Atheism: Philosophically Redundant?

[Eedo Baba]

I don't believe in beliefs. Would I be considered an atheist? I always thought atheism was the belief that deities do not exist, but apparently atheism is a blanket term for many different systems of thought. Some may just lack belief in deities, in which case I find labeling such a category to be a bit excessive, kind of like inventing a word to describe people who aren't lawyers.

[BTGBullseye]

a word to describe people who aren't lawyers.

Humans...

[ProHypster]

I don't believe in beliefs. Would I be considered an atheist? I always thought atheism was the belief that deities do not exist, but apparently atheism is a blanket term for many different systems of thought. Some may just lack belief in deities, in which case I find labeling such a category to be a bit excessive, kind of like inventing a word to describe people who aren't lawyers.

 

I found the term:

 

Nontheism is a term that covers a range of both religious[1] and nonreligious[2] attitudes characterized by the absence of — or the rejection of — theism or any belief in a personal god or gods

[danielsangeo]

I don't believe in beliefs. Would I be considered an atheist? I always thought atheism was the belief that deities do not exist, but apparently atheism is a blanket term for many different systems of thought. Some may just lack belief in deities, in which case I find labeling such a category to be a bit excessive, kind of like inventing a word to describe people who aren't lawyers.

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. Atheists are those those that don't believe in deities. If you "don't believe in beliefs", that's something different from atheism because atheism deals strictly with the belief in deities (and not having said belief).

 

You're right that it might seem a bit excessive to have a word for people who don't believe (as people who aren't lawyers) but you have to understand that theism is a deeply ingrained thing far beyond someone's chosen profession. This is about worldview itself. And even that wouldn't be sufficient if there weren't a campaign of proselytization inherent in many religions.

 

I have been told, flat out, that I really DO believe in God and that I'm just lying when I say that I don't. I have been told, flat out, that I am going to suffer greatly if I don't believe. I have been told, flat out, that I am an immoral sonofabitch because I don't believe. I have been told, flat out, that I hate the God that I don't even believe exists. I have been told, flat out, that Christianity is the way to go and that America and her laws should be Christian-based, so no gay marriage, no naughty words on TV, nothing that would upset the delicate sensibilities of the poor, persecuted Christians that oppress anyone that they don't agree with. It is this really aggressive smear campaign against atheists (or other non-Christians) (at least in the United States) that have created the atheist movement and what is, in my opinion, harming many religions from Christianity to Islam.

 

You don't hear many attacks on Judaism or Buddhism from atheists and there's a gigantic, elephant-in-the-room reason for this:

 

They don't generally proselytize.

 

If this proselytizing didn't happen, you probably would not even know the term "atheist" or would only be vaguely aware of the existence of the word.

[BTGBullseye]

You don't hear many attacks on Judaism or from atheists

I hear them every time I go anywhere near any "science" history anything... It's called "Evolution".

[Doom Shepherd]

You don't hear many attacks on Judaism or from atheists

I hear them every time I go anywhere near any "science" history anything... It's called "Evolution".

 

No, you hear them because you're a denier, not a non-believer. The whole point of this discussion is that there's a difference between the two things.

 

It's the same as the way in which if you don't believe that the Holocaust happened, but you don't tell anyone, you won't be attacked and it will have little or no effect on your daily life...

 

...but if you run around nosing your way into every historical discussion saying that the history of WWII and the Holocaust shoudl not be taught in schools (or that equal time should be given to the "Hitler had some good ideas" theory), people are going to call you out as a freaking nutball.

[BTGBullseye]

It's the same as the way in which if you don't believe that the Holocaust happened, but you don't tell anyone, you won't be attacked and it will have little or no effect on your daily life...

 

...but if you run around nosing your way into every historical discussion saying that the history of WWII and the Holocaust shoudl not be taught in schools (or that equal time should be given to the "Hitler had some good ideas" theory), people are going to call you out as a freaking nutball.

Except your analogy fails in that there are witnesses still alive from the holocaust, and nobody witnessed the changing of one species into another.

[ProHypster]

It's the same as the way in which if you don't believe that the Holocaust happened, but you don't tell anyone, you won't be attacked and it will have little or no effect on your daily life...

 

...but if you run around nosing your way into every historical discussion saying that the history of WWII and the Holocaust shoudl not be taught in schools (or that equal time should be given to the "Hitler had some good ideas" theory), people are going to call you out as a freaking nutball.

Except your analogy fails in that there are witnesses still alive from the holocaust, and nobody witnessed the changing of one species into another.

 

I am afraid you are wrong, just think about genetically modifed food, swine, human made bees species... all different species from their originators.

[BTGBullseye]

I am afraid you are wrong, just think about genetically modifed food, swine, human made bees species... all different species from their originators.

All altered by man, intelligent design... NOT evolution.

[Axeldeath]

But what about when they seperated a group of flies and put them in two different enviroments, after a few years they tried to breed the two groups of flies together but the flies couldn't mate with each other. The inability for groups of different animals to mate with create viable offspring is the definition of species, yes? So these flies have split into two different species under the observation of scientists

[BTGBullseye]

But what about when they seperated a group of flies and put them in two different enviroments, after a few years they tried to breed the two groups of flies together but the flies couldn't mate with each other. The inability for groups of different animals to mate with create viable offspring is the definition of species, yes? So these flies have split into two different species under the observation of scientists

Is that couldn't or wouldn't?

 

Many species, given enough time and coexistence, will once again mate. Like different breeds of dogs.

[wheatley_cereal]

Many species, given enough time and coexistence, will once again mate. Like different breeds of dogs.

 

All dog breeds belong to one species: canis familiaris. This explains their ability to mate successfully.

[BTGBullseye]

Many species, given enough time and coexistence, will once again mate. Like different breeds of dogs.

 

All dog breeds belong to one species: canis familiaris. This explains their ability to mate successfully.

So what makes anyone believe that the different families came from the same origin species? And why do evolutionists use those weak breeding analogies as evidence of evolution?

[danielsangeo]

We use so-called 'weak breeding analogies' because the actual answer might not be as easily understandable. If you get traits from your mother and father, but you're different from either of them singularly, then that's evidence for evolution. We have provided evidence for speciation, as well. Altered by man or not, that's STILL EVIDENCE. Man is just another driving force beyond other natural elements such as geographical shifts or environmental necessities.

 

Why does the blind cave tetra have eyes when it's an embryo but it dies out when it grows up, leaving the fish blind? It doesn't need eyes to see because they are born, grow, live, and die in a pitch black cave. Why do humans still have vestigial tails? Why is the human eye INSIDE OUT?

 

Why can't a creationist ever answer these questions?

[ProHypster]

Why can't a creationist ever answer these questions?

 

What are you implying, I'll just find you a creationist scientist and he will explain it. ^^

[danielsangeo]

I'd love to hear the answers to these questions.

[ProHypster]

It will be the same answer as an atheist scientists one....

 

with the difference being an additonal "In the beginning there was God though"

[danielsangeo]

A creationist believes that God (or some other intelligent force) created all the animals on Earth as they are today and, therefore, no evolution. I would love for one of these folks to explain the coccyx.

[ProHypster]

In that case the answer will be unsatisfying to you since it's going to assume the prophecy books and Monotheism are correct and use the prophecy books' wording as facts to form the explanation.

 

Oh, and don't bother answering "Well that's blasphemy" or "That's unscientific" it is an opinion and nothing else. Yours is an opinion which is supported by most scientists and nothing else.

 

Just don't bother trying to understand creationalism, you have different reasoning to believe in monotheism.

 

EDIT: I forgot, also there is the other types of creationism which have nothing to do with the God most people believe in are merely attempts at a logical explanation of the world and are supported by the view of the philosopher how the world works. Often a change in the view of how the world works can change the philosophers religion.

[danielsangeo]

Actually, mine is an opinion supported not only by most scientists, but also evidence. We can watch the morphology of certain species change throughout the fossil record (from older fossils to newer fossils) and can deduce that one leads to another.

 

And before anyone complains about morphological observations (that is, looking at how things are shaped), let me remind you that YOU can deduce certain things from morphological observations. For example, what animal is this?

 

http://www.xmission.com/~emailbox/images/208.jpg

 

I'm sure that everyone knows what that is. And, there you go. Understanding an animal via its morphology. Just as those evil "evilutionists" do. This is how they get evidence of evolution.