Atheism: What's the point?

[Deus Malum]

Actually, on its face, it's a true statement.

Before a belief in gods existed, everyone was by definition an atheist. When the first god was posited, those who believed it in became theists.

So yes, in fact, god was created by atheists.

A LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time ago.

Therefore, according to your rationale, religion is the spawn of atheism. And now, there are far more religious people then there are atheists.

Religion is the spawn of atheists, certainly. Thousands and thousands of years ago when the mundane appeared mystical, and before reason and science took over the investigation of the natural world.
And now there are more religious people than atheists. Aaaaaand?

[Deus Malum]

So in that sense, God was the logical progression of a growing society.

That is interesting.....please do elaborate.

What he means is that for a primitive society where the mundane appeared mystical, it made sense to assume a pattern to events where a pattern may not have existed.

I.e. attributing lightning bolts to Zeus and thunder to Thor, and the natural fertility of the world to nature gods and goddesses frolicking and fucking in the woods (If you doubt that, I suggest you read some more mythology).

As reasoned investigation took over, the mystical steadily crept back to where it belonged, and we developed concepts such as electricity and gravity to explain what had previously been the province of the gods.

[Nuerek]

connected to what endail said, mythology is just the interpretation of one god split up in different forms

[Dyakovo]

connected to what endail said, mythology is just the interpretation of one god split up in different forms

[Nuerek]

Connected to what Enadail said, mythology is just the interprewtation of one god in many forms

[Deus Malum]

connected to what endail said, mythology is just the interpretation of one god split up in different forms

I'm confused, especially considering stories about singular gods still fall under the category of mythology.

[Secluded Islands]

No, it's by definition NOT centered on a belief system. That's the whole point
An atheist is one who LACKS a belief in a god or gods. Some atheists DO claim there is no god, but that is a stricter definition that excludes a larger group of atheists who simply lack belief.
Therefore, the baby, lacking a belief in pretty much anything, is an atheist.

call it what you will. atheist, agnistic atheist; it is all on how you define the word your using...

i will say babies are not atheist. ill call them "uncorrrupted" by any side and any definition...

Which is the debate equivalent of *fingers in ears* Wot? I can't hear ya!

no, *fingers in ears* means i refuse to listen, which is not the case. your using words to define a state of being that is uncorrupted to make a decision about the existence of god. call it atheist. thats fine. i'll call it something different. we can argue that all day. lets skip what label we give it. can a baby decide if god exists or not? i say no due to a lack of comprehension.

[Deus Malum]

call it what you will. atheist, agnistic atheist; it is all on how you define the word your using...

i will say babies are not atheist. ill call them "uncorrrupted" by any side and any definition...

Which is the debate equivalent of *fingers in ears* Wot? I can't hear ya!

no, *fingers in ears* means i refuse to listen, which is not the case. your using words to define a state of being that is uncorrupted to make a decision about the existence of god. call it atheist. thats fine. i'll call it something different. we can argue that all day. lets skip what label we give it. can a baby decide if god exists or not? i say no due to a lack of comprehension.

See the problem there is that there's already an existing definition. It's "lacking a belief in god(s)." Narrowing the definition down to help prove a point doesn't change that fact, anymore than calling an apple an orange changes its basic properties.
But you're mostly right, we really ARE arguing semantics at this point, and I'll let the issue go.

[Secluded Islands]

But you're mostly right, we really ARE arguing semantics at this point, and I'll let the issue go.

me too. still a good debate...

[Deus Malum]

But you're mostly right, we really ARE arguing semantics at this point, and I'll let the issue go.

me too. still a good debate...

Aye.

[Canuck Utopia]

So, one day a long, long time ago, an athiest baby grew into a man, and being bored decided to create God, and religion. The other athiests agreed that the concept of God was a good one, so they no longer were athiests. Then the descendents of the athiests, who created religion, decided that they needed to create a Bible and they gave God a son called Jesus Christ........

[Dyakovo]

So, one day a long, long time ago, an athiest baby grew into a man, and being bored decided to create God, and religion. The other athiests agreed that the concept of God was a good one, so they no longer were athiests. Then the descendents of the athiests, who created religion, decided that they needed to create a Bible and they gave God a son called Jesus Christ........

Overly simplistic, but essentially accurate.

[Enadail]

That is interesting.....please do elaborate.

I have 10 pages hand written on this subject, I should type it up some day

I'm going to start back in the stone age. Back then, science was non-existent, obviously. Humans saw natural phenomenons, and being unable to replicate them, considered them greater then themselves. Fire was the first controlled phenomenon, and being it allowed people to actually survive beyond the previous bounds, its mythicality grew. Over time, as societies actually formed, with hunter/gatherer societies grew, fire became a necessity, but along with it, nature. Without nature, these people had nothing, so they worshiped it. Again, as time progressed, some people used the deer a lot more then other animals, so they worshiped the deer in particular. Other societies choose other animals or multiple animals, and those that grew into more farming communities accepted the sun as the most important part of their lives, which without they would be nothing. Over time, humanity came to understand itself better, and began to anthropomorphized these natural beings, giving them human qualities (intelligence, humanish bodies, etc). As societies grew, more and more individuals grew to power, most often religious leaders, with control over their naturalistic religions. They embodied nature. Thus you get the start of naturalism in humans. As this progressed, people cared less about the nature, and more about the fact that this person could control nature (demi-god). Local tribes might have had crappy leaders, so they began to believe in the guy across the valley who could call lightning on a sunny day. Then a visitor to one of these villages carries the story back to their town. And the guys reputation grows, as well as what he can do (embellishment). Carry this forward a few hundred years, and you get a unified God concept.

[Deus Malum]

So, one day a long, long time ago, an athiest baby grew into a man, and being bored decided to create God, and religion. The other athiests agreed that the concept of God was a good one, so they no longer were athiests. Then the descendents of the athiests, who created religion, decided that they needed to create a Bible and they gave God a son called Jesus Christ........

And every other religion and theistic belief ever conceived by humans ever, as well as animistic spirits, mythological creatures, and macabre monsters. So yes, Jesus Christ, wendigos, fairies, and Thor.

Besides, consensus is generally that the first beliefs were animistic or polytheistic in nature, meaning they didn't create "God," they created gods.

[Deus Malum]

That is interesting.....please do elaborate.

I have 10 pages hand written on this subject, I should type it up some day

I'm going to start back in the stone age. Back then, science was non-existent, obviously. Humans saw natural phenomenons, and being unable to replicate them, considered them greater then themselves. Fire was the first controlled phenomenon, and being it allowed people to actually survive beyond the previous bounds, its mythicality grew. Over time, as societies actually formed, with hunter/gatherer societies grew, fire became a necessity, but along with it, nature. Without nature, these people had nothing, so they worshiped it. Again, as time progressed, some people used the deer a lot more then other animals, so they worshiped the deer in particular. Other societies choose other animals or multiple animals, and those that grew into more farming communities accepted the sun as the most important part of their lives, which without they would be nothing. Over time, humanity came to understand itself better, and began to anthropomorphized these natural beings, giving them human qualities (intelligence, humanish bodies, etc). As societies grew, more and more individuals grew to power, most often religious leaders, with control over their naturalistic religions. They embodied nature. Thus you get the start of naturalism in humans. As this progressed, people cared less about the nature, and more about the fact that this person could control nature (demi-god). Local tribes might have had crappy leaders, so they began to believe in the guy across the valley who could call lightning on a sunny day. Then a visitor to one of these villages carries the story back to their town. And the guys reputation grows, as well as what he can do (embellishment). Carry this forward a few hundred years, and you get a unified God concept.

Just link the fucking blog already.

(I'm serious.)

[Letat]

I suggest that atheism be viewed in the context of a person's entire worldview rather than as a religion. Sure, I have atheist listed under my religious views on Facebook - it's the word that best describes what I think about gods, but I hardly regard Facebook as a rigorous standard for how one ought to categorize a system of belief.

And at bottom, the difference between atheism and a religion is that one is an opinion, the other a system of belief. Atheism is a facet in a larger system of belief, religion tends to be comprehensive. Case in point: Theravada Buddhists do not believe in gods, neither do secular humanists. Both groups are atheist, but atheism is a very weak common thread. I think, however, there is a bit of linguistic ambiguity at work when we get into the "is atheism a religion" debate. Atheism by its dictionary definition is not a religion, merely an opinion.

However, usually when we're talking about Atheism as a religion, we are addressing a belief system, as people who can only be defined as "atheist" (as opposed to, say, Buddhist), adhere to a larger system of beliefs and explanations for the phenomena they experience. I hesitate to label it, though for myself I would suggest atheistic, scientific, secular humanism. I don't believe in gods, I believe in the relative competence of science to explain observed phenomena and accept the present conclusions of the scientific community to be the best explanation of said phenomena. The believer who would alter my viewpoint could take on this comprehensive belief system as being analogous to a religion, they could suggest that my atheism does not adequately account for the phenomena I observe.

In short, atheism is an opinion, merely a part of what comprises a comprehensive belief system. It is thus not a religion. However, "atheists" do adhere to comprehensive belief systems, and when religious posters describe atheism as a "religion," I believe they mean to engage the comprehensive belief system of those who cannot be better identified by any other belief system. While these belief systems are largely disunited, for many of these "Atheists-plus" do share certain common beliefs, for example a trust in the scientific process as the best way to arrive at the truth or a reasonable facsimile thereof, a disbelief in the existence of immaterial or supernatural entities. Whether such a constellation of opinions ought to be called a religion is something of an attempt to load the argument and render all metaphysical opinions essentially equal. I propose calling them something more neutral, like "comprehensive belief systems," if we're going to debate them, and evaluate them on their merits.

[Dyakovo]

I suggest that atheism be viewed in the context of a person's entire worldview rather than as a religion. Sure, I have atheist listed under my religious views on Facebook - it's the word that best describes what I think about gods, but I hardly regard Facebook as a rigorous standard for how one ought to categorize a system of belief.

And at bottom, the difference between atheism and a religion is that one is an opinion, the other a system of belief. Atheism is a facet in a larger system of belief, religion tends to be comprehensive. Case in point: Theravada Buddhists do not believe in gods, neither do secular humanists. Both groups are atheist, but atheism is a very weak common thread. I think, however, there is a bit of linguistic ambiguity at work when we get into the "is atheism a religion" debate. Atheism by its dictionary definition is not a religion, merely an opinion.

However, usually when we're talking about Atheism as a religion, we are addressing a belief system, as people who can only be defined as "atheist" (as opposed to, say, Buddhist), adhere to a larger system of beliefs and explanations for the phenomena they experience. I hesitate to label it, though for myself I would suggest atheistic, scientific, secular humanism. I don't believe in gods, I believe in the relative competence of science to explain observed phenomena and accept the present conclusions of the scientific community to be the best explanation of said phenomena. The believer who would alter my viewpoint could take on this comprehensive belief system as being analogous to a religion, they could suggest that my atheism does not adequately account for the phenomena I observe.

In short, atheism is an opinion, merely a part of what comprises a comprehensive belief system. It is thus not a religion. However, "atheists" do adhere to comprehensive belief systems, and when religious posters describe atheism as a "religion," I believe they mean to engage the comprehensive belief system of those who cannot be better identified by any other belief system. While these belief systems are largely disunited, for many of these "Atheists-plus" do share certain common beliefs, for example a trust in the scientific process as the best way to arrive at the truth or a reasonable facsimile thereof, a disbelief in the existence of immaterial or supernatural entities. Whether such a constellation of opinions ought to be called a religion is something of an attempt to load the argument and render all metaphysical opinions essentially equal. I propose calling them something more neutral, like "comprehensive belief systems," if we're going to debate them, and evaluate them on their merits.

Gah!!!
Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

[Colonic Immigration]

Ican'tbelieve this thread is still going.

[Minnas]

Gah!!!Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

But in lacking a belief, can't that in itself be a system?

[Deus Malum]

Gah!!!Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

But in lacking a belief, can't that in itself be a system?

How? Is lacking a belief in Bigfoot a belief system?

[Treznor]

Gah!!!Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

But in lacking a belief, can't that in itself be a system?

How? You're simply not buying into an idea. How is that a system?

[Minnas]

Gah!!!Atheism is not a religon. It is not a system of beliefs.
What atheism is, is a lack of belief.

But in lacking a belief, can't that in itself be a system?

How? Is lacking a belief in Bigfoot a belief system?

I'm just musing. People that lack a belief also have a system. The system of not believing, and, although I am not critisicing, they must constantly remind themselves that there's nothing to believe in.

[Treznor]

I'm just musing. People that lack a belief also have a system. The system of not believing, and, although I am not critisicing, they must constantly remind themselves that there's nothing to believe in.

Are you perhaps reading more into the atheist attitude than is really there?

[Allanea]

There is a difference between atheism and agnosticism.

I do not believe in God. I also do not believe in his absence. I have doubts about each option. That's agnosticism.

Atheism is the belief that the world lacks a God or similar supernatural component.

[Minnas]

I'm just musing. People that lack a belief also have a system. The system of not believing, and, although I am not critisicing, they must constantly remind themselves that there's nothing to believe in.

Are you perhaps reading more into the atheist attitude than is really there?

I might be doing that. /shrug
The truth is I believe in something and it's odd to see people who don't, although I can't critisice it.