Jethro tull is the most anti-religous, religous

Logan wrote: SteveG wrote: People have used the example of a flying spaghetti monster. One who believes in a God would not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Why believe in one and not the other? Because an omnipotent being that created the universe, a prime mover, if you will, is more sensible to them than flying monsters or invisible pixies. They would be false equivalencies. We're jumping around a bit. The flying spaghetti monster is a satirical joke, but it is conceivable that someone would believe that God is a flying spaghetti monster. That one thing is more sensible than another doesn't make it true. I like Russell's teapot as an analogy to the God claim: "If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes." The God claim is problematic to me because of its assumptive nature. I don't see the need for the assumption that God exists. And of course one might argue that if the universe required a god to create it that that god would have needed something to create it and so on and so on.

I probably do think about it more because I married a born again Christian and am acquainted with lots of fundamentalist Christians who bring up God very frequently (I don't tend to tell them about my lack of belief). My kids are atheists, though.

SteveG wrote: People have used the example of a flying spaghetti monster. One who believes in a God would not believe in the flying spaghetti monster. Why believe in one and not the other? Because an omnipotent being that created the universe, a prime mover, if you will, is more sensible to them than flying monsters or invisible pixies. They would be false equivalencies.

We're jumping around a bit. The flying spaghetti monster is a satirical joke, but it is conceivable that someone would believe that God is a flying spaghetti monster. That one thing is more sensible than another doesn't make it true.

I like Russell's teapot as an analogy to the God claim:

"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes."

The God claim is problematic to me because of its assumptive nature. I don't see the need for the assumption that God exists.

And of course one might argue that if the universe required a god to create it that that god would have needed something to create it and so on and so on.


Edited by Logan - April 25 2021 at 14:47

SteveG wrote: The Dark Elf wrote: Grumpyprogfan wrote: suitkees wrote: Atheism is not a religion, since it assumes the non-existence of any such kind of transcendental being (the negation of theism). Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in a transcendental being so why not Atheism? Oh, for crying out loud! Atheism does not have any patented tenets™ to enlightenment© like Buddhism. There are no commandments ("Thou shalt not have false idols upon thy non-existent altar"), there is no creation myth or messiah or deity. Nothing is worshipped in an effort to make wishes come true, or in hopes that there is some place post-mortem that is better than the miserable spot on earth you created for yourself. As humans, it is not necessary to have an avenging god, or the opposite negative and evil deity fanning the flames of hell, to do the right thing or to treat people with respect. I can say with fair certainty that atheists do not dwell on their atheism, try to adhere better to their atheism, or seek out other atheists to waste an hour or two on the weekend to sing praises of their atheism. Norse myth is very cool. What's not to like about one-eyed Odin or hammer-wielding Thor? There is something inherently and intriguingly human in the vices of the Greek Pantheon, with their jealousies, dislikes, infidelities and deceits. And what's not to like about Tolkien's Valar and the commensurate evils of Morgoth and Sauron? We are most often born into a religious belief system and eschew the myths that do not accord with that belief. Atheism recognizes them all as myths. Theism: the belief in the existence of a God. Atheism: the belief that no God exists. As both are systems of belief with no empirical evidence to prove their beliefs, in that regard they are similar. Both are intellectual wastes of time, in my opinion.

I said it already, but I think it better to think of it in terms of a lack of belief as a generalisation. Atheism is literally without theism. It is defined as "disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods". It does not necessitate the belief that no God or Gods exist. The hard atheist will strongly believe that no God or gods exist, the soft atheist will not believe in a God or Gods, but need not be convinced that no Gods exist either. there is a spectrum of atheism. In my instance as an atheist, it is that I do not know if there is or isn't a God or Gods (i.e. I am agnostic on that -- meaning lacking knowledge) but I am an atheist because I am without a theistic position (I don;t believe that there is a God, but that doesn't mean that I am certian that there is none). There is a difference between knowing something to be true and believing something.

I don't believe that pixies exist, but I didn't know that pixies don't exist. I am an an apixieist. I tend to take the position that the time to believe is when there is sufficient evidence to accept it the proposition. God is unfalsifiable. As already noted, one can be both an agnostic and an atheist.

Labels often don't matter much to me as long as we understand where we each are coming from, but it often does irritate me when people are dogmatic when it comes to labeling and seem unwilling to try to understand what another means.

I am an atheist due to my lack of confidence that a God or Gods exist. I lack belief in God. I am a non-theist, a non-believer. I do not worship my non-belief in a God or gods or claim to have knowledge about a God or gods.

Many atheists are also Humanists, and that has more in common with religions as that comes with a set of beliefs. It doesn't require worship, rites or rituals, but it has an ideological component.

Edited by Logan - April 25 2021 at 14:30

The Dark Elf wrote: Grumpyprogfan wrote: suitkees wrote: Atheism is not a religion, since it assumes the non-existence of any such kind of transcendental being (the negation of theism). Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in a transcendental being so why not Atheism? Oh, for crying out loud! Atheism does not have any patented tenets<span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">™</span> to enlightenment<span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">© like Buddhism. There are no commandments ("Thou shalt not have false idols upon thy non-existent altar"), there is no creation myth or messiah or deity. Nothing is worshipped in an effort to make wishes come true, or in hopes that there is some place post-mortem that is better than the miserable spot on earth you created for yourself. As humans, it is not necessary to have an avenging god, or the opposite negative and evil deity fanning the flames of hell, to do the right thing or to treat people with respect. I can say with fair certainty that atheists do not dwell on their atheism, try to adhere better to their atheism, or seek out other atheists to waste an hour or two on the weekend to sing praises of their atheism.</span> <span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;"> </span> <span style="font-family: Roboto, arial, sans-serif; font-size: 14px; text-align: center;">Norse myth is very cool. What's not to like about one-eyed Odin or hammer-wielding Thor? There is something inherently and intriguingly human in the vices of the Greek Pantheon, with their jealousies, dislikes, infidelities and deceits. And what's not to like about Tolkien's Valar and the commensurate evils of Morgoth and Sauron? We are most often born into a religious belief system and eschew the myths that do not accord with that belief. Atheism recognizes them all as myths.</span>

Theism: the belief in the existence of a God. Atheism: the belief that no God exists. As both are systems of belief with no empirical evidence to prove their beliefs, in that regard they are similar. Both are intellectual wastes of time, in my opinion.

Edited by SteveG - April 25 2021 at 14:01

Sacro_Porgo wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: Sacro_Porgo wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: Sacro_Porgo wrote: siLLy puPPy wrote: ^ yeah, i never really considered Sabbath satanic but they seem to be viewed by some as such. Now King Diamond and Coven? Yep. Just goes to show that a lot of folks don't bother to do their research before they start criticizing things they don't like.  That is unfortunately the case in just about everything these days. Sabbath actually had some seriously positive lyrics and really was more in the hippie love and peace realm. I guess lyrics such as "Pope on a rope" invoked a bit of wrath from Christians but once one really delves into the history of the Catholic Church, it doesn't take long to realize that THEY are the ultimate satanic cult of all. I mean... I did mention I'm Catholic right? Lol. I definitely don't agree with you about Catholocism being Satanic, but the Church definitely has more than its fair share of horrible, sacrilegious decisions in its long history (the crusades anyone?). So criticism, especially of the Church's history, is fine by me, so long as its well reasoned. I was raised Catholic but once i became a serious researcher of all things esoteric, all roads of evil lead to the Jesuits of the Vatican. That does not mean all Catholics are bad. Most are beautiful souls. What that means is that the hierarchy very much worships Lucifer and the fish god Dagon. It's a long, long story but if you want a simple reference. Just view the Vatican from above and it resembles a pregnant serpent giving birth to the anti-Christ. Christ consciousness has basically been hijacked by evil over the ensuing centuries. This is a huge field of study and one i can't elaborate much on here. Sorry for even bringing it up. I slipped! Last thing i want to do is insult somebody's beliefs :) Yeah I don't see a snake or anything, not sure where that comes from. Just looks like an ancient fortress wall surrounding a complex of buildings, the highlight being a rather large hybrid of a basilica plan and cross planned church with a wonderful baroque colonnade defining the piazza in front of it. I'm also a student of architecture in case that wasn't just made apparent, lol. Certainly I believe evil people have gotten to powerful positions in the Church in its history, and certainly there may be some there now. But I'm not willing to believe the whole Church has been under the control of actual Satanists for centuries. That sounds pretty far fetched to me.

suitkees wrote: Spaciousmind wrote: After all we are still just babies in nappies when it come to knowledge of how things work in nature and in our universe. Exactly! That's why humans invented gods: to explain the unexplainable. Some humans think there is only one such transcendental being. All that is religion. Many people cannot stand to "not know", so they invent(ed) explanations. ...

suitkees wrote: Atheism is not a religion, since it assumes the non-existence of any such kind of transcendental being (the negation of theism).

Buddhism is a religion that does not believe in a transcendental being so why not Atheism?



Edited by Grumpyprogfan - April 25 2021 at 10:21

I think it better to think of atheism as nonbelief in God or non-c0nviction when it comes to God. It is a lack of belief in the positive God proposition.

I don't believe that atheism is comparable to a religion (although religions are so varied). There are different kinds of atheists with many different beliefs just as there are many theists with different kinds of beliefs. Religion requires not just believing in God, but it is commonly about worshipping a God or gods and has set of beliefs to go with that. The one thing in common with atheists is that we lack belief or confidence in there being a God.

I too am an agnostic atheist. This is also known as weak or soft atheism and negative atheism. I am agnostic in that I don't know with any certainty if a God does or doesn't exist (the God proposition is I believe unfalsifiable) and I am an atheist in that I don't believe in a God or Gods as I have not been convinced that there is one. There have been times in my life where I have been more of an agnostic theist. I was raised in the Anglican church and some of that carries through.

Edited by Logan - April 25 2021 at 09:36