Atheism

What are you views on atheism?
Would you consider atheism to be a religion?

Atheism definition- The belief that there is no god.

Why or why not are you an atheist?

Bi0Hazard: Well, I consider myself to be an atheist for what it is worth.

I'd consider a religion to be a positive metaphysical belief system. Since atheism is a negative belief (ie a denial of a belief) it shouldn't be called a religion.

I am an atheist because the only bit of religion that holds any value for people is morality, and you don't need metaphysics for morality. So believing in the rest makes little sense, especially when it's largely illogical.

admin: You do know you don't have to believe in a God to hold a metaphysical stance on the nature of the universe?

Generally you use the term metaphysics improperly, and the word "religion" is more fitting. It is strange that you always misuse the word, because metaphysical philosophy has been popular for thousands of years, and anyone who reads any philosophy for that matter knows how to apply the term correctly.

Bi0Hazard: I am glad you used that definition, because they changed it a lot recently because many atheists (practically all of them fit the definition of agnosticism, and they wanted to stick to their label.

The universe is beyond our immediate understanding. There is no evidence that a God does not exist, so holding an atheistic belief is starting from a position of incredible ignorance. It also comes from a position of arrogance, but I wont go into that now..

I am an atheist because the only bit of religion that holds any value for people is morality, and you don't need metaphysics for morality.

@admin

That justification is dealing with the merits of worship, not the validity of the claim that a God does not exist.

and although I don't want to get off topic, but only a non utilitarian morality system can exist in religion. Any selfless morality for an atheist would either be intentionally non-rational or due to the spirit.

Crow: Yes I do, and I was using God as a mere example. I don't believe in any metaphysics.

Crow: Recently I've been feeling like agnosticism makes less and less sense to me as a label. My reflection is the very fact that there is a label implies an active opinion.

For what it's worth, I think people should dismiss any idea they don't have cause to accept. That's logical to me. Specific conceptions of God, of course, can be easily disproved if they can be defined. But in general, I don't have reason to accept, say, ghosts, so I actively disbelieve (ie hold a negative belief) on the topic.

I totally agree with not going off topic, without conceding the point.

admin: Again, you just used it in an incorrect context.

There is always one definitive metaphysical reality. You cannot disbelieve in metaphysics, since it is a category of thought. You can only have no active opinion on the subject of metaphysics.

It would be like if I said, "I don't believe in any economics"

Crow: Sure you can disbelieve in economics. You'd be empirically wrong because we can prove money has social consequences (which is what economics studies) but you could still disbelieve in it.

Recently I've been feeling like agnosticism makes less and less sense to me as a label. My reflection is the very fact that there is a label implies an active opinion.


Atheism is the one that is maintaining an active opinion.

For what it's worth, I think people should dismiss any idea they don't have cause to accept. That's logical to me

That is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard.

You are literally saying that I should put my fingers in my ears and chant la-la whenever somebody wants to discuss a theory.

That is the definition of ignorance. Do you know the difference between being dismissive and being skeptical?

admin: Okay, you may be too slow to get this.

There is one metaphysical reality. Even if you said that there is no metaphysical reality, that in itself would be a metaphysical reality. What you said was an oxymoron.

@admin

I want to correct you too. Atheism is not actually even being dismissive of God. Atheism actively denies the existence of God.

E.G " The belief that there is no god "

Crow: I wish you'd reply in all one post. Makes it easier for me.

Happy to discuss theories, doesn't mean I'll accept them without evidence. Just because you disbelieve something doesn't mean you shouldn't be open to changing your mind. I disbelieve in plenty of things but I research them anyway in a lot of depth. Of course I know the difference, but skepticism must begin from a null, and that null is a disbelief. That's the foundation of science.

If people did not exist, neither would economics. The lack of an economy does not imply economics.

"Belief" is taken here in a negative sense. The same sentence could be rendered in the active voice ie "The non-belief in god" and be grammatically equivalent. Sure it's an active denial, but then, that doesn't necessarily imply an active acceptance of the lack of a god either. Which is not to say that agnosticism cannot exist as a separate opinion, BTW. It's only one that I think is difficult for anyone to ascribe to themselves.

Happy to discuss theories, doesn't mean I'll accept them without evidence.

Fair enough, but atheism is not being skeptical or even being dismissive. It is taking a position of its own without evidence.

The argument happens to be, "There is no evidence for God, so God doesn't exist." We both know that argument is a fallacy.

If people did not exist, neither would economics. The lack of an economy does not imply economics.

If this is in reference to metaphysics, then I will take one more stab at spelling it our for you...

Do you believe humans exist? Do you believe humans stop existing when they die?

If you say yes or no to either of those questions, then you believe in a metaphysical stance.

Crow: It's not a fallacy. That's how empiricism works. Hence the raven paradox with how observing non-black non-ravens increase the odds that all ravens are black. Seems illogical until you think about it.

I think you're conflating physics and metaphysics. I can have a purely physical position on those questions without any reference to a metaphysical one.

@Stag removed doubled comment (presumably accidental)

admin: It's not a fallacy. That's how empiricism works.

God, please do not talk about things you do not understand.

Not observing something is not considered empirical evidence, you dummy. Come on, you can't be for real here?

I never seen the nation of New Zealand, so by your logic, my lack of observation is empirical evidence that New Zealand doesn't exist.



I reserve gifs for extreme cases of stupidity.

I think you're conflating physics and metaphysics. I can have a purely physical position on those questions without any reference to a metaphysical one.

No, I am not conflating the two at all.

Metaphysics is the study of what composes the universe and how the universe operates. Existence, time, reality, perception, ect. All those things fall under the study of metaphysics.

That is why it sounds so idiotic when you say, "I don't believe in any metaphysics." Like I have been saying for months, you have displayed you do not know what metaphysics actually are.

Crow: Again, do you understand the raven paradox? If not, don't talk about things YOU don't understand.

So do you believe Einstein was a physicist or a meta-physicist when he came up with the theory of space-time?

admin: CS Lewis actually used precisely that example, as an aside. In Mere Christianity he said that New York's existence was for him largely premised on faith, and that therefore, empiricism should not be taken as an absolute from a logical standpoint.

admin: First off, are you trying to weasel out of 90% of what was being discussed?

Einstein came up with a theory that matches the definition of metaphysics. Metaphysics were used by physicians, Einstein included, to prove their theories. Physics was used by metaphycicians to prove their theories. They are complementary fields.

Now seriously. Stop this idiocy. It is too much, I haven't seen anything like it in ages.

admin: CS Lewis actually used precisely that example, as an aside. In Mere Christianity he said that New York's existence was for him largely premised on faith, and that therefore, empiricism should not be taken as an absolute from a logical standpoint.

Just a contention against maintaining God exists.

Has nothing to do with maintaining the position that God doesn't exist. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist, not even empirical evidence. Non-observation is not empirical evidence (which was really stupid of you too say btw)

On a slightly related note, true empiricism is enitrely individual, because the philosophers that came up with the concept maintained that knowledge was not based on priori.