work correctly.
Assume or believe? Which is it.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

Assume or believe? Which is it.

I said assume because we don't have to think it's true, just to use the possibility of its truth as a basis. I guess if we don't believe in it, we're believing we're doing something utterly useless though lol.

[BananaCucho]

FTR I respect MM's motives but I disagree with the arguments he is putting forward. I do think atheism implies belief. There's no evidence that God exists, and there's no evidence he doesn't exist, either.

There actually is evidence that god doesn't exist though. Because there is no rational or logical reasoning for a god to even NEED to exist. The origin of the universe? Explained by the Big Bang. Why are we here? Explained by evolution and natural selection. Why do we have thoughts? The brain. When brain function ceases, so do thoughts. The very idea of a god is irrational which is why to believe in a supernatural being such as a god requires faith. Because all of the evidence points to our universe functioning just fine without one. That's why belief isn't needed to not believe in a god.

The way you say "since no evidence exists one way or the other" you seem to be implying that the probability of an existence of a god is equal to the probability of no existence of any gods. Which, to be frank, they are not equal at all. It is much more likely that our universe exists AS IS with no god than it is that a supernatural being exists and is pulling the strings behind the scenes while leaving no evidence whatsoever of it's involvement behind.

[BananaCucho]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief

Check the definitions, everyone... Now, if you say "no, belief does not mean what the Webster says it means!", then we're arguing about different concepts and acting like they're only one concept.

Also, the sky is blue is not a belief: you have immediate evidence of it through your senses. But if you were born blind, you'd have to believe it's blue.



Earth is flat.
This belief is very solid and justified from the perspective of Antiquity. It's a belief nonetheless, it doesn't become a certainty because it looks solid... proof is, Earth isn't flat lol.

As "something that is accepted, considered to be true, or held as an opinion : something believed", or " conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence"; then sure. Atheists believe there is no god. That still does not make that non belief doctrine, and does not make atheism a religion, which is where this whole conversation started anyway. In terms of this definition of belief, pretty much anything that you can have an opinion on is considered religious, which to be frank is silly. Using your example, if I say "I believe that the earth is round", am I professing a belief in something religious? Doctrine of any kind? No, I am not. Same goes for atheism.

Saying "it is my opinion/belief that Blizzard went to shit after Activision got involved" is not me professing any doctrine of any belief system lol. It's an opinion. But according to your definition I could be part of the "Anti Blizzard" religion, professing "anti Blizzard" doctrine. Which again is silly.

You are arguing semantics of the English word "belief" while conflating it with the religious type of belief, which are not equal. I am arguing that atheism is in no way a belief in the sense of "believing in something". That was implied, pretty sure others like Oberon got that. This is a philosophical argument and it's kinda bad faith to conflate an "English language" argument with a philosophical question in this manner.

[yzb25]

I said assume because we don't have to think it's true, just to use the possibility of its truth as a basis. I guess if we don't believe in it, we're believing we're doing something utterly useless though lol.

All our well-founded scientific theories can be taken as assumptions of convenience by the same rationale. That removes any kind of belief from science, if you see things that way

[BananaCucho]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Marshmallow Marshall , using the definition of religion, please argue in what way atheism is a religion and/or has doctrine

[Renegade]

The religious folks always love to counter that atheism is a religion in and of itself, it is always funny.

[BananaCucho]

The religious folks always love to counter that atheism is a religion in and of itself, it is always funny.

I don't know if it's just that they do that to try to frame atheism in a way that they can relate to/understand, or if it's just a blatant ignorant misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. Or a bit of both? I don't get it man. Even back when I was religious I don't remember viewing atheism this way.

[Stealthbomber16]

Religion inherently is accompanied by a series of beliefs and values that come with the religion- including but not limited to belief in a god.

If you classify belief in a religion solely as belief in a god… I could see why you could consider atheism a religion. But that’s not what religion is. You’re not only believing in a god, you are believing in the values that the religion teaches. Atheism can’t be considered a religion is you believe in the values of the religion because atheism doesn’t have any inherent values.

So I guess… if you think atheism is a religion… that makes you bad at being religious?

[DJarJar]

you are believing in the values that the religion teaches.

Too bad most religious arguments are made in direct conflict with the values the religious person supposedly follows

[Marshmallow Marshall]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
Marshmallow Marshall , using the definition of religion, please argue in what way atheism is a religion and/or has doctrine

Saying atheism is a religion is plain wrong lol, but it does have potential dogmatism in common with religion ("EVERYONE should be atheist, and showing that you are religious should be illegal!").

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

Gnostic atheism has a doctrine: Gods cannot exist, because there is no scientific evidence of their existence, etc.


Also, I feel like I should clarify something: I'm not "religious"! I'm an agnostic theist (and don't necessarily believe whatever "god" is even has a consciousness by itself). So no renegade lol I'm not trying to preach you down!

[theoneceko]

Saying atheism is a religion is plain wrong lol, but it does have potential dogmatism in common with religion ("EVERYONE should be atheist, and showing that you are religious should be illegal!").

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

Gnostic atheism has a doctrine: Gods cannot exist, because there is no scientific evidence of their existence, etc.


Also, I feel like I should clarify something: I'm not "religious"! I'm an agnostic theist (and don't necessarily believe whatever "god" is even has a consciousness by itself). So no renegade lol I'm not trying to preach you down!

i have never heard an atheist say that.

[BananaCucho]

Saying atheism is a religion is plain wrong lol, but it does have potential dogmatism in common with religion ("EVERYONE should be atheist, and showing that you are religious should be illegal!").

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/doctrine
Doctrine: a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief

Gnostic atheism has a doctrine: Gods cannot exist, because there is no scientific evidence of their existence, etc.


Also, I feel like I should clarify something: I'm not "religious"! I'm an agnostic theist (and don't necessarily believe whatever "god" is even has a consciousness by itself). So no renegade lol I'm not trying to preach you down!

Yeah no, this isn't a thing. If anything, atheists are more likely to be believers in actual freedom of belief/religion (and freedom FROM religion) and proponents of separation of religion and state. But being atheist means you can believe/push anything you want! Or don't want! You can try to convince people that their religion is dumb or you can just not give a shit - there's no rules to atheism, no message, no teachings and no way to live. Atheism doesn't care how you live your life in any way. Honestly, most atheists couldn't give a damn what you believe as long as you allow them to live with disbelief in peace.

Still wrong!! "I don't believe in gods" is not a principle or position in a branch of knowledge or a system of belief! Non belief is not a system of belief in anything! And the only branch of knowledge that can be involved is scientific knowledge... Which if anything would be scientific doctrine not atheist doctrine lmao. Using scientific facts in arguments is scientific knowledge, not atheist knowledge. There is no atheist knowledge. There is no atheist system of belief. No atheist teachings. No atheist doctrine!

If you ask someone why they are Christian, they'll give you a laundry list of Christian teachings that they build and base their faith and belief on. Christian doctrine. Christian teachings. If you ask an atheist why they are atheist, the answers can vary and there aren't any atheist teachings that brought them to that conclusion! Because atheism doesn't have teachings! Doesn't have principles or beliefs or stances on anything. Which is why "atheist doctrine" is a misunderstanding of what atheism is!

[theoneceko]

yea, like a lot of atheists oline are like, RELIGION IS CRINGE

but i don't think they role force their beliefs on others outside of that

[BananaCucho]

yea, like a lot of atheists oline are like, RELIGION IS CRINGE

but i don't think they role force their non-belief on others outside of that

FTFY ;)

[theoneceko]

hmm, maybe non=belief is a better way to describe my views? uwu

yea, it actually is xD

[BananaCucho]

hmm, maybe non=belief is a better way to describe my views? uwu

yea, it actually is xD

Yeah man don't let these believers make you think that your non-belief is somehow equal to or on the same level of their belief. Non-belief does not require the faith nor irrationality that belief does. Of all the beliefs and religions that exist, the probability of their one god (or gods) existing while all others don't is not equal to the probability that no gods exist lol. Not even close.

[Oberon]

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
@Marshmallow Marshall (https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/member.php?u=29377) , using the definition of religion, please argue in what way atheism is a religion and/or has doctrine
Not everyone makes atheism into a religion, but some do.
Like Richard Dawkins.

[BananaCucho]

Not everyone makes atheism into a religion, but some do.
Like Richard Dawkins.

How did Dawkins make it into a religion? Explain.

[yzb25]

i have never heard an atheist say that.

I think there are actually people who say that in the francosphere tho. (I can't tell for sure because they're all speaking french) France has been edging towards banning hijabs in public for a long time in the name of "secularism". They take their secularism very far over there. So mm isnt pulling it out his ass when he says it like an american evangelical is

[Oberon]

i have never heard an atheist say that.
Then you’re not listening closely enough. One of my friends IRL is like this. And there’s plenty more

[Oberon]

How did Dawkins make it into a religion? Explain.
He says everyone who is religious is basically a nutbag and campaigns heavily in favoyr banning religion in the name of ‘science’. He basically misunderstands the point of religion (like a typical fundamentalist, since all fundamentalists think that science and religion are incompatible with one another.

[Stealthbomber16]

i have never heard an atheist say that.

I have :(

[Helz]

Something I really dislike about debating religion is the concept of 'faith'. Yes its a thing but all too often I see it used to justify and regurgitate something the individuals power structure has pushed on them. Like 2 weeks ago I got into the whole "Is the Bible the infallible word of God" conversation with a guy and walked him one by one through these versus on Gods Face:

Genisis 32:30 Seeing Gods face = Preservation of life
Exedus 33:20 No man will see God and Live
Genisis 32:30 Jacob saw Gods Face
Genisis 12:7 Abraham saw Gods Face
Exedus 33:11 Moses saw Gods Face
John 1:18 No man has seen God at any time
Exedus 24: 9-11 The 70 Elders saw Gods face
1 Timothy 6:16 No man has or can see God

Obvious and direct contradictions which reflect they can not all be true but it was like the cogs in his head stopped turning for a while then he just dismissed it all and cut back to "I have faith that the Bible is the infallible word of God" because thats what preachers have been telling him. This also runs into an issue I take that preachers always seem to start 'speaking for God' or declaring things they can not possibly know as if they are facts instead of teaching within their own ignorance but thats another subject..

That said- I have some degree of faith but it is not of that sort and that is not why I made the arguments that I did. A lot of the arguments here deal more with linguistic and semiotic meaning pivoting on semantics and categorization which.. Is kind of pointless (to include my own in that line)

As I see it there is a hard difference between the Connotation and Denotation of the category 'Atheists' which has become the center of a debate. I personally do not see the broadening of the category of Atheists to include Agnostic beliefs simply because the term itself retains its stance without tacking on the sub-category of Atheism but when I started reading the historical development of Atheism I quickly came to the conclusion that I just do not care enough about the subject to continue. It is of note that it looks like it came out of Samkhya (an Indian philosophy that rejects the idea of God) suggesting that the agnostic bit was a later addition. I also got a chuckle finding out theres like.. Jewish and Christian sects of atheism now? Kinda seems like someone is reeeeeaaaally trying to expand influence pool there..

But anyways, the fact so many people here see a direct connotation of the category Atheism as a disbelief (rather than lack of belief) in God reflects the difference in categorization relating more toward its use between in groups and out groups of Atheists. Maybe the denotation is technically different but I am torn between calling that ignorance on behalf of its use and that the denotation is itself just contrived to justify inclusion of a larger pool of people for a power structure as opposed to conveying information because as I said, there is no reason to create a 'Agnostic Atheist" category to convey your beliefs when simply calling yourself agnostic conveys your beliefs more clearly and with less symbols (words.)

At the end of the day though, Does it really matter? Words convey meaning and debating the meaning of a category is less productive than simply cutting the category out and expressing the meaning. I agree with Bannana that "Agnostic Atheism" has no belief but I also don't think thats how I will ever use the word/category of 'Atheism.' In my personal life I have never met a person who identified as an atheist and described their belief as agnostic. Those who did hold such a position identified as agnostic and not as an atheist at all. Maybe its a cultural thing in America and the places I have traveled internationally but when someone identifies as Atheist (in my personal experience) its a hard line belief that God does not exist. If they say "I don't believe in a god, but hey who knows really" they declare as agnostic.

A part of me also questions if the expansion to include agnostics under atheism (or the new religious atheism stuff thats...?) may be just an effort to grow the population of the group and increase the reach of the power structures that use the group to personal ends. But thats just the cynical side of me that sees no logical reason for the action while seeing substantial gain from such an action by any power structure within the group.

[BananaCucho]

Helz atheism, agnostic, agnostic atheism really are all just labels in the end that people use to easily describe themselves. Which is really my whole point; atheism isn't a religion like Christianity, Judaism, etc are in that it's exactly that: a label and not a belief system.

[Renegade]

I question religious folks' capacity for reason.

[BananaCucho]

I have :(

Man you guys have way different experiences than I have lmao. Then again most of the atheists I know are post Mormon atheists which may have a bit to do with it.


He says everyone who is religious is basically a nutbag and campaigns heavily in favoyr banning religion in the name of ‘science’. He basically misunderstands the point of religion (like a typical fundamentalist, since all fundamentalists think that science and religion are incompatible with one another.

I mean why is religion supposed to be above criticism? Of course he says it a lot more eloquently than you put it, but criticizing a religion is hardly making atheism a religion in and of itself.

You should provide a source for this. Dawkins has heavily criticized religion and have spoken in hypotheticals about things like a world without religion, but I don't ever recall him actually advocating for a religion ban. Please cite this claim. Thanks.

Even if he truly misunderstood religion as you state, I don't see how anything he has said has "turned atheism into a religion". It kinda sounds like he has annoyed you a bit but that doesn't justify the claim.

[Helz]

I think both are just labels.

If you go church to church totally different belief systems can be taught. The thing I was referencing earlier is that atheism has similar parallels with religion in many ways. I kinda feel like we are talking past etchother here and our points are not mutually exclusive, we are just diving into the holy shit mess that is language and categorization.

I also do not feel like I will ever be inclined to differentiate agnostic from gnostic under the umbrella of atheism. When I use the word/symbol atheism in a conversation with the people I am around we mutually understand a meaning that totally excludes agnostic beliefs while if I want to talk about agnostic beliefs I simply use that word/symbol agnostic while excluding the word/symbol atheism because it would confuse people.

Languages are living things that evolve with their use and are not set in stone as dictionary's would attempt to do. Different dialects exist within most big languages and words meaning changes depending on where you live. You could draw out plenty of such differences between America and England's use of English in both words as well as spelling.

Imagine this same conversation along those terms. If I was America arguing a Boot is a shoe and you were England arguing it should also include the trunk of your car there is a difference in how the symbol is used -but- neither side is wrong. The productive thing to do would be for each side to acknowledge the opposing sides use and share information through symbols accordingly. The unproductive thing may be to argue about the meaning of the word (as we have done here.)

[BananaCucho]

That's fair.

[Helz]

A bit off topic but I was working on the house and rolling some stuff around in my head and came up with this off topic and totally unsubstantiated
So I was thinking about power structures behind groups and how they push growth of their group because it expands their power. Then I thought about Atheism and the categories included. It occurred to me if you had the belief 'There is no God' you pretty much have a very specific pool of the population that would be included in such a group. This greatly limits group growth and therefore- the growth of your power structure. So how do you grow?

Expand the belief pool. If Atheism were able to swallow agnostic's it can hit a much wider pool of the population. But after that how do you grow? You have excluded a huge portion of the population which is every person who holds a religious belief.. Well, now that you have swallowed Agnostics you can include any religious person who also adds the "But who really knows" at the end of it.

Such an evolution of an organization matches up what little I have looked at and satisfies my cynical outlook on power structures.

Like I said.. Totally unsubstantiated assumptions and pretty off topic but I might not be wrong given that it does explain the direction of growth while establishing motive..

-edit

I wonder if religions will ever attempt to include gnostic individuals to expand their power group

[Apocist]

apo isn't atheist.

however, she won't bow a head down to a tyrant just because that's a normalcy enforced through peer pressure. (just referring to a number of common religions)

religion is a double edged sword. yes, it can help encourage some known societal 'morals' such as being kind to others, builds a type of community, and so on.
but, then it also needlessly and heavily discriminates against a mass of other morally right values. many religions become an entrapment through the use of 'tradition' and 'excommunication' (multiple different forms ranging from simply not being apart of the community anymore to complete banishment) just for not believing in those same morals

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I think there are actually people who say that in the francosphere tho. (I can't tell for sure because they're all speaking french) France has been edging towards banning hijabs in public for a long time in the name of "secularism". They take their secularism very far over there. So mm isnt pulling it out his ass when he says it like an american evangelical is

Somebody around actually knows that! xD

Ever since a crazy Muslim literally decapitated a teacher in France for talking about Muhammad in a way he didn't like or something like that, there's... a lot of tension, let's say. It absolutely isn't a non-existant mentality. I'm a bit surprised it seems foreign to some people.

@ helz wallpost: Same experience about people describing themselves as agnostic first and foremost, not as atheists when it's what they actually mean. Didn't expect to face disagreements about that, honestly.

[OzyWho]

Ever since a crazy Muslim literally decapitated a teacher in France for talking about Muhammad in a way he didn't like or something like that, there's... a lot of tension, let's say.
I mean, stuff like that is what the Qur'an kinda tells to do. Why would a thing like that make more of an impact than let's say the November 2015 Paris attacks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks)?

[yzb25]

Somebody around actually knows that! xD

Ever since a crazy Muslim literally decapitated a teacher in France for talking about Muhammad in a way he didn't like or something like that, there's... a lot of tension, let's say. It absolutely isn't a non-existant mentality. I'm a bit surprised it seems foreign to some people.

@ helz wallpost: Same experience about people describing themselves as agnostic first and foremost, not as atheists when it's what they actually mean. Didn't expect to face disagreements about that, honestly.

I've of course seen people be extremely anti-religion, but I've never heard anyone oppose religious expression here in the UK ("showing your religion should be illegal"), so my experience is like ceko and banana's.

I also generally hear the word agnostic used that way, and respect people don't have to use words the way a dictionary tells them to. I apologize if I gave a different impression due to my pedantic interjections lol

[yzb25]

A bit off topic but I was working on the house and rolling some stuff around in my head and came up with this off topic and totally unsubstantiated
So I was thinking about power structures behind groups and how they push growth of their group because it expands their power. Then I thought about Atheism and the categories included. It occurred to me if you had the belief 'There is no God' you pretty much have a very specific pool of the population that would be included in such a group. This greatly limits group growth and therefore- the growth of your power structure. So how do you grow?

Expand the belief pool. If Atheism were able to swallow agnostic's it can hit a much wider pool of the population. But after that how do you grow? You have excluded a huge portion of the population which is every person who holds a religious belief.. Well, now that you have swallowed Agnostics you can include any religious person who also adds the "But who really knows" at the end of it.

Such an evolution of an organization matches up what little I have looked at and satisfies my cynical outlook on power structures.

Like I said.. Totally unsubstantiated assumptions and pretty off topic but I might not be wrong given that it does explain the direction of growth while establishing motive..

-edit

I wonder if religions will ever attempt to include gnostic individuals to expand their power group

I don't really see that. I think if anything atheists are likely to feel superior and smug and form exclusive cliques like you get with (some) feminists. I think that's reflected in the rhetoric. Marketable atheists that make lots of money through their atheism are "intellectuals" and edgy and non-mainstream. While modern christians are gentle, polite and as innoffensive as humanly possible (I'm thinking of the pope). That's the behaviour of a group trying expand... or at least stop contracting.

Jewish atheists are a thing because jewishness is also like an ethnicity, afaik. Even if you don't really subscribe to the religious views you can still be closely affiliated with the community and be "ethnically jewish". This christian atheism thing is pretty wild tho. I had no idea this existed and i've got a big shit eating grin on my face now

[yzb25]

In the Netherlands, 42% of the members of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) are nontheists. [...] A minister of the PKN, Klaas Hendrikse has described God as "a word for experience, or human experience" and said that Jesus may have never existed. Hendrikse gained attention with his book published in November 2007 in which he said that it was not necessary to believe in God's existence in order to believe in God.

from wikipedia XD

[Oberon]

I feel like this conversation got a bit derailed when we started talking about power structures. Sorry, but I just don’t see what power structures have to do with anything. It’s also a bit meh to look for ‘power structures’ everywhere, IMO. I feel like you could apply that concept to pretty much every influential group in history lol.

[Helz]

I feel like this conversation got a bit derailed when we started talking about power structures. Sorry, but I just don’t see what power structures have to do with anything. It’s also a bit meh to look for ‘power structures’ everywhere, IMO. I feel like you could apply that concept to pretty much every influential group in history lol.

Pretty sure that was me. Someone said something about if religions didn't exist and I rambled about how if religion did not exist a number of other power and social structures would take its place that follows many of the same patterns religions do at heart..

[BananaCucho]

Speaking of religion not existing, has anyone seen The Invention of Lying? Pretty funny take on what the world would be like if nobody could lie except for the one person who figured out how to do it

[Helz]

Speaking of religion not existing, has anyone seen The Invention of Lying? Pretty funny take on what the world would be like if nobody could lie except for the one person who figured out how to do it

That was a pretty funny film. If you like the concept of that humor theres a youtuber named Ryan George that has tons of content along the same lines. It kinda makes me understand how weird the stuff we consider normal really is when put in context of being seen by someone who is alien to it.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

In the Netherlands, 42% of the members of the Protestant Church in the Netherlands (PKN) are nontheists. [...] A minister of the PKN, Klaas Hendrikse has described God as "a word for experience, or human experience" and said that Jesus may have never existed. Hendrikse gained attention with his book published in November 2007 in which he said that it was not necessary to believe in God's existence in order to believe in God.

from wikipedia XD
Lololol
Everyone is Protestant then :D

I feel like this conversation got a bit derailed when we started talking about power structures. Sorry, but I just don’t see what power structures have to do with anything. It’s also a bit meh to look for ‘power structures’ everywhere, IMO. I feel like you could apply that concept to pretty much every influential group in history lol.

It wasn't the point of the thread, but I don't really mind. As for looking for power structures everywhere, that's called analyzing society. Indeed, you could apply that concept to pretty much every influential group in history... and you should! They are the generators of the forces moving society through the ages. It's absolutely relevant to anything that relates to society.

[Marshmallow Marshall]

I mean, stuff like that is what the Qur'an kinda tells to do. Why would a thing like that make more of an impact than let's say the November 2015 Paris attacks (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/November_2015_Paris_attacks)?

Of course, those attacks still have an impact even today, and you can still see people wearing or having as a profile picture "JE SUIS CHARLIE", "I am Charlie [an attacked magazine that became the symbol of free speech back then]". But the decapitation left a strong effect and led Macron to force the creation of a "Council of Imams": https://www.leconseildesimamsdefrance.org/ (and by the way, the first thing you see on that page is the Council saying they disagree with the murder lol). Some schools of Islam were judged too radical and especially "anti-republican" (i.e. anti-democratic), and were denied the entry to that council. I'm not sure what happened with them, but they certainly aren't tolerated much.