So Neo, did you know that Atheism is a religion?

[Svartalf]

Technically, you can describe nonbelief as the belief that the rejected thing is worthless/false/inferior...

ProBlem is that if you posit an actual belief, that would have to actually entail that all non believers actually agree on enough points to be able to be regarded as a group, which, beside the fact they reject organized religion, they don't...

ergo, unbelief isn't a crypto belief

[tsig]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

and a guy who never had to reject a formerly held belief because he came across with the concept of gods, and that concept had so little merit it got rejected. where do you classify that?

Doesn't matter how long you entertain the notion, once you've become informed of a theistic notion or concept, and you form a belief about that theistic notion or concept based on analysis of the information you have gained, the belief exists and a religion may be built around that belief.

Also, where do you place people who do not necessarily reject the existence of your god, but definitely state that if it exists, it is not to be worshipped, except maybe by masochistic jews?

That's positive anti-theistic belief, and it produces the same result.

A religion may be constructed around ANY belief because it is HOW you practice what you believe that determines whether it's a religion or not.

Environmentalism, for example, is a religion.

What practices are religious? What is the HOW?

[Seth]

It's semantics. You are saying rejection of beliefs constitutes its own belief, others are saying it doesn't. You aren't going to convince anyone and they aren't going to convince you. Then again I suppose that's how most these discussions go

Indeed. A rejection of beliefs cannot be other than a belief, particularly when the beliefs rejected are not subject to critically robust proofs.

And what's wrong with having the discussion?

So non belief = belief?

It's not "non-belief" it's rejection of god claims, which is a belief. A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

When one considers, and then reject a god claim (explicit atheism) one forms a counter belief by having confidence in the truth of the proposition "there are no gods." Since it is as impossible to put that proposition to the test of immediate rigorous proof as it is to do it to the god claim, the holding of the proposition "there are no gods" is absolutely a belief, as opposed to a fact. Upon that belief it is possible to build an edifice of religion.

[Seth]

Technically, you can describe nonbelief as the belief that the rejected thing is worthless/false/inferior...

ProBlem is that if you posit an actual belief, that would have to actually entail that all non believers actually agree on enough points to be able to be regarded as a group, which, beside the fact they reject organized religion, they don't...

ergo, unbelief isn't a crypto belief

Nothing in the definition of religion requires agreement on anything. One person may make a religion of a belief upon a completely different basis than another. In the case of Atheism, the core belief, which is held by all Atheists is "there are no gods." Other details of the belief/practice system simply split the larger group into sects of Atheism. There's Dawkinsianism, and Dennettism, and Myersism and all manner of nuance and difference in belief, but they all hold in common the fundamental belief "there are no gods."

[Seth]

Blah blah. An atheist does not believe in god(s). End.

Depends on the atheist. An implicit atheist does not believe in gods as the result of ignorance about the concept. An explicit atheist forms a belief about gods. And in order for that to be true, the atheist in question must know of gods and have actively rejected those claims. This allows the explicit atheist to also form a practice set around that belief that may qualify as "religion," viz: Richard Dawkins.

and a guy who never had to reject a formerly held belief because he came across with the concept of gods, and that concept had so little merit it got rejected. where do you classify that?

Doesn't matter how long you entertain the notion, once you've become informed of a theistic notion or concept, and you form a belief about that theistic notion or concept based on analysis of the information you have gained, the belief exists and a religion may be built around that belief.

Also, where do you place people who do not necessarily reject the existence of your god, but definitely state that if it exists, it is not to be worshipped, except maybe by masochistic jews?

That's positive anti-theistic belief, and it produces the same result.

A religion may be constructed around ANY belief because it is HOW you practice what you believe that determines whether it's a religion or not.

Environmentalism, for example, is a religion.

What practices are religious? What is the HOW?

Radical acts of violence against corporations and research institutions by ALF, for example...

[tsig]

It's semantics. You are saying rejection of beliefs constitutes its own belief, others are saying it doesn't. You aren't going to convince anyone and they aren't going to convince you. Then again I suppose that's how most these discussions go

Indeed. A rejection of beliefs cannot be other than a belief, particularly when the beliefs rejected are not subject to critically robust proofs.

And what's wrong with having the discussion?

So non belief = belief?

It's not "non-belief" it's rejection of god claims, which is a belief. A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

When one considers, and then reject a god claim (explicit atheism) one forms a counter belief by having confidence in the truth of the proposition "there are no gods." Since it is as impossible to put that proposition to the test of immediate rigorous proof as it is to do it to the god claim, the holding of the proposition "there are no gods" is absolutely a belief, as opposed to a fact. Upon that belief it is possible to build an edifice of religion.

Nice sleight of hand turning the word 'rejection' into the word 'belief' then building your argument on that word. Do you always tell others what they think?

[Woodbutcher]

Seth, I have no objection to Atheism as a religion under these premises. As a matter of fact in the next census I'm going to report my religion as "Carpenter". Since I'm a union member and all, and we have a code of conduct, a Building Code, Union Stewards and Business Agents. And we meet once a month. Although I'm not that devout.

Works for me, but do you follow carpentry devotedly, as a matter of ethics or conscience? Now, a carpenter has a close connection to Jesus, for example, and you could easily create your own sect of Carpentry that uses the working of wood as a religious observance connected to Jesus (or merely as a spiritual connection with wood and nature for that matter). That would probably qualify you under IRS rules. And then all your tools would be tax-deductible, just as chalices and vestments are deductible for Catholic priests.

See how it works?

There are hacker carpenters, who are in it just for the money.Those are the faith healer and travelling salvation show carpenters.The devout are the ones who take pride in their work, however small the job is, always striving to improve and making sure that they give their best for the customer. The elite are the ones who do woodwork, cabinets and book cases, who use exotic woods, novel designs and do their own finishing, using stains and varnishes while sanding between each coat, and finally polishing the product to a high gloss. Amen.
It was carpenters who nailed Jesus to the cross too. He was caught scabbing ie. working on week-ends on side jobs without union approval.

[tsig]

Radical acts of violence against corporations and research institutions by ALF, for example...

So all atheists are members of ALF?

[Woodbutcher]

Radical acts of violence against corporations and research institutions by ALF, for example...

So all atheists are members of ALF?

[Seth]

It's semantics. You are saying rejection of beliefs constitutes its own belief, others are saying it doesn't. You aren't going to convince anyone and they aren't going to convince you. Then again I suppose that's how most these discussions go

Indeed. A rejection of beliefs cannot be other than a belief, particularly when the beliefs rejected are not subject to critically robust proofs.

And what's wrong with having the discussion?

So non belief = belief?

It's not "non-belief" it's rejection of god claims, which is a belief. A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

When one considers, and then reject a god claim (explicit atheism) one forms a counter belief by having confidence in the truth of the proposition "there are no gods." Since it is as impossible to put that proposition to the test of immediate rigorous proof as it is to do it to the god claim, the holding of the proposition "there are no gods" is absolutely a belief, as opposed to a fact. Upon that belief it is possible to build an edifice of religion.

Nice sleight of hand turning the word 'rejection' into the word 'belief' then building your argument on that word. Do you always tell others what they think?

Sadly, it's often necessary because so many people think only muddled thoughts.

Anyway, "rejection" of a god claim is confidence in the truth of the opposite argument of the god claim, is it not? Seems simple logic to me. Theists maintain "there is a god," atheists maintain "there are no gods." Both are positive propositions, albeit in opposite directions, so therefore both meet the definition of a "belief."

Not my fault if muddled thinkers can't figure it out.

[Seth]

Radical acts of violence against corporations and research institutions by ALF, for example...

So all atheists are members of ALF?

No, just one example of environmental religious zealotry.

[Hermit]

A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, would it be fair to say that since most atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god thingy because such an entity has not been proven to exist to their satisfaction, they, erm, lack belief? Most atheists do not say "there is no god". Not even Dawkins, whom you like to invoke, says that. They say "I believe it when I see it". No matter how unlikely most atheists regard the existence of a god, there are not many who go to the extent of saying: "There is no god. I know that."

[charlou]

Jesus was a carpenter ...

[charlou]

A belief is "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof."

So, would it be fair to say that since most atheists lack a belief in the existence of a god thingy because such an entity has not been proven to exist to their satisfaction, they, erm, lack belief? Most atheists do not say "there is no god". Not even Dawkins, whom you like to invoke, says that. They say "I believe it when I see it". No matter how unlikely most atheists regard the existence of a god, there are not many who go to the extent of saying: "There is no god. I know that."

By my definition of god, I know there is no god.





My Adumbledorism is the active "I don't believe dumbledore exists" variety. If dumbledorists want to invoke their belief in dumbledore to infringe on my life I may actively oppose it. Is my Adumbledorism therefore a religion?

[Hermit]

My Adumbledorism is the active "I don't believe dumbledore exists" variety. If dumbledorists want to invoke their belief in dumbledore to infringe on my life I may actively oppose it. Is my Adumbledorism therefore a religion?

Not by my conception of 'religion'. God, or no god, I think religion must always involve the notion of a supernatural element as an essential ingredient.