The Myth of Religious Neutrality

[Evo]

I only had one question, and that was that the citation did not appear. I see evo have provided them now.

I don't see how the subcategory "pragmatic atheism" in the wikipedia article, or the alternative definition (second to rejection of belief) given by wikipedia, or religioustolerance.com(!) gives the picture that "lack of belief" as opposed to "rejection" is the dominant meaning in philosophical discussions. The article I referred to from encyclopedia britannica, the first reference in the wikipedia article, says otherwise.

Were not talking about philosophical discussions, we're talking about the mistaken notion that atheism is a religion. That it is fath based.

Ironically enough, he's made that exact same point -- that atheism is a religion.

His reasoning, as far as I can remember, was that atheism relies on the axiomatic assumption that there is no God(s).

 

[disregardthat]

Were not talking about philosophical discussions, we're talking about the mistaken notion that atheism is a religion.

My discussion with gokul is about the common use of the word atheism in philosophical discussions, as he explicitly clarified:

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion.

My stance is not that atheism is faith based.

 

[Cyrus]

I'm sure they will have a good explanation.

Who is "they" and what is their explanation?

Leibniz proposed monads as general spiritual metaphysical entities which also cause material existence, and he had a reasonably sophisticated account of his opinions. It is not an empty statement. False and/or unverifiable perhaps, but not empty.

Sounds like nonsense to me.

It has classically been the philosophical consensus that matter was the appearance necessarily caused, by the categories of reason, by something which is not attainable for the senses. Kant proposed Transcendental idealism. The metaphysical world consisting of the "things-in-themselves" causing the appearances we sense is essentially unknowable, so it makes no rational sense to speak of them. He argued however that by reason alone we must infer their existence.

Sounds like more nonsense.

The opinion of e.g. George Berkeley was that materialism in itself was a contradictory perspective, a position which he (some might say successfully) argued for. His solution to the problem was an all-observant god.

Again, nonsense.

I am not arguing for these possible solutions, I am arguing that the notion of something "outside" the material world is not non-sense and certainly not merely empty statements. But it's easy to say that firmly grounded in a materialist view.

And, I am saying they are all crackpot horse manure. At least an empty statement has no value, these ideas have negative value (they are stupid).

 

[disregardthat]

Who is "they" and what is their explanation?]
Sounds like nonsense to me.
Sounds like more nonsense.
Again, nonsense.
And, I am saying they are all crackpot horse manure.

All right, I get the feeling that you are not particularly philosophically inclined by your non-constructive replies. It is a good job calling leibniz, kant and berkeley stupid crackpot horse manure, but it is not intellectually convincing.

 

[Cyrus]

All right, I get the feeling that you are not particularly philosophically inclined by your non-constructive replies. It is a good job called leibniz, kant and berkeley crackpot horse manure, but not intellectually convincing.

Who cares, their statements are (a) based on nothing (b) are speculative nonsense at best, and (c) are completely unsubstantiated and do not even use any form of rational scientific principles. But hey, it allows you to use big words and have coffee shop conversation - Kudos. You've convinced me that they are right.

 

[Cyrus]

Care to prove this statement by Leibniz then:

Leibniz proposed monads as general spiritual metaphysical entities which also cause material existence

Cyrus proposes that the spiritual metaphysical entities come out of my butt. See how silly that sounds, so do his statement. Factual claims, based on hypothetical nonsense hyped up with big words and philosophical babble.

 

[disregardthat]

You've convinced me that they are right.

Uh, I explicitly mentioned that my intention was not to argue for their ideas.

Furthermore, I don't think your butt-related attack on leibniz is any better than my coffee-shop explanations. This is childish and silly.

 

[Cyrus]

Uh, I explicitly mentioned that my intention was not to argue for their ideas.

Then don't mention them.

Furthermore, I don't think your butt-related attack on leibniz is any better than my coffee-shop arguments.

Good, because it was only to illustrate the baseless stupidity of these arguments.

 

[disregardthat]

Good, because it was only to illustrate the baseless stupidity of these arguments.

It illustrated something quite else

 

[Cyrus]

It illustrated something quite else

Come on, Jarle, its clearly a form of playful banter to expand upon the pseudointellectual nonrationalistic basis of the nonsensical opinion formulated through the hypothesis of such great thinkers as Kant et al, thereby utilizing their own arguments against itself...bleeehh. I can't do it! I can't BS with big words using such eloquence - you philosophy guys win. Keep it simple, stupid - I say.

 

[turbo]

Were not talking about philosophical discussions, we're talking about the mistaken notion that atheism is a religion. That it is fath based.

I would gladly consider myself an atheist if the term didn't include a popular (and mis-applied) connotation that I actively dispute the existence of a deity. I don't, because I don't feel that the concept of a deity is even worthy of refutation.

 

[Evo]

My discussion with gokul is about the common use of the word atheism in philosophical discussions, as he explicitly clarified:



My stance is not that atheism is faith based.

You see to have misunderstood what he was referring to, he was referring to homosexuality.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2836966&postcount=125

Unnatural? Is that the same argument as that of homosexuality being 'unnatural', because sex more often happens between heterosexual partners?

No. I am talking about words in language, this is not analogous to sexuality. Words draw their meaning from usage, so it is "unnatural" to pedantically insist on a word meaning something else than how it is being used, as if general and common usage is somehow wrong. It is not; it is by definition correct. This is not argumentum ad populum, it's how language works. Replace "unnatural" by "wrong" if you like.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I would gladly consider myself an atheist if the term didn't include a popular (and mis-applied) connotation that I actively dispute the existence of a deity. I don't, because I don't feel that the concept of a deity is even worthy of refutation.

I've asked others, so I'll ask you too. This question has nothing to do with active disputers, just people who believe a certain thing, as opposed to people who do not believe a certain thing. Namely, what do you call a person who believes that there is no deity?

 

[Evo]

I've asked others, so I'll ask you too. This question has nothing to do with active disputers, just people who believe a certain thing, as opposed to people who do not believe a certain thing. Namely, what do you call a person who believes that there is no deity?

Isn't asking people to give you a word to fit your definition a rather bizarre request? After all, it's your definition, and I authorize you to create your own word for it. What would you like to call it?

I did, btw, go to the trouble to find you a word for your definition, and you didn't even bother to respond, unless I missed it.

 

[turbo]

I've asked others, so I'll ask you too. This question has nothing to do with active disputers, just people who believe a certain thing, as opposed to people who do not believe a certain thing. Namely, what do you call a person who believes that there is no deity?

A person who has thought the proposition through and can't be bothered to oppose the existence of a deity is an agnostic.

 

[disregardthat]

You see to have misunderstood what he was referring to, he was referring to homosexuality.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=2836966&postcount=125

Are you joking? Obviously by "term" he referred to "atheism":

We are talking about a term in the context of a philosophical discussion.

The reference to homosexuality was part of his critique of my usage of the word unnatural.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

I did, btw go to the trouble to find you a word for your definition, and you didn't even bother to respond, unless I missed it.

If you ever called a person that I'll eat my hat.

 

[Evo]

If you ever called a person that I'll eat my hat.

I don't label people jimmy, you asked for a label.

definition of atheist

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[2] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[3] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[4] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.

Bolding mine.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

A person who has thought the proposition through and can't be bothered to oppose the existence of a deity is an agnostic.

I'm sorry my question was convoluted. None the less it was clear. What do you call a person who believes there is no deity?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

definition of atheist

This is a kind of fallacy. It answers a different question than the one I asked. I did not ask for a definition of the word atheist, I asked what you call a person who believes there is no deity. According to the site you gave:

[1] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

Bolding yours.

This is not the answer you gave before, but neither is it the answer you really wanted to give.

 

[Evo]

This is a kind of fallacy. It answers a different question than the one I asked. I did not ask for a definition of the word atheist, I asked what you call a person who believes there is no deity. According to the site you gave:


Bolding yours.

This is not the answer you gave before, but neither is it the answer you really wanted to give.

That wasn't in response to your question of

what you call a person who believes there is no deity.

I was showing you what the definition of atheist is, it is clearly not someone who believes there is no diety, so we can rule out atheist as your answer.

What do you call a person that believes there is no diety jimmy? (please share with us) I already found you a possible name for your definition pages ago. You never said anything, did I win?

 

[Danger]

Alright, already... there is clearly only one proper way to resolve this subject. We should petition Mythbusters for an experiment. Query: is there a god, and if so can you blow it up?

 

[Evo]

Alright, already... there is clearly only one proper way to resolve this subject. We should petition Mythbusters for an experiment. Query: is there a god, and if so can you blow it up?

Well, they just blew the Earth up with a double barreled shotgun on the history channel because the Earth's magnetic field disappeared.

I watch these shows because inevitably someone will watch it and start a thread about it.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

What do you call a person that believes there is no diety jimmy? (please share with us)

I did.

If you believe there is a deity you are a theist. If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist, If you don't believe either way, you are an agnostic. I know that some agnostics call themselves atheists, but I don't accept it.

 

[Evo]

Are you joking? Obviously by "term" he referred to "atheism":



The reference to homosexuality was part of his critique of my usage of the word unnatural.

I could be mistaken jarle, it's just how it appeared to me. Gokul will need to clear up what he meant.

 

[Evo]

I did.

Then we're using two different sets of definitions. I believe that your definition would be an older, more religious based one. Mine (and gokul's) would tend to be the newer, more accurate definition. Who knows better what they think, the labeler or the labeled? Or is your position that since the religious made up the label, they get to make up the definition, even if it has zero to do with a person that lacks belief.

So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we go with your preferred definition and an atheist believes that there is no god. Then what is a person called that lacks belief?

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

So, let's say, for the sake of argument, that we go with your preferred definition and an atheist believes that there is no god. Then what is a person called that lacks belief?

If you believe there is a deity you are a theist. If you believe there is no deity you are an atheist, If you don't believe either way, you are an agnostic. I know that some agnostics call themselves atheists, but I don't accept it.

Agnostic.

 

[physicsdude30]

Only a pedant would say that an atheist is an agnostic. The etymology might be on your side, but the meaning of the word abandons you. I have never heard anyone say "I don't believe in G-d" except to mean "I believe no G-d exists". It's like "I don't believe in the Easter Bunny". Who ever says "I believe the Easter Bunny doesn't exist"?

Maybe this will provide some context why some people will say they're a "weak atheist" rather than "strong atheist", or lack of belief rather than believing there are no gods:

If someone asked you what you think about the Easter Bunny, you'd probably say, "I believe there is no Easter Bunny." However, if someone asked what you think about aliens or UFOs, many are going to say, "I don't believe in aliens." However, probed they'll admit they don't actually deny that aliens or even UFOs could exist, but rather they just plain don't believe. If you then say, "Okay, so you're agnostic toward aliens/UFOs," they may get upset because they think you're taking them out of context, because it's like you're calling them a fense sitter when they just don't believe. (Many who are heated into the debate about gods will accuse agnostics of being fense sitters who can't make up their minds, so some who don't believe in any gods just prefer the word "atheism", even if they don't deny the existence of any gods).

Another way to look at it, there are many Catholics and Jews who say they do actually believe in a God of the Bible, but that their belief isn't that strong. If you probe and ask if the Hindu gods may possibly be true, some may perhaps say they don't deny any of them, but they just don't believe in them. If you call them agostic toward Hindu gods they'll then think you're taking them out of context. The same for some who practice Hinduism, they'll think the same way if you accuse them of being agnostic toward the God of the Bible (although just to add in there that there are some denominations of Hinduism who think the God of the Bible is just another manifestation of their god, although not all denominations necessarily believe that).

So I think that's why they say there is weak atheism vs. strong atheism, "not believing but not denying" vs. "actually denying there are any gods".

 

[physicsdude30]

Then there's also "agnostic" vs. "gnostic" atheists. Just like some who believe in the God of the Bible will say "I absolutely believe in God but I don't have the knowledge of or I can't give any decent evidence for", there are going to be some atheists that way about their own beliefs in atheism. You can be a weak atheist, but then on the flip side you could be a strong atheist who may think to yourself that you don't actually know/have very lousy evidence but that you have a strong belief that there are no gods.

 

[physicsdude30]

That's just what I've heard from those who claim to be either 1. weak atheists, or 2. agnostic atheists.

I've always wanted to meet someone who calls themself a Christian Atheist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_atheism"

 

[Evo]

Agnostic.

No,
the definition of agnostic is

agnosticism holds that you can neither prove nor disprove God's existence"

http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=agnosticism

Some people say they prefer to say "cannot know", or that they're not sure.

jimmy, let me see the link you have that defines a person that completely lacks belief of any diety(ies) as agnostic.

 

[Danger]

Physicsdude30, I don't think that your UFO analogy is relevant for one reason only. Such is confirmable or deniable by scientific methods. (Not necessarily with our current technology, but theoretically.) I would probably fall into the Agnostic (Agalien?) category with regard to them. I know for a fact that UFO's exist; I saw one and know several others who have as well. The whole point, however, is that the "U" in "UFO" stands for "Unidentified". (Mine turned out, after some investigation, to have been a bolide. My sister-in-law was actually watching Venus through heavy atmospheric aberrations. It's remarkable how much that planet moves around when you don't expect it to.) I also know that it is statistically almost impossible for there not to be other intelligent life in the universe. I do not, however, believe that it is visiting us and doing rude things to our cows.
The proof or disproof of Theism lies outside the realm of empirical study, but logical arguments should apply.

 

[brainstorm]

I was using the term "taking a leap of faith" synonymously with "having faith". There was no intended attempt at strawmanning. But I suspect my use of the word 'faith', as in something based not on empirical evidence but on dogma, is different from yours. Even within your definition, you must recognize that there is a difference in the degree to which one relies on faith in the context of science versus that of religion.

No, I think you are biased in favor of strongly dichotomizing faith against self-evident knowledge. This may work at the level of establishing objective knowledge as independent of subjective perception, but at the subjective level I don't think you can get around the need for ontological conviction, which I call "faith." I have now been threatened to abandon my claim that disbelief requires faith, but I simply think that there needs to be fundamental understanding of whatever it is psychologically that allows people to rely on knowledge supposedly without "faith." I.e. What is it in human cognition that facilitates conviction that reality is in fact real and not a dream, fantasy, hallucination, or something else subjective but lacking objective foundations?

 

[Danger]

What is it in human cognition that facilitates conviction that reality is in fact real and not a dream, fantasy, hallucination, or something else subjective but lacking objective foundations?

I'm not sure that anything does. I dabbled in Solipsism myself when I was younger. It was an interesting experience, but I rejected the possibility of it being real.

 

[Cyrus]

What is it in human cognition that facilitates conviction that reality is in fact real and not a dream, fantasy, hallucination, or something else subjective but lacking objective foundations?

We can very readily create experiments using sensors that can detect tangible observations that should correlate and correspond to human subject testing. We also learn more about this as we probe more into the mind using science, philosophy provides only useless speculation.