Taking Sides: Atheism vs. Christianity

I sympathise strongly with that Kiwi. But maybe faith in anything but the most amorphous of gods is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

I remember getting in trouble at school for being cheeky when the chaplain told me Jesus died for our sins and I said, yes, but he came back three days later. I was being cheeky but I was also being proto-serious - the happy-ending part of the central story of Christianity diminishes it (and has I think vast and often negative repercussions for Western culture ever since but that's a different thread), which is why I've always had sympathy with radical clergy who've tried to turn the Resurrection into a metaphor rather than literal truth.

Pah, call that radical? Turning it into a roller disco - now that's radical.

Anyway yes. To clarify what I was saying, the 'you gotta take it on faith thing' is a nonsense to me. Why not take any old story on faith? If your parents brought you up as devil worshippers and told you to take that on faith, what's the difference?

And then they might say 'He has answered my prayers'. And so you ask 'What about kids who die of Leukemia despite people praying for them?'.

And they might reply 'Well God works in mysterious ways'.

And then you give up.

No really, what if you came upon any "larger" being/presence -- how would you know if it was god or not? A sort of variation on Clarke's "sufficiently advanced technology" maxim.

Tom I dont agree with your views on the different "risks" on the Trinity as I think that is misinterpreting the concept from the limited understanding I have of it but I will have to discuss later

In what way is the concept of faith (or any ‘concept’) non-rational? Raw experiences, emotions, etc are non-rational (in the sense that they aren’t dependant on our rationalising about them – hit your thumb with a hammer and it hurts like hell, no matter how you may interpret the experience) but as soon as you make a knowledge-claim about an experience, such as ‘I knew I was feeling the presence of the Lord’ then you’re putting forward a rational argument about the world: ‘I intuited the existence of God.’ Such an assertion (similar to those of ‘direct realism’ but with the object supposedly apprehended non-inferentially being a benign superbeing rather than, say, a table) is open to a challenge for justification, as all assertions are: What credibility is there, for instance, in claimed intuitions of divine entities when those entities are noticeably defined in terms which correspond to the context of cultural belief in which the ‘intuitions’ occur?

Faith (insofar as it implies dogmatic conviction, as opposed to mere unprovable belief) in no way transcends rationality by claiming immediate knowledge. Furthermore, in offering no support to its claims of knowledge other than ‘I just know,’ it confines itself to the least credible class of all rational assertions, those which rest on dogmatic assumption.

>That's just wrong. <

Apart from an abscence of God based faith, what then is the "belief system" of atheists?

(hint: there isn't one)

-Alan

Atheism is not the belief that there are no gods. It is the lack of belief in a god. It can be part of a religion or belief system (see: Buddhism), but it is not a system of belief onto its own, because it is A) not a belief and B) not a system of anything (as it is a single property).

Theism also has this problem. It, in and of itself, is not a belief system. Its simply states that one has belief in a god or gods. What they are can range from trees to Jehovah to Ganesh to spacemen.

-
Alan

Alan, if you wouldn't mind not talking smack on this matter, then maybe there's a point of discussion. My mom is an atheist and flat out does not believe in God (or gods), period. That is her BELIEF, not a lack of belief in something else. Do not put words into her mouth or into the mouths of others who think the same way.

Alt, websters vs. philosophers

The point of contention here is whether "belief system" and "religion" are equivalent terms or not. All religions are belief systems, but not all belief systems are religions. I think "belief system" describes something much more general, concepts more on the track of theism and atheism, general topics that deal with the concept of morality rather than specific implementations of it. Alan (it seems) disagrees, which begs the question of what he calls things like theism and atheism.

First, I wasn't "talking smack". I was simply bringing up what atheism means. And, literally, it means "lack of belief in god/gods". Secondly, your mother does not believe in a god, no? Then she lacks belief in them, clearly. She falls under my statement.

"Weak Atheism", as strict observance to the definition of Atheism is called, is the default position. If there were no evidence in either direction for or against the existance of god/gods, it would be the only rational position to take. Your mother is a "strong" atheist; she has moved beyond merely claiming that there is no evidence for a god, but that there is evidence against one or ones existing. This evidence therefore supports her claim that no gods exist.

And, as you've inadvertently proven, my previous statement that atheism is not a system of beliefs is correct. People who are atheists disagree with your mother on this position. =)

-
Alan

http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/atheism.html:

"Theism, which derives in part from the word theology, is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods. Inclusion of the prefix "a" with any noun indicates without, not, or opposite. Thus the word atheist describes an individual who is without theism, theology, or religion."

http://atheismawareness.home.att.net/questions/what_atheist.htm:

"Atheism is often defined incorrectly as a belief system. Atheism is not a disbelief in gods; it is a lack of belief in gods. Older dictionaries define atheism as "a belief that there is no god". Newer and more accurate dictionaries define atheism correctly as "having no belief in god(s)". Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion. Atheism may be a part of an individuals religious beliefs, but the atheism, of and by itself, is not a belief or religion."

-now that we've gotten the definition of atheism out of the way...- Alan

-my kingdom for an "edit" function!"-
Alan

-
Alan

Well, there are two "main" kinds of nonreligious atheists. Strong and Weak. She's a strong one. So am I. There has to be some degree os separation because of the disagreement between the two (otherwise there would be no division). But separating her into a different "camp" of atheist does not suddenly make her not athiest, just as separating theistic Satanists and Zorostranians does not suddenly make either non-theistic.

>there's a diversity in opinion you seemed to allow for then immediately ignore. If you want to say 'some people who are athiests' disagree with my mom, great.<

Which is exactly what I stated. Atheists do not agree on everything, or even a basic set of tenets. That's what I've been saying all along. This doesn't discredit your mother or the buddhist or the weak atheist from being an atheist, just as saying that someone is Hindu or Muslim precludes them from being theistic. In and of itself, neither is a belief system. Calling someone a theist tells us only that he believes..not what and why. Calling someone an athiest tells us only that he doesn't have belief in a god/gods...not the reason as to why. However, being a Christian does explain why you are a theist and what you believe. This, therefore, is a "belief system", whereas theism as a whole is not. Hopefully that clarifies that.

-
Alan

Many agnostics are, unwittingly, atheists or theists of a sort, whether or not they want to acknowledge it. Agnosticism, remember, is not dealing with faith, but with knowledge (see root "gnost").

Many Agnostics basically state that because God cannot be quantatively studied/measured due to his state outside human sensory experiences, and therefore, it can never be known for sure as to whether or not god exists. These people are "atheistic agnostics". On the other hand, there are "theistic agnostics" who believe that there is a god, but that we'll never know his true identity. Neither, therefore, is a true middle ground.

Both actually diverge from Thomas Huxley's original position (he created the term) that he had not made a final decision on the existance of god, and therefore had no position on the matter. It was more about the suspension of judgement. This, is, of course, in stark contrast to the "finality" of the previous two types of "agnosticism" as well as to atheism and theism, and does, to some extent, provide a middle ground.

-
Alan

And Dan is still OTM.

What about the people who say "well I don't know about never, but I don't know right now"? What sort are they? I mean that's not really knowledge based all the time.

Second paragraph about Huxley Agnosticism.

-
Alan

is atheism a belief system?

my answer is...it depends (may or may not be semantics, but belief in no god is a belief, i'm unsure how 'lack of belief' can be classified as a belief system though, if i don't believe in pink caribou that doesnt make a 'non pink caribou believer' does it? or does it? in which case, i must have a lot of belief systems!)

diff between agnosticism and weak atheism (defined not as belief system): i would say with agnosticism theres more of an openness about agnosticism, a kind of, well maybeism. i think its a mistake to characterize weak atheism as fence sitting or wishywashy or unsure.

an infinite amount

-unless you meant the other Alan-
Alan

http://www.hypocrites.com/pictures/animals/cat_smoking.jpg