Why Do Atheists Care About Religion?

youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg

I thought it was entertaining, didn’t know about a lot of those state laws. But it doesn’t take a genius to see the religious bias in our politics.

wow i didnt know that atheists were the least trusted minority.

i thought it was going to be from the other sides perspective. i was afraid for a second because i could think of dozens of reasons why an atheist should care about religion.

Definitely. Maybe it’s restricted to the individual (me), but I’m scared to even bring Dawkins new book, The God Delusion, to work with me…

Would it offend people? Of course, I think it would offend most. It’d be like bringing a book on Satan worship in the eyes of many, IMO.

oh jesus…

another propagandic “minority”.

Considering atheism is a religion you can tell what I think of this.

Not too long ago, the church controlled a large part of the entire nation. It’s going to take some time to make a shift in power.

I don’t think so, not by encyclopedic definition.

To be a religion, a philosophy must contain both of the following tenets: 1) a tenet of “souls” and 2) a tenet of before/after life. That’s all. A tenet of God does not make a philosophy a religion.

Atheism, by most definitions, merely means a philosophy with pretty much the sole and defining tenet that God does not exist.

The presence or absence of God as a tenet in a philosophy has no bearing on whether that philosophy is a religion.

Thus, logically, it would appear that atheism is not a religion.

Does this not make sense to you?

Atheism really isn’t a religion. Religion says “Such and Such God DEFINITELY Exists.” Atheism says “Such and such a god MIGHT exist, but is only as likely as all other superstitious entities such as unicorns, all other gods, tooth fairies…etc.”

Wrong.

There are some religions, a number we would categorize, perhaps, as “new age”, that don’t have a tenet of “God”.

Yet they qualify as a religion because they contain both of the religion-defining tenets: 1) the tenet of “souls” and 2) the tenet of before/after life.

A tenet of God does not qualify a philosophy as a religion and, indeed, has no bearing on whether the religion is a religion or not.

This is according to The Encyclopedia of Religion, which is the encyclopedic de facto standard in determining whether a philosophy is a religion.

Wrong.

Atheism’s sole and defining tenet is that God does not exist, period.

There’s no corrolary of “might” or any reference to the myths of other philosophies or religions.

You may be mistaking atheism for agnosticism.

I think JennyHeart is correct by definition, and OBW is correct by most people’s definition…

Either way, scythekain is wrong as always, and that makes my liver quiver.

:laughing: :laughing:
You funny. :wink:

Wrong.

Wrong.

One cannot prove a negative. Even Atheists know this. Probability is the game. One must admit the possibility, just as one must admit the possibility of there being a flying teapot orbiting the moon.

Agnosticism, as per the term coined by T.H Huxley is not a creed but a method. A principled methodology whereby equiprobable scenarios are sought out.

Good point obw. Richard Dawkins definitely makes this clear in The Blind Watchmaker, when he talks about the different scales of probability, from the odds of getting struck by lightning (on the more likely side of things), to the odds that a marble statue’s atoms would suddenly rearrange in a way that made it waive, and then go back to standing still (which scientists admit is possible, but not probable in the least).

It’s also [empiricism] 101 and no sensible atheist is going to define their beliefs via an impossibility.

Dawkins - great scientist, not a great philosopher. That’s why he and Dennett together are so formidable.

Certainly Dennett is the greater philosopher. Of course, he has a philosophy degree and a grounding in the classics, which I don’t think Dawkins has. Dennett has a better organizational style, too, and comes across with a bit more empathy.

Yes, a crucial point actually - Dawkins puts some people off with his cold style of presenting things. Dennett has the ‘concerned father figure’ down to a T. Inspiring, actually, to watch Dennett explaining things.

Your “wrong” is out of context, and therefore, meaningless. :wink:

With respect to the context you quote, it is your “wrong” that is wrong.

The definition of atheism is as I’ve stated it – that is reality. Don’t make me trot out Google “atheism definition”. :wink:

Whether you were cognizant of it or not, you were likely mistaking agnosticism for atheism … even if you knew better. :sunglasses:

Irrelevant.

Atheism, by nature, doesn’t “require proof” – it merely states ideologically.

Atheists are, by definition and with respect to reality, ideologists.

Ideologists aren’t focused on “proof”.

Thus what they “know” in “main memory” as they think on things with “reference” to atheism, is immaterial.

You’re waxing agnostic again. :laughing:

Such pulsating! :sunglasses:

An epistemologist absent an ontological base would “admit the possibility of there being a flying teapot orbiting the moon”. :unamused:

An ontologically based epistemologist would respect reality and sanely not give such a matter a moment’s consideration, rightly dismissing such substantive nonsensical “possibility” suggestions into the cateogory of fantasy. :sunglasses:

“Equiprobable” scenarios like a flying teapot orbiting the moon? :confused:

Such fantasy mistaken for “probable reality” suggests an ideology is at work. :sunglasses:

That was the point. :wink:

Wrong.

We’re doing Philosophy here, Jenny Dear. Would that you know it but your dictionary is o’er ‘flowit’.

Jenny - you’re projecting! Agnosticism, as per T.H huxley (you have a different version to offer? Tosh!) is the searching out of equiprobable scenarios. What, pray, is equiprobable about admitting possibility? Again, we’re doing philosophy here at ilovephilosophy.com! Not who has the bigger dictionary!

Welcome to understanding, does it feel warm and cozy? I do hope you’ll stick around.

Ah Jenny, no no, no no, no. A good example of agnositicism would be to be agnostic over the existence of alien life in the outer solar system. That is an equiprobable scenario. An Atheist marks his difference to an agnostic not by attempting to be just as dogmatic as the religious, but by saying the probability is such that the existence of God is on a par with any other superstitious entity. But don’t trust me - trust the NAS and the Royal Commonwealth Society - both of whom answered surveys that excluded the option of there absolutely being no god - even the surveyists, Jenny, know that atheists cannot prove a negative and wouldnt want to. Even the surveryists, Jenny! Do you know how low one has become if one’s understanding is beneath even that of a surveyist!? That the fellows of both org’s actively anwered the questions without complaint for the option of “absolutely/definitely no god” shows how ridiculous the suggestion is! (Cornwell and Stirrat, do look it up - as this is reality).

Obviously, it’s difficult to understand that the dictionary might not be 100% correct if a thesaurus is your only tutor.

:slight_smile:

i relate better to this and claim to be an atheist.

i wouldnt say im an agnostic because i have no plan at all in any future to practice a religion. i would more readily put God into the category of magical apes than believe he is divine.

atheism is moving in the direction of viewing things in scientific terms. that doesnt really categorize you into any ethical, philosophical or political group though unlike religion.

fortunately im still in college so i get to enjoy liberal teachers rip apart organized religions in from of theists. so as far as im concerned things are dandy. until people inconsiderately say that people without religion are immoral. then i get pissed… you bastards.

religion messes with science