Atheism is now legally a religion.

[nani]

@Lobohan

You’re the one shifting around in a doomed attempt to suggest that people don’t inherently not believe in God.

Does the tribesperson believe in vaccines? No. Does he believe that vaccines cause autism? No. Your position is just rubbish.

My initial statement that you objected to was:

[QUOTE=ñañi]
I get what you’re saying but I think it’s better to think of it like, children are born with a lack of knowledge, rather than a lack of belief. You can’t accept or reject something until you’ve been introduced to it, after all. If someone really had no knowledge of “God,” they couldn’t identify as an atheist.
[/QUOTE]

Please point out where I’m commenting on people’s inherent beliefs, rather than suggesting a way of identification. In subsequent exchanges (Bolding added):

[QUOTE=ñañi]
I heard of it once you told me. Before I read your post, I would never have thought to call myself an athrackerwagist. In what sense, then, would it be meaningful for third parties to have described me that way?
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ñañi]
I suppose you could say that pre-1492 Europeans didn’t believe in potatoes, or that their New World counterparts didn’t believe in unicorns (I am assuming, since they didn’t even have horses). I just don’t see how it’s useful or meaningful to do so. I wouldn’t describe Charlemagne as someone who didn’t believe in potatoes, and he wouldn’t have ever described himself that way either.
[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=ñañi]
Its use as an identification, which is what I have been explicitly referring to over this thread, is extremely meaningful to huge numbers of people. People suffer and die for identifying this way. People have suffered and died for not identifying this way.
[/QUOTE]

I believe I have been consistent and I leave it up to others in this thread to decide who is the one who is attempting to advance a rubbish position.

[QUOTE=Lobohan]

Nevermind the previous goof about how a practicing Jewish person who doesn’t believe in God still counts as a believer because he practices the social aspects of the religion.

[/QUOTE]

This is hardly a goof. My statement was that your claim that atheism = not believing in a religion (a claim that you later conceded when simster disputed it) did not account for religions where orthopraxy is focused on rather than orthodoxy. You brought up Judaism, but there are more religions in the world than just Judaism. You didn’t reply to my followup question about Hinduism, and you never even addressed what I said in response to your question about Judaism.

[Lobohan]

@nani

My initial statement that you objected to was:
Please point out where I’m commenting on people’s inherent beliefs, rather than suggesting a way of identification. In subsequent exchanges (Bolding added):

Belief is something someone does. It requires an act to engage in it. It’s why LH’s coffee mug doesn’t believe.

It seems you’re trying to suggest that atheism requires an active belief in not-God, and it doesn’t. It simply requires the lack of belief in God. Someone doesn’t have to identify as an atheist to be an atheist. He just has to not have an affirmative belief in a God.

I believe I have been consistent and I leave it up to others in this thread to decide who is the one who is attempting to advance a rubbish position.

Your position is goofy because it’s about making atheism an active action, as opposed to the default condition of humanity. That doesn’t mean atheism is special or profound, it just means that it doesn’t require the flipping of a switch.

This is hardly a goof. My statement was that your claim that atheism = not believing in a religion (a claim that you later conceded when simster disputed it) did not account for religions where orthopraxy is focused on rather than orthodoxy. You brought up Judaism, but there are more religions in the world than just Judaism. You didn’t reply to my followup question about Hinduism, and you never even addressed what I said in response to your question about Judaism.

It accounts for it just fine, if you assume that by “not believing in a religion” I meant, rather obviously that you don’t believe in the core supernatural claim of that religion, the existence and power of it’s God.

A Jew that observes the law but doesn’t think there is a God shouldn’t be said to “believe” in that religion, at least not all the way. He may believe in it as an institution, he may believe that the cultural framework it provides is somehow laudable. But he doesn’t believe in the core claim of the religion, that God exists and the Jews are His chosen people.

Now I have no problem saying he “believes in the cultural value of Jewish practices” but I’d find a bit of a problem with saying he believes in Judaism without adding an asterisk. And I’m aware that belief isn’t considered necessary to be a Jew in good standing. But that person is still an atheist.

[Kobal2]

@Lobohan

Dave be not present, brother.

Oh, hark, hark. Doth any apostle panem cum aged milk of the cow *habet *? For verily I tell thee, the Lamb he took of the coffee, and of the Cheetos, and of the dew of the Sinai, and thereupon a covenant he made with thee…

Wherefrom mine discourse hereupon ?

[nani]

@Lobohan

Belief is something someone does. It requires an act to engage in it. It’s why LH’s coffee mug doesn’t believe.

It seems you’re trying to suggest that atheism requires an active belief in not-God, and it doesn’t. It simply requires the lack of belief in God. Someone doesn’t have to identify as an atheist to be an atheist. He just has to not have an affirmative belief in a God.

I’m saying that calling a baby an atheist is as meaningful as saying Charlemagne didn’t believe in potatoes. Do you see a difference between that example and the coffee mug?

If someone lacks belief in God, and they have heard of God, then their atheism is active, even if they barely gave any thought to the question. So I guess we do disagree here, I am not convinced that there is any use to calling someone who has a completely non-active lack of belief in God (which I guess would include people in Vegetative states or foetuses) an atheist. Considering all of the accumulated identity baggage that the term atheist now has in the real world, I could even say it’s actively unhelpful. Thus my initial suggestion of thinking about the factual state of a baby’s beliefs (which you and I don’t disagree on, as I can see) in a different way than calling it atheism.

Your position is goofy because it’s about making atheism an active action, as opposed to the default condition of humanity. That doesn’t mean atheism is special or profound, it just means that it doesn’t require the flipping of a switch.

That’s a can of worms that’s already been opened, I’m afraid. Atheists have to be active in most places because it is very hard to grow up without being exposed to ideas of God(s) in some way. As far as I know, that is how the term atheism was created in the first place, to describe active rejection.

I generally reject the idea that humanity has “default conditions.” This might be another source of our disagreement.

It accounts for it just fine, if you assume that by “not believing in a religion” I meant, rather obviously that you don’t believe in the core supernatural claim of that religion, the existence and power of it’s God.

A Jew that observes the law but doesn’t think there is a God shouldn’t be said to “believe” in that religion, at least not all the way. He may believe in it as an institution, he may believe that the cultural framework it provides is somehow laudable. But he doesn’t believe in the core claim of the religion, that God exists and the Jews are His chosen people.

Now I have no problem saying he “believes in the cultural value of Jewish practices” but I’d find a bit of a problem with saying he believes in Judaism without adding an asterisk. And I’m aware that belief isn’t considered necessary to be a Jew in good standing. But that person is still an atheist.

My issue with this is that you are incorrectly assuming that supernatural claims are at the “core” of all religions. This is both incorrect on a factual level - hence my question about e.g. Hinduism - and incorrect on a more fundamental level: If a Jew believes that the “core” of Judaism is the law rather God, who are we to say that he is wrong, rather than (perhaps) out of the mainstream, which is what your asterisk would say? Who are we to tell him that he doesn’t really “believe” in the religion, if he says he does? Why can’t he be both an disbeliever in God and a believer in Judaism, as he understands Judaism?

[Lobohan]

@nani

I’m saying that calling a baby an atheist is as meaningful as saying Charlemagne didn’t believe in potatoes. Do you see a difference between that example and the coffee mug?

If someone lacks belief in God, and they have heard of God, then their atheism is active, even if they barely gave any thought to the question. So I guess we do disagree here, I am not convinced that there is any use to calling someone who has a completely non-active lack of belief in God (which I guess would include people in Vegetative states or foetuses) an atheist. Considering all of the accumulated identity baggage that the term atheist now has in the real world, I could even say it’s actively unhelpful. Thus my initial suggestion of thinking about the factual state of a baby’s beliefs (which you and I don’t disagree on, as I can see) in a different way than calling it atheism.

That’s a can of worms that’s already been opened, I’m afraid. Atheists have to be active in most places because it is very hard to grow up without being exposed to ideas of God(s) in some way. As far as I know, that is how the term atheism was created in the first place, to describe active rejection.

I generally reject the idea that humanity has “default conditions.” This might be another source of our disagreement.

My issue with this is that you are incorrectly assuming that supernatural claims are at the “core” of all religions. This is both incorrect on a factual level - hence my question about e.g. Hinduism - and incorrect on a more fundamental level: If a Jew believes that the “core” of Judaism is the law rather God, who are we to say that he is wrong, rather than (perhaps) out of the mainstream, which is what your asterisk would say? Who are we to tell him that he doesn’t really “believe” in the religion, if he says he does? Why can’t he be both an disbeliever in God and a believer in Judaism, as he understands Judaism?

I’ve already made my case, and we’re going in circles here. Suffice it to say, I think your position is meaningless and is likely formed to justify the idea that atheism requires overt action. I further think that someone can identify as a given religion while not meaningfully believing that the religion’s claims about God. But if you ask if someone is of a given religion, in the real world, most people will assume that you agree that membership entails the worship of the God in question.

Feel free to post a summation and have the last word.

[Novelty_Bobble]

@nani

Do you have some examples of relatively prominent theological works that fit your description?

I’ve read the arguments put forward by Thomas Aquinas and found them severely lacking. Do you have some examples that you think are particularly insightful?

I said religious studies scholars in American universities, not religious people or theologians. Many atheists and “nones” (To use a polling phrase) are included in this group, and many are studying religions that are not their own. Well-known departments and committees are at the Ivy leagues, Georgetown, Santa Barbara, Berkeley, and of course Chicago. There is a ton of impressive scholarship being done at many other places too and through interdisciplinary work. Europe, meanwhile, has even more fantastic departments, especially in France, Germany, and England. If you think none of these people would know an insightful argument, well, that’s also pretty ballsy.

The denomination and nationality of those working in the area is irrelevant. All that matters is the output.

I’ve never heard an argument for religion that was in the least bit convincing or insightful. I remain to be convinced. You can point me in the direction of this impressive scholarship if you like. What have you found most impressive about it?

[nani]

@Lobohan

I’ve already made my case, and we’re going in circles here. Suffice it to say, I think your position is meaningless and is likely formed to justify the idea that atheism requires overt action. I further think that someone can identify as a given religion while not meaningfully believing that the religion’s claims about God. But if you ask if someone is of a given religion, in the real world, most people will assume that you agree that membership entails the worship of the God in question.

Feel free to post a summation and have the last word.

Thank you for letting me get the last jab in. You’re a good sport. Ahem…

Unfortunately the circle is largely of your making since you do not seem to want to back up your sweeping statements about the nature of religion or meaningfully explore the difference between a lack of knowledge and a lack of belief, all out of a mystifying stubbornness to define atheism as a “default,” as if that had any objective value.

Ok, handshake, move on. Kobal2, have you ever had hot cheetos? I don’t like them. If your God made the Puffs then he’s cool with me.

[nani]

@Novelty_Bobble

I’ve read the arguments put forward by Thomas Aquinas and found them severely lacking. Do you have some examples that you think are particularly insightful?

Well, I’m a fan of Karl Rahner, but I quibbled because most modern theologians that I am aware of don’t try to make testable claims as such, they are deriving meaning and understanding through working within a constructed/understood framework of thought. Dawkins doesn’t interact much with theologians, but he doesn’t really have to IMHO because he is operating from a different framework.

The denomination and nationality of those working in the area is irrelevant. All that matters is the output.

I’ve never heard an argument for religion that was in the least bit convincing or insightful. I remain to be convinced. You can point me in the direction of this impressive scholarship if you like. What have you found most impressive about it?

Scholars of religion in these places generally do not concern themselves with making arguments “for” religions or even for non-falsifiable religious claims. Instead they describe religion, it’s variety, it’s conception as a category, what it means for different people, what people are doing when they say they are doing religion, etc. What I found impressive about it, when I find it impressive, is how it attempts to deconstruct our assumptions about what religion is and describe things more accurately, or at least, more empathetically. When we are thinking about how to deal with social movements that involve religion in some way around the world, their research, in my opinion, is absolutely vital. Just as an obvious example, it would have helped if George W. Bush had known what the difference was between Shia and Sunni in 2002.

Scholars working on religion that I’d recommend off the top of my head include: Saba Mahmood, Talal Asad (sometimes), Clifford Geertz, Diane Moore, Malika Zeghal, Ann Taves, and David White.

[OldOlds]

@cmyk

And verily One shall be provided to you through a Prophet of Atheism engulfed in tongues of flame… and hell, let’s throw a “surrounded by virgins” in there to sound extra religiousy.

Aw, Hell no. Virgins are overrated. Experience is much better. After all, no STDs in heaven… Wait, no, that doesn’t work. The virgins (or not) will have to be in the here and now.

Cool! Our first atheistic schism!

[Peter_Morris]

@nani

Well, I’m a fan of Karl Rahner…

I always preferred Guy Gardner, personally.

[Lobohan]

@Peter_Morris

I always preferred Guy Gardner, personally.

Or as I like to call him, Ginger Moe.

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Peter_Morris

A) “I don’t believe in god”

B) “I am utterly certain there is NO god”

A isn’t a belief. B is.

Clear?

…You do know that the former is exactly what Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dillahunty, and every other major figure in the atheism movement espouses, right? I don’t think you’ll find a single one of them who espouses position B or claims that it represents atheism (although Dillahunty makes it clear at times he’s willing to defend it).

@Peter_Morris

What about someone that spends a lot of time attacking stamp collectors, declaring stamp collecting to be morraly and intellectually wrong, and trying to persuade people to stop their stamp collecting ways.

Could *that *be a hobby, possibly?

A hobby, but not a religion. Look, let’s be clear on this. Disagreeing with religion and finding it morally and intellectually repugnant does not make one’s position religious. The majority of noteworthy atheists attacking religion do so on rational grounds, with arguments based on reason, logic, and evidence. Reasons such as the fact that belief in god is completely without evidence to support it (indeed, the quality of evidence believers appeal to is in and of itself good reason to question religion!). Such as the fact that religious adherents perform and enable atrocities due to their faith. Such as the fact that there is no objective, demonstrable good that religions perform that could not be performed by a secular organization. There are good, valid reasons to believe that religion is not a force for good in the world. To consider that “dogmatic” is insane - if evidence were provided that contradicted these points, we’d drop them!

@Peter_Morris

You reject the dictionary definition. That’s not an answer.

Another thing. Appealing to the dictionary like this? A complete waste of everyone’s time. Words are used to communicate. If you’re squabbling over what the words are supposed to mean to the person you’re debating with, you’ve missed the point entirely (and may be committing one or more equivocation fallacies).

@Peter_Morris

You cite things that a few extremists do, and claim that this represents the whole of religion.

Do you believe that catholics in general bear any responsibility for the child abuse scandal? I’d say “yes”, because without them, the people involved in hiding and relocating cases of child abuse would have no power.

The fact is that the “extremists” in places of power derive that power almost entirely from the moderate masses.

@magellan01

No. The default position is agnosticism: We don’t know. And we are likely not sable to know if there is a god, gods, or no gods.

Yes, but here’s the thing: atheists self-define as “do not believe in god”. And this is true whether you know god doesn’t exist, or whether you don’t know whether or not god exists. So long as you cannot affirmatively say “I believe at least one god exists”, you fit this definition of atheism.

It depends on one’s starting point. If you start with the question of first cause, and accept the scientific tenet that all things have a cause, then there had to be, at some point, something not subject to such a rule. Something supra-natural. Something God-like. I don’t mean anything with flowing robes, or anything that even suggests a religion. Now, it is possible that this is wrong somehow. But for the universe to NOT have a first cause is a conclusion that requires faith, as well.

I reject pretty much all of this. First off, the idea that “everything has a cause” is not only unsupported and unsupportable, it’s downright wrong. Given what we know about quantum physics, this premise is simply not true on numerous levels (not the least of which is that the concept of “before the big bang” may, in fact, be completely incoherent and nonsensical given our current understanding of time as the 4th dimension).

But even assuming that premise, it does not follow that this “something not subject to such a rule” is supernatural. Indeed, it could very well be that the universe did not need a cause. It could very well be that it is mathematically impossible for a universe not to have existed. No, seriously.

The cosmological argument is one of the weakest and most easily refuted arguments for the existence of god. It’s just bad. None of its premises can be supported, its conclusion is simply wrong, and perhaps worst of all, the cosmological argument is most emphatically not why you believe in god. How do I know this? Because even throwing out all the flaws the concept has, nothing gets us to “therefore this god is a thinking being”, let alone “this is the christian god of the bible”.

@magellan01

But if you then hold the position that there is no beginning, that, too is supra-natural.

Wat

[nani]

@Peter_Morris

I always preferred Guy Gardner, personally.

Ugh, I can’t stand that guy. Riding around on that scooter like he’s so cool.

[Left_Hand_of_Dorkness]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

…You do know that the former is exactly what Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennett, Dillahunty, and every other major figure in the atheism movement espouses, right? I don’t think you’ll find a single one of them who espouses position B or claims that it represents atheism (although Dillahunty makes it clear at times he’s willing to defend it).

Nonsense.

@Dawkins

A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.
…
I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low.

@Dillahunty

A god that does not manifest in reality is indistinguishable from a god that does not exist.

@Stephen Roberts

“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

In general, most atheists recognize that atheism involves an active rejection of religious claims, and that a passive failure (or inability) to evaluate a claim does not turn someone into an atheist. I’ve been an atheist for a few decades, and this board remains the only place where I encounter atheists who think that comparing themselves to infants in their ignorance is illuminating.

Yes, but here’s the thing: atheists self-define as “do not believe in god”. And this is true whether you know god doesn’t exist, or whether you don’t know whether or not god exists. So long as you cannot affirmatively say “I believe at least one god exists”, you fit this definition of atheism.

No: in general the atheists I know self-define as Roberts does, above, as folks who dismiss claims of god. The dismissal requires a reflection on claims general or specific, and is totally different from what my toenail clippings do when it comes to claims of god.

[Voyager]

[quote=“Left_Hand_of_Dorkness, post:254, topic:703811”]

Nonsense.

Originally Posted by Dawkins
A universe with a God would look quite different from a universe without one. A physics, a biology where there is a God is bound to look different. So the most basic claims of religion are scientific. Religion is a scientific theory.

…
I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low.

So "B) “I am utterly certain there is NO god” is equivalent to “I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low.” to you? The probability of any one person winning the lottery is very low. Does that mean we should be absolutely certain that no one wins the lottery?
Dawkins is using the proper scientific terminology, is that it is impossible to prove or disprove anything.
Since most religion makes statements of fact, it is, in that aspect, scientific.
Now, our deists who believe in God though they consider God to be the universe fall under your next quote. If it is not true that a god who does not manifest himself in any way is indistinguishable from one who does not exist, pray tell us how they are distinguishable.

In general, most atheists recognize that atheism involves an active rejection of religious claims, and that a passive failure (or inability) to evaluate a claim does not turn someone into an atheist. I’ve been an atheist for a few decades, and this board remains the only place where I encounter atheists who think that comparing themselves to infants in their ignorance is illuminating.

You realize that we do not believe in many gods we don’t even know about, right?
Do you actively reject Shintoism? The religion of ancient Egypt? And when I was growing up I didn’t actively reject Christianity, being Jewish it was a non-starter.
But perhaps you actively deny five gods before breakfast.

No: in general the atheists I know self-define as Roberts does, above, as folks who dismiss claims of god. The dismissal requires a reflection on claims general or specific, and is totally different from what my toenail clippings do when it comes to claims of god.

There is a problem with the Roberts quote, in that believers seldom actively dismiss (or often even know about) other gods. They have their god who claims to be supreme, and that is enough. Do you really think that your average fundamentalist Baptist spends her time going through the library for books on Eastern religions in order to dismiss them?

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Nonsense.

<String of quotes that does nothing to refute the point>

None of those quotes espouse much beyond B), and none of them come close to A). There is no statement of active belief there, beyond what can be rationally justified. Hell, the Dillahunty quote isn’t a statement of belief, it’s a statement of fact! If something has no detectable influence on the natural world, then it absolutely follows that it is indistinguishable from something that does not exist in the first place! The Roberts quote is bringing up the burden of proof. None of this goes to the step of “there is no god”. They go perhaps a bit beyond “I don’t believe in a god” but not by much, and it’s all rationally backed.

In general, most atheists recognize that atheism involves an active rejection of religious claims, and that a passive failure (or inability) to evaluate a claim does not turn someone into an atheist. I’ve been an atheist for a few decades, and this board remains the only place where I encounter atheists who think that comparing themselves to infants in their ignorance is illuminating.

But that’s the definition we’re using to define the movement. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe, regardless of the reason, in a god. That the philosophers of atheism go further than that does nothing to negate that fact. A baby is an atheist. I am an atheist. We’re atheists for different reasons (the child has never heard of the concept of god; I have heard that concept and rejected it due to lack of evidence) but we are both nonetheless atheists.

[nani]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

But that’s the definition we’re using to define the movement. An atheist is simply someone who does not believe, regardless of the reason, in a god. That the philosophers of atheism go further than that does nothing to negate that fact. A baby is an atheist. I am an atheist. We’re atheists for different reasons (the child has never heard of the concept of god; I have heard that concept and rejected it due to lack of evidence) but we are both nonetheless atheists.

But a baby is not mentally capable of knowing about the concept of God no matter if you tell it. So in this context it really is like a coffee cup.

ETA: Suddenly I see this turning into something like the abortion debate. When does human atheism begin?

[Sitnam]

I agree with nani, a baby is as religious as a coffee cup. And we all would be too without instruction. That is why Atheism is the passive stance.

[tomndebb]

@Budget_Player_Cadet

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

Nonsense.

<String of quotes that does nothing to refute the point>

This sort of editorializing (bolded) within the Quote tag is simply a less rude version of posting “bullshit” or “blah blah blah” within quotes. It is neither actually what was posted nor a straightforward ellipsis.

[QUOTE]
[Text inside [noparse]

[QUOTE]
[/noparse] tags is sacrosanct. Normal editorial rules apply: that is, you may indicate omitted portions of a quote by the use of ellipses “…” and you may add text to clarify a word using square brackets (e.g., “her [the sister’s] friend”), but you may not add editorial comments or edit a quote so as to change the substantive meaning; nor may you substitute text such as “some blather” or “more nonsense” inside the [noparse]

[/noparse] tags.](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=7697048#post7697048)

Address any remarks regarding the quoted text only outside the Quote Tags.

[ /Moderating ]

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

Whoops. Duly noted.