Does atheism entail religious beliefs?

[Charles Darwin]

I have seen folks here claim that atheism does not entail religious belief. I'm not sure what to make of this, aside from the fact that such a claim allows for atheism to reign free in the public square while other religious beliefs are confined to the sidelines by the CSS.

Aside from this ulterior motive, I fail to see how atheism does not entail religious belief. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. This claim cannot be empirically verified nor can it be logically proved.

Do very many folks here say that atheism does not entail religious belief or would most agree that it does? For the former, can you justify your claim?

[reprise]

Religion is about more than simply believing in the existence of a deity or deities.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
Religion is about more than simply believing in the existence of a deity or deities.
Your point being ... ?

[Bible Humper]

Atheism is not a "belief that God does not exist", it is a lack of belief in any deity(ies).



This claim cannot be empirically verified nor can it be logically proved.

Neither can the non-existence of Santa, so why isn't Asantaism also considered a religion? What's the difference?

The only difference is that those who don't believe in any deity(ies) are far outnumbered by those who do, unlike the situation with belief in Santa.

Lacking belief in any deity(ies) does not come pre-packaged with any more dogmas, rituals, and taboos than the lack of belief in Santa Claus does. Neither lack of belief is a religion.

[reprise]

The only thing which atheists have in common is that they do not believe in the existence of a deity or deities. Atheism, per se has no belief system.

Individual atheists may or may not have an alternative belief system to deism.

I fail to see how atheism does not entail religious belief. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist.

I don't believe that little green men live in outer space either, but there's no religious aspect to my non-belief.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I have seen folks here claim that atheism does not entail religious belief. I'm not sure what to make of this, aside from the fact that such a claim allows for atheism to reign free in the public square while other religious beliefs are confined to the sidelines by the CSS.

Aside from this ulterior motive, I fail to see how atheism does not entail religious belief. Atheism is the belief that God does not exist. This claim cannot be empirically verified nor can it be logically proved.

Do very many folks here say that atheism does not entail religious belief or would most agree that it does? For the former, can you justify your claim?

Atheism can sometimes be the belief that no deity exists. But by far the most common position is simply a lack of belief just as you lack belief in giant creatures 1000 feet long who live under the earth. WOuld you say that your lack of belief in giant 1000 foot long underground creatures is a religious belief?

It's not my fault that people believe in invisible monsters that control everything. Please don't pin religion on my lack of belief in your invisible creature.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Bible Humper
Neither can the non-existence of Santa, so why isn't Asantaism also considered a religion? What's the difference?

The only difference is that those who don't believe in any deity(ies) are far outnumbered by those who do, unlike the situation with belief in Santa.

Lacking belief in any deity(ies) does not come pre-packaged with any more dogmas, rituals, and taboos than the lack of belief in Santa Claus does. Neither lack of belief is a religion.

Well in science there is a rule called Occam's Razor which, roughly translated, means one shouldn't contrive complex and unneccesary explanations. The explanation that presents appear on Christmas morning because of Santa is one such explanation. The explanation that God is the cause of existence is not one such explanation.

The claim that God does not exist is not trivial (i.e., the claim is not immediately obvious and it depends on some supporting evidence or argument), but the claim that Santa does not exist is trivial (i.e., no justification is required). One can easily explain the appearance of presents Christmas morning without appealing to Santa; it is not so easy to explain existence without God (that's putting it lightly).

So the claim that God does not exist has a much deeper metaphysical committment than the claim that Santa does not exist. Make sense?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
I don't believe that little green men live in outer space either, but there's no religious aspect to my non-belief.

Please see my response to BibleHumper about his similar point involving Santa.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Please see my response to BibleHumper about his similar point involving Santa. Please re-read BibleHumper's post. Pay particular attention to the first sentence. I think you'll find that to be the key to unraveling your confusion.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
But by far the most common position is simply a lack of belief just as you lack belief in giant creatures 1000 feet long who live under the earth. WOuld you say that your lack of belief in giant 1000 foot long underground creatures is a religious belief?

It's not my fault that people believe in invisible monsters that control everything. Please don't pin religion on my lack of belief in your invisible creature.

Again, please see my response to BibleHumper regarding disbelief in Santa. You fellows seem to be missing the point that the existence of God explains our world. You all are lightly dismissing this explanatory power as though it were of no value. And hence you seem to be missing the point that the atheist must believe that the world somehow poofed into existence. This is a heroic claim about reality requiring faith.

[reprise]

The "parsimony" aspect of Occam's Razor does not dismiss that which is already known and verifiable.

What evidence are you suggesting is available which suggests that the universe is the result of causality - much less than God is the causal mechanism behind its creation?

And please apply Occam's Razor to God's existence.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Please re-read BibleHumper's post. Pay particular attention to the first sentence:

"Atheism is not a "belief that God does not exist", it is a lack of belief in any deity(ies)."

I think you'll find that to be the key to unraveling your confusion.

I'm afraid that 1st sentence did not help much. How is it that not believing in a god does not entail believing that that god does not exist?

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Again, please see my response to BibleHumper regarding disbelief in Santa. You fellows seem to be missing the point that the existence of God explains our world. You all are lightly dismissing this explanatory power as though it were of no value. And hence you seem to be missing the point that the atheist must believe that the world somehow poofed into existence. This is a heroic claim about reality requiring faith.

You do realize that there are very detailed scientific explanations that can be observed elsewhere in the galaxy to explain how the was earth formed. There is a great deal of observational and theoretical evidence for the current theory on how the earth formed. Only religionists believe that the earth "poofed" into existence.

[braces_for_impact]

And hence you seem to be missing the point that the atheist must believe that the world somehow poofed into existence.

You are attempting to make a correlation between atheism, and abiogenesis. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and says nothing about where the universe and the world came from. I don't know many atheists that insist the universe "poofed" into existence.I suggest some research into cosmology and abiogenesis. That or admit you speak from ignorance of the subject.

Also earlier you mention Occam's razor which basically says, all things being equal, the simpler explanation is preferred. Which is more complex, the universe being the product of a natural cause, or being created by an all powerful being?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Again, please see my response to BibleHumper regarding disbelief in Santa. You fellows seem to be missing the point that the existence of God explains our world. You all are lightly dismissing this explanatory power as though it were of no value. And hence you seem to be missing the point that the atheist must believe that the world somehow poofed into existence. This is a heroic claim about reality requiring faith.

The deist must believe that the deity of their choice simply "poofed" into existence.

We are not "lightly dismissing this explanatory power" - we are saying there is no evidence to support his particular explanation and that applying Occam's Razor to the origin of the belief in a deity would lead one to conclude that "God" was an concept devised to explain things which at the time of devising could not be explained without resorting to the complex and unnecessary. God is an extremely complex and unnecessary explanation for the existence of the universe, quite apart from being untestable and unverifiable.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
What evidence are you suggesting is available which suggests that the universe is the result of causality - much less than God is the causal mechanism behind its creation?

And please apply Occam's Razor to God's existence.

I'm offering no such evidence -- you are making my point out to be stronger than it was. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the question of whether atheism entails religious beliefs or not. My point was that the existence of God explains our existence, and that competing explanations (egs, the universe poofed into existence, or that it has always existed and is not the result of causality) also require faith. Therefore, among other things, the denial of the existence of God is not tantamount to the denial of the existence of little green men.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
You do realize that there are very detailed scientific explanations that can be observed elsewhere in the galaxy to explain how the was earth formed. There is a great deal of observational and theoretical evidence for the current theory on how the earth formed. Only religionists believe that the earth "poofed" into existence.

I'm using the term "world" not to imply the earth but our existence in general.

[reprise]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I'm using the term "world" not to imply the earth but our existence in general.

God is still a complex and unnecessary explanation for the fact of our existence.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by braces_for_impact
You are attempting to make a correlation between atheism, and abiogenesis. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and says nothing about where the universe and the world came from. I don't know many atheists that insist the universe "poofed" into existence.I suggest some research into cosmology and abiogenesis. That or admit you speak from ignorance of the subject.

Also earlier you mention Occam's razor which basically says, all things being equal, the simpler explanation is preferred. Which is more complex, the universe being the product of a natural cause, or being created by an all powerful being?

If Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, then how can it say nothing about where the universe and the world came from? It, in fact, entails the belief that the universe was not created by God.

I agree that the atheist has more options than poof. He can deny causality, for example (another faith requiring assumption). I'm fairly up to speed on cosmology and abiogenesis, but I'm afraid I'm unclear on how those areas help make atheism free of religious beliefs. Can you clarify? It is not as though cosmology has provided an explanation for how the Big Bang, for example, came about.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I'm using the term "world" not to imply the earth but our existence in general.

That a "big Bang" of some kind happened some 13 billion years ago is a fact. What kind of events allowed the big bang to happen is simply not known. There are no facts that are known prior to the big bang.

To conclude that it was caused by a one of a kind, infinate creature, is intellectually dishonest.

[reprise]

I think you're using very strange definitions of "religious belief", "atheist" and "faith".

Based on all the available evidence, I have confidence that barring some extraordinary and unforeseeable event, the Sun will rise tomorrow. That is not the same as having faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
... God is an extremely complex and unnecessary explanation for the existence of the universe, quite apart from being untestable and unverifiable.

If God is an unnecessary explanation for the existence of the universe (as Santa is for Xmas presents), then you must have a compelling explanation for existence (just as I have for Xmas presents). Let's hear it.

Regarding the existence of God being untestable and unverifiable, shall I assume that your explanation will be testable and verifiable?

Of course, my points here are rhetorical. I know that you have no such explanations. And that is my point. The atheist position entails religious belief.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
That a "big Bang" of some kind happened some 13 billion years ago is a fact. What kind of events allowed the big bang to happen is simply not known. There are no facts that are known prior to the big bang.

To conclude that it was caused by a one of a kind, infinate creature, is intellectually dishonest.

Can you expand on that? Why is it int. dishonest?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
I think you're using very strange definitions of "religious belief", "atheist" and "faith".

Based on all the available evidence, I have confidence that barring some extraordinary and unforeseeable event, the Sun will rise tomorrow. That is not the same as having faith that the Sun will rise tomorrow.

I agree that with your distinction between confidence and faith regarding the next sunrise. I fail to see how this relates to existence, and an explanation thereof.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Can you expand on that? Why is it int. dishonest?

It utterly short circuites the investigation and jumps to a conclusion that is completely lacking in facts.

Scientists all say that they do not know what brought about the big bang because there are no facts. To conclude that it was a god, lacking any facts, is intellectually dishonest.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
It utterly short circuites the investigation and jumps to a conclusion that is completely lacking in facts.

Scientists all say that they do not know what brought about the big bang because there are no facts. To conclude that it was a god, lacking any facts, is intellectually dishonest.

If there are no facts about how existence came about, and if it is therefore intellectually dishonest to believe that God brought said existence about, then how can it be that it is not intellectually dishonest to believe that God did not bring said existence about?

Similarly, when you say it is "intellectually dishonest" would you agree that it therefore involves faith? Is it not true, then, that atheism also involves faith?

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
If there are no facts about how existence came about, and if it is therefore intellectually dishonest to believe that God brought said existence about, then how can it be that it is not intellectually dishonest to believe that God did not bring said existence about?



I have not said that a god didn't do it. I have said that there is no evidence that it did so I don't believe it.

Please remember that most atheists lack of belief in a deity (because the evidence is lacking). Only a few atheists will claim that no deity of any kind exists.


Similarly, when you say it is "intellectually dishonest" would you agree that it therefore involves faith? Is it not true, then, that atheism also involves faith?

Why does it require faith to lack beleif in something for which there is no evidence?

Does it require faith on your part to have no belief that there exist Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter? No. There is no evidence so you have no belief in them. That is not faith. That is simply a lack of belief.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Similarly, when you say it is "intellectually dishonest" would you agree that it therefore involves faith? Is it not true, then, that atheism also involves faith? Of course not. An atheist isn't obligated to provide an answer for the question of existence beyond a mere "I don't know". And that doesn't involve anything like 'faith' as I understand the word.

[StrictSeparationist]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
If God is an unnecessary explanation for the existence of the universe (as Santa is for Xmas presents), then you must have a compelling explanation for existence (just as I have for Xmas presents). Let's hear it.

This is simply wrong. I would say that some atheists (myself among them) do not overly concern themselves with exactly what caused the Big Bang. It happened, and now we have the universe. It seems to me that unless your field of study directly concerns the origin of the cosmos, there's no reason to dwell on the events of billions of years ago. They have little relevance to life in contemporary society.

And as to the point that simply because I don't know or care how the universe came into extence, some faith is implied, that's also incorrect. If you'd like, another Santa example, but on a larger scale: I do not believe that it is likely that this universe is actually just a pellet in some enourmous multiversal game of Pac Man. Does this imply that I've made a religion out of that disbelief? Certainly not. So you see, your statement that "it is not so easy to explain existence without God [as it is to explain the appearance of presents Christmas morning without appealing to Santa]" is easily countered with an argument of a similar type, but of much wider scope. Surely you can do better than that?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
Of course not. An atheist isn't obligated to provide an answer for the question of existence beyond a mere "I don't know". And that doesn't involve anything like 'faith' as I understand the word.

But that is not what the atheist says. Rather, the atheist says: "I don't know, except that I do know that God didn't do it."

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I'm afraid that 1st sentence did not help much. How is it that not believing in a god does not entail believing that that god does not exist? In the same way that your not believing that I'm presently wearing pink socks need not entail believing that I am instead wearing green socks.

[reprise]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
It utterly short circuites the investigation and jumps to a conclusion that is completely lacking in facts.

Scientists all say that they do not know what brought about the big bang because there are no facts. To conclude that it was a god, lacking any facts, is intellectually dishonest.

There are certainly theories about what came before the BB and what caused it, but Hawking's take on it (I'll stick to his because it's the one with which I'm most familiar) is that none of those theories yet adequately explain everything associated with the BB. In other words, we can't totally explain it yet, but we are confident that further investigation will reveal more evidence which allows us to fully explain the BB.

It can take hundreds of years to test scientific theories - pity the poor astronomers who will very often not live long enough to see their theories validated or refuted. That the ALL of the evidence necessary to support a given theory has not yet been discovered does not mean it never will be. Science looks for evidence of that which we cannot yet explain; religion does not.

[tribalbeeyatch]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
But that is not what the atheist says. Rather, the atheist says: "I don't know, except that I do know that God didn't do it." That is the root of your misunderstanding. An atheist doesn't need to actively disbelieve in a god, he need only lack such a belief.

[PandaJoe]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
But that is not what the atheist says. Rather, the atheist says: "I don't know, except that I do know that God didn't do it."

No, the atheist would be saying, "I don't know, so I won't assume it has anything to to with magical leprechauns."

You fellows seem to be missing the point that the existence of God explains our world. You all are lightly dismissing this explanatory power as though it were of no value.

But it doesn't explain anything. It merely bumps the question back a step. Instead of "What created the universe?" we're stuck with "What created god?" How is this better?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
I have not said that a god didn't do it. I have said that there is no evidence that it did so I don't believe it.

Please remember that most atheists lack of belief in a deity (because the evidence is lacking). Only a few atheists will claim that no deity of any kind exists.

Well now we're talking about agnosticism -- that's another thing. I'm wondering about atheism, not agnosticism. You say "only a few atheists will claim that no deity of any kind exists," but, in fact, those are the only real atheists. The rest are agnostics.


Originally posted by crazyfingers
Why does it require faith to lack beleif in something for which there is no evidence?

Does it require faith on your part to have no belief that there exist Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter? No. There is no evidence so you have no belief in them. That is not faith. That is simply a lack of belief.

Your analogy doesn't work because the blobs may not exist, but the universe (or my impression of it at least) does exist. Somehow, existence came about. Now you can explain it in various ways, but you cannot avoid a religious belief, of some sort, just because you are electing to deny that God did it and you are opting for some naturalistic explanation which requires just as much faith.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by StrictSeparationist
This is simply wrong. I would say that some atheists (myself among them) do not overly concern themselves with exactly what caused the Big Bang. It happened, and now we have the universe. It seems to me that unless your field of study directly concerns the origin of the cosmos, there's no reason to dwell on the events of billions of years ago. They have little relevance to life in contemporary society.

And as to the point that simply because I don't know or care how the universe came into extence, some faith is implied, that's also incorrect. If you'd like, another Santa example, but on a larger scale: I do not believe that it is likely that this universe is actually just a pellet in some enourmous multiversal game of Pac Man. Does this imply that I've made a religion out of that disbelief? Certainly not. So you see, your statement that "it is not so easy to explain existence without God [as it is to explain the appearance of presents Christmas morning without appealing to Santa]" is easily countered with an argument of a similar type, but of much wider scope. Surely you can do better than that?

You make a key point: "It happened." Somehow, the universe came into existence. I understand you are not particularly concerned with how it happened. But as an atheist, you are committed to the claim that God did not make it happen, as you deny there is a God.

No, I'm not saying you have faith because you don't care about the details. I can understand that cosmology is not down your line. But by the very fact that you are denying that God did it, you are placing your faith in some other mechanism / explanation.

This is not making a religion out of disbelief; it is a religious belief in the sense that it requires an unsupported, metaphysical claim about ultimate reality. Whether you like it or not, your belief system must entail the claim that existence comes about without God (pick your favorite explanation: an uncaused Big Bang that somehow just happened; an infinite cycle of Big Bangs that just keep on coming; whatever). You have precisely zero facts to back this up. Call this what you will (faith, metaphysical, ...) I call it a religious belief.

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
If Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, then how can it say nothing about where the universe and the world came from?Because it doesn't matter. We are here, how we came to be here is really of little importance. What we do while we are here is of much more importance, particularly if one has no belief in an afterlife. At least the Big Bang theory has the scientific observation of red shift to back it up rather than the ravings contained in a flawed ancient text sometimes referred to as a bible or some other theory not based on evidence or observation.

I've only been hanging around the IIDB for about a month now and already I tire of the same old arguments for the existence of god; we non-believers must still provide the evidence for the nonexistence of something we don't even claim exists. I now believe the Invisible Magic Woman poofed us into existence one morning when she was bored with The Nothingness (TM), creating the whole universe as we know it last Tuesday at 11:01 AM with the built in memories and all the physical evidence necessary for us to think we'd been here for quite a while, most of us anyway. With my "belief system" you only think you know that you existed before that and any evidence to the contrary is countered by my belief that she made all that too at the same time, she covered all the bases, believe me. She's really good too, omnipotent even; she did it all in an instant, one moment, not taking a whole six days to do it. Plus she took no day of rest afterward either, unless you count yesterday which she spent on the beach in Tahiti working on a tan. There, that's one explanation for existence. Prove me wrong.

Warren in Oklahoma, a state of denial

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by tribalbeeyatch
That is the root of your misunderstanding. An atheist doesn't need to actively disbelieve in a god, he need only lack such a belief.

That's an agnostic, not an atheist.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by PandaJoe
No, the atheist would be saying, "I don't know, so I won't assume it has anything to to with magical leprechauns."

That is an agnostic.

Originally posted by PandaJoe
But it doesn't explain anything. It merely bumps the question back a step. Instead of "What created the universe?" we're stuck with "What created god?" How is this better?

That is a good question, and there are answers to it which you may or may not like. But your question (and implied point) do not lessen the fact that atheism entails religious beliefs.

You may make the argument that God is not a very good explanation for existence (or consciousness), and therefore you prefer other explanations, and that you prefer atheism. I think such an argument is problematic, to say the least, but that is neither here nor there. Even if you are convinced your argument is a good one, the point is that you are committing yourself to a religious belief, of some type.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by warrenly
Because it doesn't matter. We are here, how we came to be here is really of little importance. What we do while we are here is of much more importance, particularly if one has no belief in an afterlife. At least the Big Bang theory has the scientific observation of red shift to back it up rather than the ravings contained in a flawed ancient text sometimes referred to as a bible or some other theory not based on evidence or observation.

I've only been hanging around the IIDB for about a month now and already I tire of the same old arguments for the existence of god; we non-believers must still provide the evidence for the nonexistence of something we don't even claim exists. I now believe the Invisible Magic Woman poofed us into existence one morning when she was bored with The Nothingness (TM), creating the whole universe as we know it last Tuesday at 11:01 AM with the built in memories and all the physical evidence necessary for us to think we'd been here for quite a while, most of us anyway. With my "belief system" you only think you know that you existed before that and any evidence to the contrary is countered by my belief that she made all that too at the same time, she covered all the bases, believe me. She's really good too, omnipotent even; she did it all in an instant, one moment, not taking a whole six days to do it. Plus she took no day of rest afterward either, unless you count yesterday which she spent on the beach in Tahiti working on a tan. There, that's one explanation for existence. Prove me wrong.

Warren in Oklahoma, a state of denial

Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point of this thread. No one is giving the same old tired arguments for the existence of God here, nor is anyone asking you to justify your belief system. What you are being asked to justify here, is why you think your belief system is not a religious one. If you are an atheist, do you agree that you have made a religious committment? If not, why not?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
It can take hundreds of years to test scientific theories - pity the poor astronomers who will very often not live long enough to see their theories validated or refuted. That the ALL of the evidence necessary to support a given theory has not yet been discovered does not mean it never will be. Science looks for evidence of that which we cannot yet explain; religion does not.

And are all phenomena explainable via science?

[reprise]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
And are all phenomena explainable via science?

WIll you make up your mind what the hell your topic is. You asked a question about whether atheism entails religious beliefs. You then try to tell those people who ARE atheists that they must have an alternative explanation for existence if they reject the notion of a supreme being, thus arguing against claim which you - and not atheists - made in the first place (nice strawman).

Now, you are asking whether all phenomena can be explained by science. If your question is whether science itself has the characteristics of a religion, then for f**k's sake ask THAT question. Don't just blithely assume that all those people who do not believe in a deity or deities subscribe to ANY other specific explanation for existence, let alone a scientific one.

I'm wondering why this thread hasn't been moved to "elsewhere" - it's staring to seem like that's where it should have been started.

[Kevin Dorner]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Is it not true, then, that atheism also involves faith?

Definitely... I have tremendous faith that eventually a moderator will notice that this thread is off-topic for this forum and move it to EoG or MRD, or even Elsewhere.

None other than that, thanks.

I think I can assume you ascribe to Christianity as I have yet to see anyone from another religion use the argument that not believing in god is a "faith" in and of itself.

You probably don't have any belief in Shiva. By your argument it takes faith to deny Shiva without proof. You are not only a Christian but also an Ashivaist.

You probably also deny Zeus, who is also said to have been the "leader" god of his pantheon. Clearly, it takes faith to deny the necesssity of Zeus and see His hand in all things in the universe as you have. Make that Christian, Ashivaist and Azeusist.

I could go on endlessly with the thousands of gods that humanity has stuffed the skies with, but it's pointless. By accepting one, you are rejecting belief in thousands if not millions of others. Ours is no different... only one more.

Also you were incorrect about what and "agnostic" and "atheist" is but don't worry about it as almost everyone gets them wrong. An atheist simply doesn't believe in a god or gods. There is no implication of knowledge. An agnostic holds that proof or disproof of deity/ies is impossible; it cannot be known. So I am both agnostic and atheist as I don't know but I don't believe. A "strong atheist" who claims to know or have proof is the type you were referring to, but there do not seem to be as many of them.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
WIll you make up your mind what the hell your topic is. You asked a question about whether atheism entails religious beliefs. You then try to tell those people who ARE atheists that they must have an alternative explanation for existence if they reject the notion of a supreme being, thus arguing against claim which you - and not atheists - made in the first place (nice strawman).

Now, you are asking whether all phenomena can be explained by science. If your question is whether science itself has the characteristics of a religion, then for f**k's sake ask THAT question. Don't just blithely assume that all those people who do not believe in a deity or deities subscribe to ANY other specific explanation for existence, let alone a scientific one.

I'm wondering why this thread hasn't been moved to "elsewhere" - it's staring to seem like that's where it should have been started.

Sorry, I had not intended to be coy. In fact, if you had answered my question then perhaps you'd have seen that it is relevant to CSS. To forestall the obvious, let me explain.

You made the statement to the effect that scientists are confident they will discover more about the BB and will be able to explain it, how it came about, etc. So I asked the question whether all phenomena are explainable by science.

I asked it because it is often the case that folks are confused about this. Many think the answer is yes, not realizing there is no justification for this, aside from making a metaphysical / religious claim.

Others may concede that there may be phenomena unexplainable by science, but they maintain that if science discovers that it has crossed the line, then it will pull back. In this case, they miss the important point that science, in fact, has no way of detecting the line and when it has crossed over. The idea that it can entails its own metaphysical assumptions.

The bottom line is that in the historical sciences you have theories being set forth and codified in textbooks and popular literature which are little more than speculation -- their level of emprical support is low and they have serious problems. Theories such as this would not even be seriously considered in the experimental sciences. The only real selling point of the theory is that is is purely mechanistic / naturalistic. An example, just off the top of my head, is the theory of how the earth-moon system arose [I'll omit the details here].

Why is this important for CSS and relevant to this thread? For the very reason that you brought it up. The sciences will provide naturalistic explanations for everything, no matter how bizarre and unlikely. They'll even explain things like consciousness and existence. Then folks like yourself can say you have science on your side and that atheism does not entail religious beliefs, and so it doesn't come under the CSS.

But in fact the scientific theory itself is laughable, and was pursued and developed under a materialistic worldview, where there must be naturalistic explanations for all things. The worldview underwrites the theory, not the empirical evidence or any solid mathematical or analytical foundation.

So when I claim atheism entails religious claims, and you say no it doesn't, we have, or we will have naturalistic explanations for these things, I urge you to test those explanations carefully. Are they really very compelling? Or are they fuelled by a metaphysical assumption from the get go?

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Unfortunately you seem to have missed the point of this thread. No one is giving the same old tired arguments for the existence of God here, nor is anyone asking you to justify your belief system. What you are being asked to justify here, is why you think your belief system is not a religious one. If you are an atheist, do you agree that you have made a religious committment? If not, why not? Unfortunately, maybe I do misunderstand what you are saying, but you did offer an argument I've read many times over, represented by the first phrase of this quote:
Originally posted by Charles Darwin My point was that the existence of God explains our existence, and that competing explanations (egs, the universe poofed into existence, or that it has always existed and is not the result of causality) also require faith.My Omnipotent Invisible Magic Woman analogy or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other of a multitude of possibilities also explain our existence, like the Pueblo and Hopi legends of man crawling up from the underworld, represented by the ladder in their ceremonial kivas. My point is that any supernatural explanation for our existence is just as valid as your contention that existence of a god explains it.

Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I have only made a commitment to not believe there are any god, gods, or supernatural power, creator or not, as an explanation for anything let alone why we exist. This is not the same thing as believing in something that cannot be proven, that takes faith. I contend that it takes no faith to take the position I am. I lack faith in unseen supernatural explanations for things, therefore I am atheist.

Warren in Oklahoma

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Kevin Dorner
Definitely... I have tremendous faith that eventually a moderator will notice that this thread is off-topic for this forum and move it to EoG or MRD, or even Elsewhere.

None other than that, thanks.

I think I can assume you ascribe to Christianity as I have yet to see anyone from another religion use the argument that not believing in god is a "faith" in and of itself.

You probably don't have any belief in Shiva. By your argument it takes faith to deny Shiva without proof. You are not only a Christian but also an Ashivaist.

You probably also deny Zeus, who is also said to have been the "leader" god of his pantheon. Clearly, it takes faith to deny the necesssity of Zeus and see His hand in all things in the universe as you have. Make that Christian, Ashivaist and Azeusist.

I could go on endlessly with the thousands of gods that humanity has stuffed the skies with, but it's pointless. By accepting one, you are rejecting belief in thousands if not millions of others. Ours is no different... only one more.

Also you were incorrect about what and "agnostic" and "atheist" is but don't worry about it as almost everyone gets them wrong. An atheist simply doesn't believe in a god or gods. There is no implication of knowledge. An agnostic holds that proof or disproof of deity/ies is impossible; it cannot be known. So I am both agnostic and atheist as I don't know but I don't believe. A "strong atheist" who claims to know or have proof is the type you were referring to, but there do not seem to be as many of them.

I'm sorry that you think this thread is off topic. It is, of course, quite on topic if I am correct in my contention. If atheism entails a religious belief then this holds important implications for the interpretation and application of the CSS.

Your point about you, an atheist, rejecting merely one more god than a Christian fails to nullify my contention; indeed, it supports it. You equate the atheist and the Christian, saying, "Ours is no different... only one more."

But, of course, your real point there was that anyone holding belief in any god is "religious" whereas you, having rejected every single one, are free of religious beliefs.

What you seem to be missing is my point that your position, by definition, has its own built-in metaphysics which you cannot escape. Not believing in any god does not free you of metaphysics. I thank you for the helpful definitions, but even atheists who are not strong atheists, such as yourself, are embracing metaphysics. What is both intriguing and disturbing, is the denial.

Simply put, when you say you don't believe in any god, then by definition you believe that the world came about (somehow) by naturalistic means. This is a metaphysical claim. Or, tying this into the previous post, you would have to say something along the lines that you believe all phenomena are naturalistic.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by warrenly
My Omnipotent Invisible Magic Woman analogy or the Invisible Pink Unicorn or any other of a multitude of possibilities also explain our existence, like the Pueblo and Hopi legends of man crawling up from the underworld, represented by the ladder in their ceremonial kivas. My point is that any supernatural explanation for our existence is just as valid as your contention that existence of a god explains it.

This is not relevant. I'm making no contention about how the various explanations compete and compare. I merely said they provide an explanation. You are bringing up an interesting point, but that's another thread, and not relevant to CSS.


Originally posted by warrenly
Lacking any evidence to the contrary, I have only made a commitment to not believe there are any god, gods, or supernatural power, creator or not, as an explanation for anything let alone why we exist. This is not the same thing as believing in something that cannot be proven, that takes faith. I contend that it takes no faith to take the position I am. I lack faith in unseen supernatural explanations for things, therefore I am atheist.

You are stating your position but not providing any justification for it. Yes, I understand you are an atheist. Your key claim above is: "This is not the same thing as believing in something that cannot be proven." This is where I need help in understanding your reasoning. Can you justify this statement? Please consider my earlier point that not believing in any god necessarily implies that you do believe in some other explanation.

If you are correct that you do not believe in something that cannot be proven, then there must be an explanation for existence that does not involve God and is provable. I am unaware of any such explanation. Can you tell me about it?

[Gawdawful]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You are stating your position but not providing any justification for it. Yes, I understand you are an atheist. Your key claim above is: "This is not the same thing as believing in something that cannot be proven." This is where I need help in understanding your reasoning. Can you justify this statement? Please consider my earlier point that not believing in any god necessarily implies that you do believe in some other explanation. I don't understand the trouble you are having in understanding me. I am saying that atheism is the default position. Atheism requires no metaphysical belief at all. It requires no belief whatsoever in anything, scientific theory or religion.

If you are correct that you do not believe in something that cannot be proven, then there must be an explanation for existence that does not involve God and is provable. I am unaware of any such explanation. Can you tell me about it? No, you have missed my point, I do not require an explanation for existence. I don't think knowledge of an explanation for existence is important, it certainly has no bearing on my atheism. I might or might not have ideas about how we came to be, but that is not important and no more proveable than the supernatural explanation. This must be a novel position to take, perhaps one borne of ignorance, but none the less, is mine. I am a bit skeptical of the Big Bang theory as well, but it at least makes more sense than an everpresent being, suddenly bored with his own existence in the empty eternity, creating something out of nothing for his own amusement, seeking, no, demanding adulation from his creations.

Warren in Oklahoma

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by warrenly
No, you have missed my point, I do not require an explanation for existence. I don't think knowledge of an explanation for existence is important, it certainly has no bearing on my atheism. I might or might not have ideas about how we came to be, but that is not important and no more proveable than the supernatural explanation. This must be a novel position to take, perhaps one borne of ignorance, but none the less, is mine.

Actually, if I'm understanding you correctly, I suspect your position isn't all that unusual. Someone earlier in this thread made the point that he is not interested in cosmology and origins. I suspect most folks aren't.

You say you don't consider the issue important and that you don't require an explanation for existence. That is all well and good, but you, nonetheless, believe there is no god. This belief brings with it some implications. Like it or not, if you believe there is no god, then you necessarily believe that existence came about via means exclusive of God. This is simply a logical fact -- it says nothing about how you personally feel about this implication. It may be utterly unimportant to you; you may not think about it much; you may never have thought about it. But that doesn't take away from the fact that this is part and parcel of your belief. It is a necessary consequence of your belief that there is no God.


Originally posted by warrenly
I am a bit skeptical of the Big Bang theory as well, but it at least makes more sense than an everpresent being, suddenly bored with his own existence in the empty eternity, creating something out of nothing for his own amusement, seeking, no, demanding adulation from his creations.

These are metaphysical beliefs you are expressing. This supports my contention that atheism entails such beliefs.


Originally posted by warrenly
I don't understand the trouble you are having in understanding me. I am saying that atheism is the default position. Atheism requires no metaphysical belief at all. It requires no belief whatsoever in anything, scientific theory or religion.

The belief that the world arose (somehow) via naturalistic means (no God involved) is a metaphysical belief. This is a necessary consequence of your belief there is no God. This is hardly the default position. Indeed, the notion that the universe just occurred (somehow) is rather bizarre. Would you say that about anything else? Mind you I'm not saying you are wrong, but your position is hardly obvious, and certainly not without its own metaphysics.

[Toto]

As far as church state separation goes, belief and non-belief are treated equally, whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion. That disposes of the only possible CS issue. The original poster is fairly confused about that and other issues.

And I notice that none of you could get a date on Saturday night. Get a night life, guys.

I'm going to kick this to <flips coin> GRD!

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin

The belief that the world arose (somehow) via naturalistic means (no God involved) is a metaphysical belief.
So what? A metaphysical belief does not a religion make.
This is a necessary consequence of your belief there is no God.
I think Buddhism contains some supernatural (acausal) elements yet is fundamentally atheistic.
This is hardly the default position.
Why not? The default position can hardly include an assumed explanatory mechanism, can it?
Indeed, the notion that the universe just occurred (somehow) is rather bizarre.
So?
Would you say that about anything else?
The notion that Ashley Judd will bring be breakfast in bed tomorrow is rather bizarre.
Mind you I'm not saying you are wrong, but your position is hardly obvious, and certainly not without its own metaphysics.
Again, how do metaphysics entail religious beliefs?

[Gawdawful]

To Charles Darwin (the poster, not the evolutionary biologist): I disagree that I must have belief in the metaphysical to be atheist, despite that I may indeed hold metaphysical beliefs myself.

Originally posted by Toto
As far as church state separation goes, belief and non-belief are treated equally, whether or not atheism qualifies as a religion. That disposes of the only possible CS issue. The original poster is fairly confused about that and other issues.
[snip]
I'm going to kick this to <flips coin> GRD
Good call.


And I notice that none of you could get a date on Saturday night. Get a night life, guys.

! Hey! I'm at work with one eye on the five computer monitors on my desk. Someone has to keep the wheels of industry turning, they know not the hour nor the day of the week.

Hmmm, personal insults from a moderator no less. Geez!;)


Warren in Oklahoma, up all night keeping you all snug in your beds, safe and warm, or cool as the season requires.

[Sue Sponte]

I'm making no contention about how the various explanations compete and compare.

Then perhaps you should heed the advice of the numerous posters who have already explained to you that they are not concluding that another explanation is better, but merely that there is not sufficient reason to believe in a God.

You seem stuck on this point and perhaps it would be helpful to go back and actually consider, rather than immediately debating in your mind, what people have told you.

If you don't understand the difference between having an active belief in the existence of something and failing to believe something exists due to lack of any logical reason to so believe, this thread will continue its hopeless circle.

This belief brings with it some implications. Like it or not, if you believe there is no god, then you necessarily believe that existence came about via means exclusive of God

Among a million other things, such as believing God did not invent Tic Tacs. Am I, therefore, "religious" in my views toward Tic Tacs? The conclusions you are forcing yourself to reach do not logically follow.

The belief that the world arose (somehow) via naturalistic means (no God involved) is a metaphysical belief. This is a necessary consequence of your belief there is no God.

No, it isn't. I personally believe the world arose because a Gitmar and Lackning became confused during a round of Sibibi. Neither the Gitmar nor the Lackning are Gods and you can't prove otherwise.

Nonsense? Yes. And perfectly analogous to Christianity, once I write The Great Book of Gitmar and Lackning.

[reprise]

Dateless on a Saturday night, indeed. It happens to be Sunday evening here. :p

re "posting from The Future™" prise

Oh yeah, and what Sua said..

[DMB]

Charles Darwin: you have in fact raised a number of issues in this thread.

One is what being an atheist means. We are always having threads on this and the majority position here is always that

an atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s)

NOT

someone who says that no gods exist

We are surely able to decide what we think without having you inform us from on high that we are or are not atheists according to your lights. I refer you to the many threads on what is meant by the word "atheist", since it is tedious to have to keep going over this. There are some strong atheists here who do say that no gods can exist, but they are not the majority. If you persist in asserting that you know what an atheist is and we don't, you are simply setting up a straw man.

Another idea is that if we do not have faith that a god or gods created the universe, then we must have faith in some alternative explanation. This really doesn't follow. I personally have no idea how the universe came to be. I don't dismiss it as an unimportant problem either. Nor do I have faith that science will ultimately know everything that is to be known. So I accept that there are some important unknowns. Given the progress that science has made in recent centuries, I would expect(=think it likely) that further progress in unravelling the workings of the universe would be made, but I don't have faith that they will be.

Then there is the idea that if we say we don't know how the universe originated, we ought to accept your god hypothesis. So if I hadn't arrived at a reason for the appearance of xmas presents and Santa was the only story offered to me, I ought to accept it if I didn't have a better alternative. :rolleyes:

One is never obliged to accept a particular explanation, and certainly not if it lacks supporting evidence, just because one doesn't have an alternative one. It is perfectly respectable to say on the evidence so far, "I don't know what the explanation is, but I am unconvinced by your story."

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Well now we're talking about agnosticism -- that's another thing. I'm wondering about atheism, not agnosticism. You say "only a few atheists will claim that no deity of any kind exists," but, in fact, those are the only real atheists. The rest are agnostics.

I suggest that you read up on the definitions of Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism. You can find the definition by typing one of the two terms into the search function at www.infidels.org

Weak Atheism and agnisticism are compatible with each other but they are NOT the same.


Your analogy doesn't work because the blobs may not exist, but the universe (or my impression of it at least) does exist. Somehow, existence came about. Now you can explain it in various ways, but you cannot avoid a religious belief, of some sort, just because you are electing to deny that God did it and you are opting for some naturalistic explanation which requires just as much faith.

The blobs relate to the proposition that a god exists, not the universe. You have misinterpreted the analogy.

I am not denying the possibility that a god did it. I simply lack belief that a god did it. A lot of theists have a hard time with that distinction. I think that it comnes from a mindset that assumes that a god exists. Again, I suggest taht you go to www.infidels.org and read up on the distinctions between weak atheist, strong atheist and agnostic.

[Eudaimonist]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
What you are being asked to justify here, is why you think your belief system is not a religious one. If you are an atheist, do you agree that you have made a religious committment? If not, why not?

The issue about the origins of the universe is not a religious issue. It is a philosophical and scientific issue for which some have offered religious explanations. There is nothing intrinsically religious about the basic issue.

[Vylo]

Negative Athiesm which seems to be very popular on this board, dismisses God as a completely ridiculous concept. There is no religious belief in negative atheism because there is no diety to consider, anymore then you would consider a pink unicorn urinating fire on your roof at this moment.

I for the most part am a Positive Atheist. I reject the concept of most Gods or deities due to insufficient evidence of their existence. When faced with omnipresent, omnipotent, and/or omniscient deities, I take the stance of the Negative Atheist, as this type of entity would exist entirely outside the boundaries of our reality. If outside of our reality, it isn't real to to us, there is no way to prove or disprove its existence, so it isn't even worth considering.

Faith? If you mean belief in something despite lack of evidence, even atheists can be guilty of this, they just aren't when it comes to the concept of deities.

[RevDahlia]

I would like to know exactly what ChasD means when he says "religious".

[enfant terrible]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
I'm fairly up to speed on cosmology

No, you are not. If you had any knowledge of cosmology, you would realize that you are asking meaningless questions.

May I ask how much physics you had in school?

[braces_for_impact]

Equivocation at it's finest. Once again an attempt to prove atheism a religion, thereby levelling the intellectual playing field.

If you can't prove your own position, poke holes in you opponent's. The problem is, this doesn't make your own position any stronger.

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
Date: 13th century
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Lets look at this now shall we? Does atheism fit this definition?

1: The state of a religious <snip> Ok, this doesn't help much, lets get to the meat of the matter...

1b: the service and worship of God or the supernatural Well that about speaks for itself doesn't it? No worhipping or service going on here.
1b2 commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance Well since we can't give commitment or devotion to something we don't worship or service this one doesn't seem to apply.
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices no personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, or practices.
3 3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Can atheists said to be scrupulous? Some but not all, guess that doesn't apply since atheism says nothing on the topic of morality. Same goes with conformity and conscientiousness.
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Hmmmm. Does it take faith to say "I don't believe in god?" No. It takes faith to say "God's existence is impossible".

It seems that Webster agrees with me on this point.

[Refused]

Ok, I think this saying needs to be repeated:

"Atheism is a religion like not-collecting stamps is a hobby"

In other words, it isn't.

And, for Charles, agosticism deals in knowledge and atheism pertains to belief.

An agnostic says we can't know for sure if a pre-historic creature is at the bottom of a Loch, and an atheist says he believes there isn't enough evidence to support the fact that there is a creature in the loch (and then scans the loch with satalite equipment, voila!)

And.. a creationist thinks the satalite is from satan. :D

my .42 cents...

- Refused

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Philosoft

So what? A metaphysical belief does not a religion make.

Again, how do metaphysics entail religious beliefs? [/B]

The question is not whether atheism is a religion, but whether is entails religious belief. As for your second question, metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and ultimate truth claims. It is not provable by science. I think of a metaphysical claim as entailing a religious belief. If you disagree, then please think of this thread name as: "Does atheism entail metaphysical claims?"

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
Then perhaps you should heed the advice of the numerous posters who have already explained to you that they are not concluding that another explanation is better, but merely that there is not sufficient reason to believe in a God.

I'm not doubting or contending with folks's beliefs. I'm merely asking them to explain why their belief does not entail any religious or metaphysical premises.

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
You seem stuck on this point and perhaps it would be helpful to go back and actually consider, rather than immediately debating in your mind, what people have told you.

If you don't understand the difference between having an active belief in the existence of something and failing to believe something exists due to lack of any logical reason to so believe, this thread will continue its hopeless circle.

You are mischaracterizing atheism. The atheist is not a person who does not believe in anything; rather, the atheist is a person who does not believe in God. In other words (IOW), the atheist believes that God does not exist. This is a belief. My question is: does this belief entail any metaphysics or religious belief? You are confusing "religious belief" with "belief in God."

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
Among a million other things, such as believing God did not invent Tic Tacs. Am I, therefore, "religious" in my views toward Tic Tacs? The conclusions you are forcing yourself to reach do not logically follow.

You are presenting a trivial example, several of which have already been presented and discussed earlier in the thread (eg, Santa delivering presents). I've already addressed this.

Originally posted by Sue Sponte
I personally believe the world arose because a Gitmar and Lackning became confused during a round of Sibibi. Neither the Gitmar nor the Lackning are Gods and you can't prove otherwise.

Why do you believe in this particular explanation?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by DMB
Charles Darwin: you have in fact raised a number of issues in this thread.

One is what being an atheist means. We are always having threads on this and the majority position here is always that

an atheist is someone who does not believe in god(s)

NOT

someone who says that no gods exist

We are surely able to decide what we think without having you inform us from on high that we are or are not atheists according to your lights. I refer you to the many threads on what is meant by the word "atheist", since it is tedious to have to keep going over this. There are some strong atheists here who do say that no gods can exist, but they are not the majority. If you persist in asserting that you know what an atheist is and we don't, you are simply setting up a straw man.

I don't know how you got the idea that I'm fixed on this definition. Maybe I mistakenly typed it somewhere. I'll say again, I'm operating off the definition that an atheist is a person who does not believe in any god, and therefore believes (this is not a truth claim, simply a belief) that no gods exist. If I'm in error here please disabuse me.

Originally posted by DMB
Another idea is that if we do not have faith that a god or gods created the universe, then we must have faith in some alternative explanation. This really doesn't follow. I personally have no idea how the universe came to be. I don't dismiss it as an unimportant problem either. Nor do I have faith that science will ultimately know everything that is to be known. So I accept that there are some important unknowns. Given the progress that science has made in recent centuries, I would expect(=think it likely) that further progress in unravelling the workings of the universe would be made, but I don't have faith that they will be.

You are slightly mischaracterizing the situation. The concept of faith is not necessary here. The situation is simply this: If you believe no god exists, and you agree the universe (whatever that really is) does exist, then the position you have taken necessarily entails the belief that there is some alternate explanation for the universe's existence. This is simply a logical fact -- it says nothing about whether you've ever actually pondered any such alternate explanations. People hold to all sorts of absurd positions without being consciously aware of their own internal contradictions and fallacies. The fact that you have no idea how the existence came about, and perhaps haven't bothered by it, or pondered it, is irrelevant. You are holding to a belief the necessarily entails the belief that such an explanation exists.

Originally posted by DMB
Then there is the idea that if we say we don't know how the universe originated, we ought to accept your god hypothesis. So if I hadn't arrived at a reason for the appearance of xmas presents and Santa was the only story offered to me, I ought to accept it if I didn't have a better alternative. :rolleyes:

One is never obliged to accept a particular explanation, and certainly not if it lacks supporting evidence, just because one doesn't have an alternative one. It is perfectly respectable to say on the evidence so far, "I don't know what the explanation is, but I am unconvinced by your story."

I don't know where this came from, or how you possibly read this from the preceding thread. You seem to have entirely missed the point of the thread. I'm asking no one to accept a god hypothesis. I'm asking for atheists to explain why their position entials no metaphysical or religious beliefs.

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
The question is not whether atheism is a religion, but whether is entails religious belief.
Why is that the question? You are trying to tie this to Church-State separation, are you not?
As for your second question, metaphysics has to do with the nature of reality and ultimate truth claims. It is not provable by science.
And not necessitated by atheism.
I think of a metaphysical claim as entailing a religious belief.
It doesn't necessarily, so your claim fails.
If you disagree, then please think of this thread name as: "Does atheism entail metaphysical claims?"
No. Atheism entails an absence of belief. Show me a God and a universe-creating mechanism and that will probably change to a presence of belief.

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin


You are mischaracterizing atheism. The atheist is not a person who does not believe in anything; rather, the atheist is a person who does not believe in God. In other words (IOW), the atheist believes that God does not exist.



The belief that a god does not exist is only the definition of a strong atheist. I see that you did not take my advice and search the library for the definitions of strong vs weak atheist. A strong atheist says that god does not exist.

A weak atheist simply has no belief in a god the same as you have no belief in Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere oif Jupiter.

If I told you that there are Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter, would you say that they do not exist or would you simply not believe. That's the difference.

[crocodile deathroll]

Most Buddhists like myself are atheists and most of the ones I have met also take their religion very seriously.
But they believe in Karma, I don't. :boohoo:

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by crazyfingers
The belief that a god does not exist is only the definition of a strong atheist. I see that you did not take my advice and search the library for the definitions of strong vs weak atheist. A strong atheist says that god does not exist.

A weak atheist simply has no belief in a god the same as you have no belief in Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere oif Jupiter.

If I told you that there are Giant Green Blob Creatures living in the middle atmosphere of Jupiter, would you say that they do not exist or would you simply not believe. That's the difference.

You are reading more into my words than what is there. For instance, regarding your Giant Green Blob Creatures example, I would not say they don't exist, I would say I don't believe that they exist, just as the weak atheist says that he doesn't believe that God exists.

Above you say the strong atheist (i) believes that God does not exist, and (ii) claims that God does not exist. Those are two different things. Which is it? Are you saying that the weak atheist does not believe that god does not exist, yet simultaneously does not believe in God. Of course not, that would be nonsense. The weak atheist does not believe in God, and therefore does not believe that God exists.

In another post you wrote:

I suggest that you read up on the definitions of Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism.

I found this:

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the "weak atheist" position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as "strong atheism".

Not sure this makes sense, but given this definition, then in this thread I'm talking about strong atheism. So the thread should be titled: "Does strong atheism entail metaphysical or religious beliefs?"

You wrote:

I am not denying the possibility that a god did it. I simply lack belief that a god did it. A lot of theists have a hard time with that distinction. I think that it comnes from a mindset that assumes that a god exists.

I have no problem with that distinction. My point is not that you deny the possibility; my point is that you believe it not to be so. You have a belief, and the belief carries with it certain implications. You cannot rationally say that you don't believe God created existence and that you also don't believe in any other explanation for existence.

You are choosing to believe that God did not create existence, therefore you must believe there is some other explanation. You may not have settled on an alternate explanation; you may not have even given it any thought. But that is the consequence of your belief. If you seriously explored the implications of your belief, you would eventually come to the problem of existence, and you'd have to admit that your belief entails the belief that existence is explained apart from God (since you believe there is no God). And you'd have to admit that that belief is metaphysical. Why am I wrong here?

[crazyfingers]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
You are reading more into my words than what is there. For instance, regarding your Giant Green Blob Creatures example, I would not say they don't exist, I would say I don't believe that they exist, just as the weak atheist says that he doesn't believe that God exists.

Above you say the strong atheist (i) believes that God does not exist, and (ii) claims that God does not exist. Those are two different things. Which is it? Are you saying that the weak atheist does not believe that god does not exist, yet simultaneously does not believe in God. Of course not, that would be nonsense. The weak atheist does not believe in God, and therefore does not believe that God exists.

A weak atheist would say that there is no evidence that a god exists and so he has no belief in a god. If asked if a god exists the weak atheist would say "I don't know, but lacking any evidence, there is no reason to even ask the question. " As I said, weak atheism is compatible with agnosticism "the position that whether a god exists or not is not unknowable" but it is not the same.

Again, I suggest that if you are unclear on the distinctions between strong atheist, weak atheist or agnostic that you read up on it. Here (http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html)

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Eudaimonist
The issue about the origins of the universe is not a religious issue. It is a philosophical and scientific issue for which some have offered religious explanations. There is nothing intrinsically religious about the basic issue.

Well, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. So the study of metaphysics is, as you say, a philosophical issue. But a metaphysical claim is a truth claim. This is not a philosophical issue but a religious claim.

If you say you are an atheist; that you don't believe in God; that therefore you believe the origin of the universe and existence itself can be explained by some other means, then you are expressing a metaphysical or religious belief. Make sense?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by enfant terrible
No, you are not. If you had any knowledge of cosmology, you would realize that you are asking meaningless questions.

May I ask how much physics you had in school?

I have a doctorate in a branch of physics (not cosmology). I am by no means an expert in cosmology, but I have a decent understanding at the popular level. Now a question for you which is highly relevant to this thread: Why are my questions meaningless?

[Eudaimonist]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Well, metaphysics is a branch of philosophy. So the study of metaphysics is, as you say, a philosophical issue. But a metaphysical claim is a truth claim. This is not a philosophical issue but a religious claim.

That's a non sequitur. Nothing about truth claims being made on metaphysical issues implies that a religious claim is being made.

If you say you are an atheist; that you don't believe in God; that therefore you believe the origin of the universe and existence itself can be explained by some other means, then you are expressing a metaphysical or religious belief. Make sense?

No, I would be expressing a non-religious belief on a metaphysical issue. The fact that someone such as yourself might posit a religious belief in response to that metaphysical issue does not mean that all other beliefs on that issue are thereby religious.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by RevDahlia
I would like to know exactly what ChasD means when he says "religious".

Good point. I'm not sure I can provide a hard and fast definition in an email post, but in rough and simple terms, it seems to me that fundamental beliefs about world are religious. Of course theism is an example, but isn't materialism also an example? Materialism says that matter and energy is all there is.

Can science explore, discover and analyze all phenomena? Are love, hate and consciousness just as amenable to scientific analysis as are bridges and rocks? Some people believe the answer is yes; that there is no spiritual realm. It seems to me that this is every bit as much a religious belief as the converse.

The point I'm trying to explore in this thread is that atheism (or perhaps strong atheism) -- the belief that there is no god -- carries with it, it seems to me, serious metaphysical implications. You cannot simply say you don't believe in God and that, oh by the way, you are free of religious beliefs. If you believe there is no God, then are you not very much committing yourself to some other fundamental beliefs about the world? I understand there may be folks who say, "Gee, I just don't know." I am not referring to those folks. I'm referring to folks who say they believe there is no God.

[Eudaimonist]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Good point. I'm not sure I can provide a hard and fast definition in an email post, but in rough and simple terms, it seems to me that fundamental beliefs about world are religious.

So religious does not mean "theistic" to you? If that is the case, you are using the word "religious" in an exceedingly odd way. :eek:

[reprise]

Does strong atheism entail metaphysical or religious beliefs?

This is not the question you asked at the outset, but it's a much more concise question.

Religion is a system of beliefs, so it's perfectly possible for an atheist to take the position that deities do not and cannot possibly exist without adopting an alternative belief system.

Some atheists do have alternative metaphysical explanations for our existence, but those explanations are not necessarily ordered in any manner which would qualify them as being a "belief system". Some atheists - quite frankly - couldn't give a toss about the how and the why of our existence. The only essential criterion for being an atheist in not believing in deities. Not all religions are deist, so it's possible to be religious and atheist at the same time.

It seems like you want to create a few little boxes and force us all into one regardless of whether that box actually fits.

I get the feeling that you want one of us to say that Materialism and Naturalism (or whatever other -ism you want to use as an example) are based on faith, when they are not.

Faith is basing one's explanations and one predictions on something for which their is no evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being acting alone, or a plethora of supreme beings acting either individually or in concert. None. At all. Faith involves trying to explain the unexplained by using the unsupportable.

You've been quick to ask the atheists here about their beliefs and to try to tell us what we must believe, while the only belief of your own that you've shared is that atheism must entail an alternative belief to that of theism. Would you care to share with us your views on why it must?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Eudaimonist
That's a non sequitur. Nothing about truth claims being made on metaphysical issues implies that a religious claim is being made.



No, I would be expressing a non-religious belief on a metaphysical issue. The fact that someone such as yourself might posit a religious belief in response to that metaphysical issue does not mean that all other beliefs on that issue are thereby religious.

So all those guys are "religious" and you are free of religious belief. Sounds like you are using a convenient definition of religious belief. By your definition, then I have my answer to the question posed in this thread. But this simply leads to the obvious question: How do you define "religious belief." Why are metaphysical beliefs not religious beliefs? Why is the belief there is no god not religious but belief in God a religious belief?

[RevDahlia]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
Good point. I'm not sure I can provide a hard and fast definition in an email post, but in rough and simple terms, it seems to me that fundamental beliefs about world are religious.

This definition is so broad as to be meaningless. For instance, according to you, my belief that the world is round would be religious.

I haven't circumnavigated the globe myself, so my belief is more of an assumption... but a very, very well-supported one.

I don't think "religion" is synonymous with "assumption".

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Eudaimonist
So religious does not mean "theistic" to you? If that is the case, you are using the word "religious" in an exceedingly odd way. :eek:

Perhaps you can understand why I posted this thread originally in the CSS (church state separation) category. If you want to confine "religious beliefs" to theistic beliefs, then do you see how asymmetrical the CSS environment is? IOW, while theism is marginalized in the public square as "religious" all sorts of other belief systems, such as there is no god, reign free. But, in fact, those other beliefs are every bit as metaphysical and unproven. Just as religious in my book. So you have a situation where the public policy is not at all neutral, but you have the myth of neutrality.

[crocodile deathroll]

My Ten Commandments
Mine in italics

1
"You shall have no other gods but me"
"You shall have no other gods including me"


2
"You shall not take the name of your Lord in vain"
"You are permitted take the name of your Lord in vain, he/she can't hear you"


3
"You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy"
"Sunday is just another day"

4
"Honor your father and mother"
"Question your father and mother, as they like to bring up their kids a climate intelligent debate"


5
"You shall not kill"
"You shall not kill (unless you have lost all quality of life or it is self defense and that rules out capital punishment)"

6
"You shall not commit adultery"
"You shall commit adultery to spread your genetic material, but be careful"


7
"You shall not steal"
"You shall not steal and that also means stealing land from Australian Aboriginals and Native Americans as we as abducting their kids to convert them to Xtianity"


8
"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor"
"You have to work hard to discover the truth as it is not handed to you on a couple of tablets"


9
"You shall not covet your neighbor's goods. You shall not covet your neighbour's house. You shall not covet your neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his bull, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbour's."

"It is OK to feel a little be envious of your neighbor's goods.

10
"It doesn't strictly have to be 10 of them"

[Shadowy Man]

[i]Originally posted by Charles Perhaps you can understand why I posted this thread originally in the CSS (church state separation) category. If you want to confine "religious beliefs" to theistic beliefs, then do you see how asymmetrical the CSS environment is? IOW, while theism is marginalized in the public square as "religious" all sorts of other belief systems, such as there is no god, reign free. But, in fact, those other beliefs are every bit as metaphysical and unproven. Just as religious in my book. So you have a situation where the public policy is not at all neutral, but you have the myth of neutrality.

Well, the next time someone suggests legislation on the basis that there is(are) no god(s), we'll perk our separation ears up.

[Godless Wonder]

CD, (at the risk of feeding the troll :-)

Perhaps I am wrong, but you appear to simply repeat your question until someone gives you something close to the answer you already have decided upon.

What does "religious" mean to you?

You appear to think that to not believe in something when there is no evidence for that thing either way is somehow "religious." You also appear to refuse to accept that non-belief in god(s) is analogous to non-belief in the IPU. I surmise that you perceive a difference between the two: that the universe exists, and so possibly something created it, that is god(s), whereas there are not exactly IPU droppings everywhere leading one to think of IPUs. You (or some people, anyway) perceive the universe as being possibly an artifact of a supernatural creature who is not directly perceivably by us.

I think you are asking, is it a matter of faith to believe that the universe just happened, rather than being created?

Now, I may weigh the possibility of an IPU existing, and I can assign it a probability. That probability will be low. Hardly distinguishable from zero. So, I don't believe in the IPU. Nobody tries to accuse me of "having faith" that the IPU doesn't exist.

Now, am I permitted to weigh the possibility of an intelligent supernatural, invisible, imperceivable creature being responsible for the creation of the entire universe? Permitted or not, I do so, and the probability I assign comes out to be pretty much the same probability that I assign for the IPU. I look at the universe, and to me, it decidedly does not look designed. It looks to me, very much like it merely happened. Now, you may or may not agree with my assessment, but that is of no matter. The question is, does my assessment of this probability involve faith? I say that it does not, and who can know but me?

How close to zero am I allowed to assign the value of this probability before I am guilty of faith?

To paraphrase Feynman, The question is not "Is there a god", but "how sure is it that there is not a god." For me, the answer turns out to be that it is so very close to certain that for practical purposes, I am certain there is no god.

Well probably I didn't say anything others haven't said already.

[reprise]

A question for you Charles. The US Constitution most certainly reflects a belief system. Would you say that belief in and adherence to the principles of the US Constitution qualifies as a "religious" belief?

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

"I do not believe God exists" is NOT equal to "I believe God doesn't exist".

Try it yourself! Is "I do not believe God exists. I also do not believe God does not exist. I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding God's existence". Look, no contradictions. A lack of believe in a positive is not a belief in a negative.

But, assuming you've realized your error on that point already, and you would like to narrow discussion to "strong atheists", you should know this-

Most strong atheists (myself included) aren't strong atheists towards all hypothetical deities. We are merely strong atheists towards the existence of defined Gods, such as Yahweh. The Bible is a treasure trove of evidence that allows us to safely claim, based on evidence, that Yahweh does not exist. Thus, we have strong atheist beliefs with regard to Yahweh. But the God you're talking about is an undefined "First Cause" kind of God. There is absolutely no information available about such a God, and therefore agnosticism is the only viable option. Thus, I am a strong atheist with regards to defined gods of religions, and am agnostic toward First Cause-type undefined Gods. I think you will find most strong atheists are the same.

So yes, wonderful argument, but I'm no sure you'll find anyone here in the belief category that it applies to. Basically what you need is someone who makes the claim that "I believe that the Big Bang was uncaused". I don't know if you'll find anyone who will make that claim, but maybe. Any infidels out there who make this positive belief claim?

-B

[DMB]

Charles DarwinI'll say again, I'm operating off the definition that an atheist is a person who does not believe in any god, and therefore believes (this is not a truth claim, simply a belief) that no gods exist. If I'm in error here please disabuse me.
DMB's emphasis

This is a non sequitur. I do not believe in A does not imply I do believe in B, regardless of what A and B are. I do not believe in A, means I lack belief in A. It does not imply that I have any positive beliefs at all. Of course, in practice we all believe certain things with varying degrees of certainty, but you cannot deduce what they are just from knowing what I do not believe.

Charles Darwin
You cannot rationally say that you don't believe God created existence and that you also don't believe in any other explanation for existence.

...You are choosing to believe that God did not create existence, therefore you must believe there is some other explanation.

...If you say you are an atheist; that you don't believe in God; that therefore you believe the origin of the universe and existence itself can be explained by some other means
You certainly seem keen on this idea, which I pulled from three separate places.

Once again, it looks as though you are insisting that lack of belief in A must entail a positive belief in B. It doesn't. When I wrote:
DMB
One is never obliged to accept a particular explanation, and certainly not if it lacks supporting evidence, just because one doesn't have an alternative one. It is perfectly respectable to say on the evidence so far, "I don't know what the explanation is, but I am unconvinced by your story."
I was referring to this idea of yours. You replied:
Charles Darwin
I don't know where this came from, or how you possibly read this from the preceding thread. You seem to have entirely missed the point of the thread. I'm asking no one to accept a god hypothesis. I'm asking for atheists to explain why their position entials no metaphysical or religious beliefs.
Well, I was simply pointing out that it is possible to say, "I don't accept your explanation, even though I don't have another."

Saying that I don't find your explanation convincing, and so don't believe it, does not imply that I believe that there must exist some other explanation that would be better. I may simply be asserting that all the evidence we have so far fails to give us any explanation I find satisfactory .

I note that your explanation is that "God" created the universe. Is this the christian god, or some other one? There are, after all, a large number of religious creation myths that supply alternative explanations of the origins of the observed world.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
This is not the question you asked at the outset, but it's a much more concise question.

Religion is a system of beliefs, so it's perfectly possible for an atheist to take the position that deities do not and cannot possibly exist without adopting an alternative belief system.

Some atheists do have alternative metaphysical explanations for our existence, but those explanations are not necessarily ordered in any manner which would qualify them as being a "belief system". Some atheists - quite frankly - couldn't give a toss about the how and the why of our existence. The only essential criterion for being an atheist in not believing in deities. Not all religions are deist, so it's possible to be religious and atheist at the same time.

It seems like you want to create a few little boxes and force us all into one regardless of whether that box actually fits.

I get the feeling that you want one of us to say that Materialism and Naturalism (or whatever other -ism you want to use as an example) are based on faith, when they are not.

For about the 4th time in this thread, what atheists care about is irrelevant. What we're talking about are the necessary implications of their belief that there is no God. Just because they haven't figured out all the implications of that belief doesn't mean those implications aren't there.

No, I'm not talking about faith, or trying to pigeon-hole atheists into a preconceived category. For instance, one atheist earlier in this thread said she believes the universe was created by other beings (not God, obviously). On the face of it, it sounds like there is no religious or metaphysical belief entailed. I suspect few atheists believe this, but maybe I'm wrong. I'm waiting on her reply as to why she believes this.

Originally posted by reprise
Faith is basing one's explanations and one predictions on something for which their is no evidence. There is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being acting alone, or a plethora of supreme beings acting either individually or in concert. None. At all. Faith involves trying to explain the unexplained by using the unsupportable.

You've been quick to ask the atheists here about their beliefs and to try to tell us what we must believe, while the only belief of your own that you've shared is that atheism must entail an alternative belief to that of theism. Would you care to share with us your views on why it must?

Well it is not as though there is some obvious explanation out there for existence. If, for example, there was a scientific theory which had a compelling explanation for how existence could arise; or how it must be something that has existed forever, etc., then atheism would appear to have more of an empirical basis. Or we could substitute consciousness in place of existence.

My point is that God is not a superfluous entity. It is not as though there are those "religious" folks out there who are opting for an unneccesary explanation while you are more parsimonious. The situation, it seems to me, does not contain this sort of asymmertry.

There are profound questions out there, and believing there is no God doesn't resolve them, or make them disappear. Whether you like it or not, your solution path must traverse the metaphysical swamp too -- just at a different location. Instead of an unmoved mover, you will have some other unprovable mechanism. Make sense?

[Enlighten Me]

My humble observation about this thread is that Charles Darwin is unable to tolerate ambiguity while atheists are.....

[Philosoft]

Originally posted by Charles Darwin
For about the 4th time in this thread, what atheists care about is irrelevant. What we're talking about are the necessary implications of their belief that there is no God. Just because they haven't figured out all the implications of that belief doesn't mean those implications aren't there.
Okay, then let's do this. You appear to be talking about logical necessity. Show us your syllogism(s) to that end, and we'll debate the validity and soundness of said. Deal?
Well it is not as though there is some obvious explanation out there for existence. If, for example, there was a scientific theory which had a compelling explanation for how existence could arise; or how it must be something that has existed forever, etc., then atheism would appear to have more of an empirical basis.
I'm sorry, atheism needs an "empirical basis" for what, exactly? To demonstrate the non-existence of something?
My point is that God is not a superfluous entity. It is not as though there are those "religious" folks out there who are opting for an unneccesary explanation while you are more parsimonious. The situation, it seems to me, does not contain this sort of asymmertry.
Feh. The God-hypothesis also suffers from every ontological objection you can throw at the universe. Invoking Anselm or Kalaam is mere handwaving. Postulating God is adding unknowability on top of unknown.
There are profound questions out there, and believing there is no God doesn't resolve them, or make them disappear.
Perhaps some of those questions are not so profound as you would like them to be.
Whether you like it or not, your solution path must traverse the metaphysical swamp too -- just at a different location. Instead of an unmoved mover, you will have some other unprovable mechanism. Make sense?
No. Atheism does not require that a solution be accepted in place of the one rejected. If you think it does, show us your proof. That's the only way you're going to acheive logical necessity. Period.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Godless Wonder
What does "religious" mean to you?

I answered this earlier with this:


Good point. I'm not sure I can provide a hard and fast definition in an email post, but in rough and simple terms, it seems to me that fundamental beliefs about world are religious. Of course theism is an example, but isn't materialism also an example? Materialism says that matter and energy is all there is.

Can science explore, discover and analyze all phenomena? Are love, hate and consciousness just as amenable to scientific analysis as are bridges and rocks? Some people believe the answer is yes; that there is no spiritual realm. It seems to me that this is every bit as much a religious belief as the converse.

The point I'm trying to explore in this thread is that atheism (or perhaps strong atheism) -- the belief that there is no god -- carries with it, it seems to me, serious metaphysical implications. You cannot simply say you don't believe in God and that, oh by the way, you are free of religious beliefs. If you believe there is no God, then are you not very much committing yourself to some other fundamental beliefs about the world? I understand there may be folks who say, "Gee, I just don't know." I am not referring to those folks. I'm referring to folks who say they believe there is no God.

Originally posted by Godless Wonder


You appear to think that to not believe in something when there is no evidence for that thing either way is somehow "religious." You also appear to refuse to accept that non-belief in god(s) is analogous to non-belief in the IPU. I surmise that you perceive a difference between the two: that the universe exists, and so possibly something created it, that is god(s), whereas there are not exactly IPU droppings everywhere leading one to think of IPUs. You (or some people, anyway) perceive the universe as being possibly an artifact of a supernatural creature who is not directly perceivably by us.

I think you are asking, is it a matter of faith to believe that the universe just happened, rather than being created?

Now, I may weigh the possibility of an IPU existing, and I can assign it a probability. That probability will be low. Hardly distinguishable from zero. So, I don't believe in the IPU. Nobody tries to accuse me of "having faith" that the IPU doesn't exist.

Now, am I permitted to weigh the possibility of an intelligent supernatural, invisible, imperceivable creature being responsible for the creation of the entire universe? Permitted or not, I do so, and the probability I assign comes out to be pretty much the same probability that I assign for the IPU. I look at the universe, and to me, it decidedly does not look designed. It looks to me, very much like it merely happened. Now, you may or may not agree with my assessment, but that is of no matter. The question is, does my assessment of this probability involve faith? I say that it does not, and who can know but me?

How close to zero am I allowed to assign the value of this probability before I am guilty of faith?

To paraphrase Feynman, The question is not "Is there a god", but "how sure is it that there is not a god." For me, the answer turns out to be that it is so very close to certain that for practical purposes, I am certain there is no god.

Well probably I didn't say anything others haven't said already.

Good points, however, may I ask where you found out how God ought to design the universe?

Secondly, I am not saying "that to not believe in something when there is no evidence for that thing either way is somehow religious." Rather, I'm suspecting is religious is the belief that there is no God. You are very much believing in something (ie, there is no God), and that belief carries implications.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by reprise
A question for you Charles. The US Constitution most certainly reflects a belief system. Would you say that belief in and adherence to the principles of the US Constitution qualifies as a "religious" belief?

Yes, though it might be safer to say religious beliefs rather than a single religious belief. How about this: The US Constitution incorporates certain religious beliefs.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
"I do not believe God exists" is NOT equal to "I believe God doesn't exist".

Try it yourself! Is "I do not believe God exists. I also do not believe God does not exist. I hold no beliefs whatsoever regarding God's existence". Look, no contradictions. A lack of believe in a positive is not a belief in a negative.

But, assuming you've realized your error on that point already, and you would like to narrow discussion to "strong atheists", you should know this-

Most strong atheists (myself included) aren't strong atheists towards all hypothetical deities. We are merely strong atheists towards the existence of defined Gods, such as Yahweh. The Bible is a treasure trove of evidence that allows us to safely claim, based on evidence, that Yahweh does not exist. Thus, we have strong atheist beliefs with regard to Yahweh. But the God you're talking about is an undefined "First Cause" kind of God. There is absolutely no information available about such a God, and therefore agnosticism is the only viable option. Thus, I am a strong atheist with regards to defined gods of religions, and am agnostic toward First Cause-type undefined Gods. I think you will find most strong atheists are the same.

So yes, wonderful argument, but I'm no sure you'll find anyone here in the belief category that it applies to. Basically what you need is someone who makes the claim that "I believe that the Big Bang was uncaused". I don't know if you'll find anyone who will make that claim, but maybe. Any infidels out there who make this positive belief claim?

-B

Good points, but this doesn't detract from my suspicion that atheism entials religious/metaphysical beliefs. First, you point out that not believing in God allows for not believing in no God. IOW, the weak atheist position has not ruled out God. OK, fine, but that doesn't imply the weak atheist position does not entail metaphysics. Just because he is wavering, even to the point of not rejecting God, does not mean he has escaped metaphysics.

The world exists, and what you are saying is that the weak atheist has the rull range of metaphysical devices at his disposal to explain existence, not just a limited set. When you say you don't believe in God, but you also aren't committed to the belief that there is no God, that belief, as vague as it is, leaves only metaphysical explanations for existence.

Second, you point out that strong atheism generally is limited to defined Gods, such as Yahweh. Regarding undefined gods, your position softens. Again, so what? These other, undefined gods, which you may be willing to accept, don't save you from metaphysics.

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by DMB
This is a non sequitur. I do not believe in A does not imply I do believe in B, regardless of what A and B are. I do not believe in A, means I lack belief in A. It does not imply that I have any positive beliefs at all. Of course, in practice we all believe certain things with varying degrees of certainty, but you cannot deduce what they are just from knowing what I do not believe.

If I say I do not believe it will rain today, then this belief is not an isolated belief that is unconnected to all my other beliefs. Something is going to happen today weather-wise. If I believe rain is out of the picture, then at the very least my belief necessarily entails the belief that the weather today will be in the complementary set of weather; for example, I must believe that it will be sunny, or cloudy but with no rain (if those are the only other possibilities).

Likewise, if I don't believe God created the world, since the world exists, my belief forces me to opt for some other explanation.

Originally posted by DMB
I note that your explanation is that "God" created the universe. Is this the christian god, or some other one? There are, after all, a large number of religious creation myths that supply alternative explanations of the origins of the observed world.

Yes the Christian God. And yes, there are a large number of creation myths / explanations / theories. Is there one that is free of metaphysics?

[Charles Darwin]

Originally posted by Philosoft
Okay, then let's do this. You appear to be talking about logical necessity. Show us your syllogism(s) to that end, and we'll debate the validity and soundness of said. Deal?

How's this:

1. Strong atheism is a belief that there is no God.
2. The belief that there is no God is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.
3. Strong atheism is a belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation.
4. A belief that cannot appeal to God to explain creation is a belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation.
5. A belief that must appeal to alternate explanations to explain creation is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.
6. Strong atheism is a belief that entails metaphysical claims.

Originally posted by Philosoft
I'm sorry, atheism needs an "empirical basis" for what, exactly? To demonstrate the non-existence of something?

The issue at hand is: What is a religious or metaphysical belief? If you show me a picture of the earth taken from the moon, and as a result I believe the earth is round, then this is hardly a religious belief. Likewise, if you want to argue that strong atheism entails no metaphysical or religious belief, then having some empirical evidence for the creation of existence would come in handy. Since you don't have that, it makes it more difficult to demonstrate that strong atheism is not entailing metaphysics.

Originally posted by Philosoft
The God-hypothesis also suffers from every ontological objection you can throw at the universe. Invoking Anselm or Kalaam is mere handwaving. Postulating God is adding unknowability on top of unknown.

How does this show that strong atheism does not entail metaphysics?

[JCS]

the belief that there is no god -- carries with it, it seems to me, serious metaphysical implications.
And what might they be?

You cannot simply say you don't believe in God and that, oh by the way, you are free of religious beliefs.
Why? Because you say so?:rolleyes:

If you believe there is no God, then are you not very much committing yourself to some other fundamental beliefs about the world?
No. I'm commiting myself to the fact that no evidence for any god has been demonstrated.

I understand there may be folks who say, "Gee, I just don't know." I am not referring to those folks. I'm referring to folks who say they believe there is no God.
Well let's see, gee I just don't know and oh by the way, I don't believe there is a god, since no god has been demonstrated.

Secondly, I am not saying "that to not believe in something when there is no evidence for that thing either way is somehow religious." Rather, I'm suspecting is religious is the belief that there is no God. You are very much believing in something (ie, there is no God), and that belief carries implications.
Ok, I'm not believing what you're believing, what are the implications? I don't attend weekly services reaffirming the lack of proof for any god claims. No bowing or praying to the lack of proof. No handbook needed for disbelieving unsubstantiated claims. There must be other implications that I'm missing, I guess that is one of the draw backs to disbelief, since no tenet is involved I keep forgetting what it is I'm suppose to adhere to.

Likewise, if I don't believe God created the world, since the world exists, my belief forces me to opt for some other explanation.
It does? Wow what a bummer. My lack of belief in your belief doesn't force me to do anything, must be part of that laidback feeling you get from being in CA.:D

[DMB]

CD: once again, if I say, "I do not believe it will rain today", that is not equivalent to saying, "I beli