What % of Americans/world population are atheists?

[DSeid]

Lib,

I’ll bite. What’s “a second-level individuated bounding predicate?”

And the adage “you cannot prove a negative” is not a myth, (at least not in the sense of something false, although it is in the sense of myth as a story that provides a basis for a set of beliefs, ;)) it is just not provable. Something can be true but not provable within a system. (Which brings us back to God, doesn’t it?)

And I still do not get how you applied the excluded middle. Belief in a fact implies a fact. No belief in a fact does not imply no fact.

[Dinsdale]

DSeid - as far as I know, Humanism disavows a belief in the supernatural.

Can’t say much about your “God-the-incomprehensible-who-doesn’t-really-give-a-dang.” And I’m certainly not in charge of the membership lists!

The very statement “God the incomprehensible” gives me a little pause, tho. I’m not sure how you can comprehend the incomprehensible, or where such a statement gets you.

Some folk I socialize with distinguish between “big H” Humanists, and “humanistic” folk.

[Abm9]

Dinsdale and DSeid, There are a variety of humanists. Some call themselves Humanists and add an adjective to further identify what kind. e.g., Naturalistic, Secular, Relgious, Theistic, etc.
There is a divide among humanists on philosophical lines: some are monists, and others dualists. Monists say that Nature is everything, and dualists argue for some kind of supernatural.
Naturalistic Humanists, Secular Humanists, and some Religious Humanists would say that they were monists. For more information on Religious Humanists read the Humanist Manifesto of 1933. Those Naturalistic Humanists use the word religious or religion 23 times in a four page document. They have a very interesting definition of Religion.

[Dinsdale]

Hey hey!

Just wanted to shout out to folks that Abm9 is one of my best friends in the world. I’m glad to see he has joined our little party. I hope he sees his way to stick around, and I hope you all pick his brain and test his opinions to the utmost.

Tho I agree with many of his positions, I readily acknowledge that he completely has his head up his ass in other areas. But he should have something to offer in a wide range of our discussions.

(He has a totally cool dog, too!)

[Abm9]

Thanks for the perfect anatomical description. I just noticed
that you and a few others need to let your biographers in on the fact of the number of posts you have here.

Almost everyone thinks “supernatural” when they respond to the word “religion”. The signers of the Humanist Manifesto of 1933 specifically intended to redefine the word and establish a non-theistic meaning. It only works “in house”, and serves as a perpetual eddy drawing everyone back into an ancient subject.

Same thing for atheists to use the word atheist to define themselves. The result is a counter attack by theists, and the perpetual eddy keeping the discussion on the ancient subject
of gods or no gods.

When it comes to theism and agnosticism on that subject, Humanists can understand why others would be interested but
find the topic irrelevant for themselves.

Being monists, those Humanists are non-theistic, but they are not involved in that issue. Humanists are busy with improving themselves, their families, and making significant contributions to society that serve all the people.

Yes, we know that some t heists have the same motivation. The context in which we operate is different. Seldom should that be of any significance.

[TVAA]

I can’t decide whether Libertarian actually knows what he’s talking about more than half the time, or if he uses complex and esoteric terminology to make his philosophical claims look impressive.

I’d say that existence is belonging to a category with elements that can interact. As such, it’s a relative term.

Typing on this board requires that I be able to interact with it; thus, I exist relative to the board.

I don’t exist relative to things that don’t exist to me.

You’re the professional philosopher; what’s your definition? I’m sure it’s much more formal and incomprehensible than mine…

[Abm9]

America, What comes to your mind as you read the word?
Possibly the US? Maybe N. America or even the whole western
hemisphere of the Americas?

Canadians are Americans. Mexicans are Americans.
Somehow, We in the US of A have taken the name for ourselves.

Same with religion. Can an atheist be religious and practice a religion. The battle on that line is fiercely fought. Most preferring to talk about their philosophy. Still, we recognize the error in defining “Economy” at Capitalism, instead of it being any system for the distributions of goods and services. We recoginze the error in defining “polity” as Monarchy, instead of a system of
delegating power and keeping it in check.

Religion is claimed by the dualists, those who believe in a supernatural, and the function of religion is misdefined.
Religion is the set of attitudes, beliefs, practices and instutions that are dedicated to the improvement of the ethical side of
thought and personality. Religion is the means whereby the person is able to systematically attempt to grow in the direction of his mature potential as a person. In fact, the attainment of
some degree of maturity is referred to as “spiritual”.

These terms, so defined, won’t serve us very well when 98.7%
of people hear the words as used by the orthodox, and the popular definitions.

The argument has been made for Religious Humanism, a non-theistic approach to the perfection of the socialized person.

Most people will think about Religion as being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or something like that. It becomes best not to use the traditions words because the traditional definitions will always come up.

What we need are new words that express the meanings we choose to retain and/or assert, and to retain the knowledge of how our new words are related to those of the past.

Be sure, people will continue to call the US of A America,
and there will continue to be a group of Humanists who
will continue with their religion regardless of what they call it.

[Taboo]

I cant for the life of me understand most religions…but in light of this thread I have been reading most of these posts. even ones I have written. I gotta ask when you mention american religions and the western world , how the “western” world became the devils and evils of the whole world to the arabs or muslims or whatevah. Thats all I heard when we went to afghanistan…ALAH hates the west world, it is evil, wrong, and you will die a most horrible death. LMAO! I just …gotta…go…shake…my head. Aparently this is why osama and sadaam want us dead? Of course theres alot of political motivation but when they show the tapes of bin laden all he keeps saying is “Praise ALah…to damn to western world” BS. Im clueless as to why these people think we are so bad. Even our own religions dont try to blow each other up that bad here. lol

Taboo

quote:
[OK please, people, like a bad surgeon, I’m losing my patience.]

[Apos]

—Can an atheist be religious and practice a religion.—

Sure. Some Buddhists, for one.

[Abm9]

Taboo, Don’t insist on them making sense. We
all wonder about their capacity for logic.

[Taboo]

True they have no logic. If they had a star trek it would not have a logical mr spok…it would probably have a ala quoting turban wearing pointy eared one with no hands cause of that time he was busted on Neptune stealing something!

whackos…

[Liberal]

DSeid wrote:

What’s “a second-level individuated bounding predicate?”

An ontologically posterior property that is instatiated by an individual (in this case, you) and bound as a nonphenomenological referent to your existence. In other words, I’m not forcing you even to prove that you exist as an entity, but merely that you are aware of your existence.

And the adage “you cannot prove a negative” is not a myth, (at least not in the sense of something false, although it is in the sense of myth as a story that provides a basis for a set of beliefs, ) it is just not provable. Something can be true but not provable within a system. (Which brings us back to God, doesn’t it?)

I have no idea what you’re talking about.

I can easily prove a negative.

Hypothesis:

1 + 1 does not equal 3.

Axioms:

1. 0 is a natural number.

2. If x is a number, then the successor of x is a number.

3. 0 is not the successor of any number.

4. If x = y, then the successor of x equals the successor of y.

5. If set of numbers contains 0 and the successor of every number, then the set contains every number. (The Induction Axiom)

Premises:

1. 1 + 1 equals 3 (Excluded Middle)

2. 1 + 1 = 2 (Axioms 1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

3. 1 + 1 does not equal 3 (Premise 2, Law of Noncontradiction)

QED

And I still do not get how you applied the excluded middle. Belief in a fact implies a fact. No belief in a fact does not imply no fact.

Well, I explained it as best I could. If I believe that I have twenty toes but count only ten, then my belief is not a fact.

---

Vorlon wrote:

I can’t decide whether Libertarian actually knows what he’s talking about more than half the time, or if he uses complex and esoteric terminology to make his philosophical claims look impressive.

That’s just plain mean. I’ve heard a lot of gallery gossip that I’m making up words or don’t know what the words I use mean. But when I debate Spiritus Mundi, he knows exactly what I mean. No authority has said in three years that I am misusing terms. And there have been plenty of philosophy heavyweights here.