News Separation Church & State in Office

[Gokul43201]

Yikes! You don't go about practicing atheism as an active undertaking. You essentially "practice" it by not accepting stories that haven't been carefully verified. You also don't have to write or buy any books titled "god doesn't exist".

 

[Hurkyl]

Yikes! You don't go about practicing atheism as an active undertaking. You essentially "practice" it by not accepting stories that haven't been carefully verified. You also don't have to write or buy any books titled "god doesn't exist".

And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why it's a bad idea to try and co-opt the word "atheism" -- a word meaning a disbelief in the existence of deity, or meaning the doctrine that there is no deity (m-w) -- to describe the position that lacks belief in both hypothesis: that deities do not exist, and that deities exist. It leads to stupid mix-ups like this.

I know I am using the word as defined in m-w, and I think it's pretty clear that wildman is too in the post that spawned this thread of reasoning.

 

[tchitt]

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791. Note

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As much as a lot of people (everyone these days?) would like to break the rules for their own personal gain while defending the foundation our country is built on militantly when anyone else tries to do the same... freedom still isn't free.

 

[Gokul43201]

A disbelief in the existence of a deity is not the same as a belief in the non-existence of a deity. I believe you (Hurkyl) are attributing more to an atheist than is the sufficient set of conditions needed to define one.

 

[Hurkyl]

A disbelief in the existence of a deity is not the same as a belief in the non-existence of a deity. I believe you (Hurkyl) are attributing more to an atheist than is the sufficient set of conditions needed to define one.

Did you see my previous post?

 

[Gokul43201]

Did you see my previous post?

Yes. I'm not sure what exactly MW means when they say atheism is A "or" B, when A and B are not synonymous with each other. In this case, I believe their definition A covers all atheists, while definition B covers a large subset of that group. (Going by A) MW says that an atheist disbelieves in the existence of a deity, while (it seems to me like) you say that an atheist must believe in the non-existence of a deity.

 

[Evo]

Er... I didn't realize anyone here couldn't accept that some people don't believe in deities.

That wasn't addressed to you. Yes, there are some people here that can't accept it, or can't understand it.

 

[Hurkyl]

(Going by A) MW says that an atheist disbelieves in the existence of a deity, while (it seems to me like) you say that an atheist must believe in the non-existence of a deity.

Those are the same. Disbelief does not mean "lack of belief" -- it means

mental rejection of something as untrue (m-w)​

which is how I've been using it. (Although m-w's definition for "disbelieving" looks more like what you're thinking. In any case, I used 'disbelief' as I said above)

 

[OmCheeto]

After arguing with anti-theists on the the internet, and arguing with theists on my front porch, I decided I could not tell them apart.

As long as an atheist is willing to argue the point, atheism is a religion.




Where, by the way, is the yin yang smiley face for us Daoists? This forum smacks of subliminal theism...

 

[Gokul43201]

Those are the same. Disbelief does not mean "lack of belief" -- it means

mental rejection of something as untrue (m-w)​

which is how I've been using it. (Although m-w's definition for "disbelieving" looks more like what you're thinking. In any case, I used 'disbelief' as I said above)

I used disbelief in the sense of a rejection of belief rather than just a lack of belief. But again, (and it seems MW too is either being redundant or is over-reaching) rejecting the truth of a story is not the same as holding that it is untrue.

If you come to me with a story that you claim is true, I will ask you how you know it is true (by default). If you don't say that the story has been through some kind of careful examination, I will choose to reject the veracity of your claim (that the story is a true story). I will do this with every person that comes to me with the story. If and when someone finally provides me with an account of a careful verification of the story, I will no longer reject it. In this process I never contradict myself.

Gosh, I'm really derailing this thread now, aren't I?

 

[Hurkyl]

Gosh, I'm really derailing this thread now, aren't I?

Somewhat! Pushing back to the original topic, it's clear (to me) that both wildman and OrbitalPower (posts #3 and #4) were talking about atheism as the 'doctrine that deities don't exist', otherwise their worries don't make sense. I don't see a clear indicator about how drankin intended his poll. Obviously, the two questions

1. Should we allow only those who believe deities don't exist to hold office?
2. Should we allow only those who believe neither that deities exist nor that deities don't exist hold office?​

have a much different character to them.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

There is this certain word. It's "agnostic". As in "a-", without/lacking, "gnosis", knowledge. So if you claim no knowledge regarding the existence of god you are "agnostic". Not athiest. An athiest chooses a belief.

 

[LURCH]

But I think most of this is irrelevant. It would be equally unconstitutional to exclude theists from public office in favor of atheists or agnostics, wouldn't it?

Once we decide to say that only people with this "belief, or set of beliefs pertaining to the supernatural" are permitted to hold public office, it becomes irrelevant which belief or set of beliefs.

 

[CaptainQuasar]

As has come up in a number of similar threads on PF in the past, I think that talking about whether atheism technically satisfies some definition of being a religion is kind of side-stepping the point that someone who says something of the form "atheism is like a religion" is trying to make.

What they mean is that there is a large group of people who self-identify as atheists who have many ideological positions and who congregate on atheist web sites and in atheist clubs and hence form a culture with sufficiently similar beliefs that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher can market products to them as a group such as The God Delusion and God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything and Religulous.

To allow members of this particular self-identifying atheist culture into political office, but exclude anyone who professes religion on the premise that their beliefs bias them too much to make the public interest sufficiently high-priority, is just an absurd notion. And I say that as an atheist myself.

⚛​

 

[LightbulbSun]

From Merriam-Webster, definition 4:

a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith​

Atheism is not a cause, principle or system of beliefs. It is not held to by faith either.

 

[Hurkyl]

But I think most of this is irrelevant. It would be equally unconstitutional to exclude theists from public office in favor of atheists or agnostics, wouldn't it?

I certainly agree. But I can imagine other positions for which the difference would be relevant.

Atheism is not a cause, principle or system of beliefs. It is not held to by faith either.

Please read the past two pages of the thread.

 

[LightbulbSun]

If people stop debasing the word "atheism" you'll realize unless there's someone that believes in all of the conceived gods that everyone is an atheist, but to varying degrees. The only difference between me and a Christian is that I don't believe in his god. He is an atheist to every other god except when it comes to Jesus.

If you're going to make a case for atheism being a religion, you're going to have to point out a centralized dogma that all atheists follow, and also point to a holy atheist text. Until then your argument is just bad dude.

 

[Hurkyl]

point out a centralized dogma that all atheists follow

"Deities don't exist."

 

[LightbulbSun]

"Deities don't exist."

That's not a centralized dogma. That's like calling "I don't believe any race is superior over another" a centralized dogma.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Better yet, that's like calling the statement "Santa Claus doesn't exist" a centralized dogma.

 

[NeoDevin]

Better yet, that's like calling the statement "Santa Claus doesn't exist" a centralized dogma.

Does that mean we can get tax free status for spoiling children's beliefs at the mall at Christmas time? Awesome!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

 

[LightbulbSun]

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

It looks like satire to me. Either way if they were serious it's still not a centralized dogma that atheists adhere to. We've got no holy text to preach about!

 

[LightbulbSun]

Does that mean we can get tax free status for spoiling children's beliefs at the mall at Christmas time? Awesome!

I would let that legislation pass.

 

[OmCheeto]

It looks like satire to me. Either way if they were serious it's still not a centralized dogma that atheists adhere to. We've got no holy text to preach about!

I've only been engaged in one anti-theist argument. That was enough for me to realize that anti-theists love to preach as much as the theists. And they both reference the same book.

The anti-theists actually have an advantage here, as they can quote from multiple religious texts to show how bad and stupid and illogical religion is. The theists are stuck with which ever book their little sect is abiding by that year.

 

[LightbulbSun]

I've only been engaged in one anti-theist argument. That was enough for me to realize that anti-theists love to preach as much as the theists. And they both reference the same book.

So you think atheists care about God and religion? The only reason we discuss it is because the religious want to pass it on as actual truth. Most atheists will tell you they don't give a **** what you believe in as long as you don't try passing it off as truth in society. If you're going to claim something, you have better provide evidence for it. Don't tell me I'm going to burn in hell for not accepting your claims without sufficient evidence, and don't tell me to go look at the trees as proof of God.

And that "church" turns out to be satire. Way to go guys. Did you just google "atheist church" and clicked on the first link that seemed sufficient enough to provide a case? Just give it up. Atheism will never be a religion. It's an asinine equivocation made up by the religious because they can't handle that someone doesn't follow dogma when it comes to questions on existence.

 

[Astronuc]

Please keep the discussion directed to "separation of church and state", not what theists and atheists 'believe'. The dicussion should political, not religious.

 

[LightbulbSun]

Please keep the discussion directed to "separation of church and state", not what theists and atheists 'believe'. The dicussion should political, not religious.

Sorry about the diversion, but clearing up any misconceptions about this will help further the actual discussion.

The state is suppose to be neutral towards religion. Not for it or against it.

 

[OmCheeto]

Sorry about the diversion, but clearing up any misconceptions about this will help further the actual discussion.

The state is suppose to be neutral towards religion. Not for it or against it.

You should study http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/static/volumes/1999/Paper9.html".
Not an atheist in any sense of the word.
Yet, as far as I can tell, he was responsible for the http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html" regarding America's separation of church and state.

What a shame if he had not been allowed to run for office because of his religious views.

It's hard to imagine what this country would be like if the clause had been left out.

 

[Doc Al]

You should study http://www.iusb.edu/~journal/static/volumes/1999/Paper9.html".
Not an atheist in any sense of the word.

He was pretty darn close to being one, especially for his time. (He was often called an "infidel" for his views.) http://nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm"

Yet, as far as I can tell, he was responsible for the http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html" regarding America's separation of church and state.

Absolutely.

What a shame if he had not been allowed to run for office because of his religious views.

The idea of "only atheists being allowed in office", the premise of this thread/poll, is one of the silliest strawmen I've seen. I can't imagine any atheist supporting that proposal. (Whereas it requires no great imagination to imagine some--thankfully not all--religious folks wanting to limit office to those professing some sort of god belief.)

It's hard to imagine what this country would be like if the clause had been left out.

No argument here! Jefferson is a hero to freethinkers and supporters of the separation of church and state everywhere. Build up that wall!