Mailbag: Some People... Part 1
Subject: Re: I disagree with you
If one disbelieves in 'God or gods', then that is a philosophy. If you say that you disbelieve in something, then it is also true to say that you believe [that] something to not be true.
No, it doesn't. Disbelieve does not mean what Roland claims it means. Disbelieve can mean simply "not believe" or it can mean "reject belief in." Neither case is the same as "believe not to be true," and none of those three qualifies as a "philosophy" under any of the definitions typically listed.
I’m not entirely sure why people insist on trying to twist language in such ways when their errors should be obvious to everyone. Perhaps some are simply insecure with the idea of such a simple definition for atheism — after all, so long as it remains a simple absence of belief, the burden is on them to make a case for the existence of their god. Once they portray atheism as something else, though, they may feel that they can continue claiming that their god exists without having to do any real work to support their assertions.
I also take exception to your definitions of religion. As an atheist, you have no concept of what religion is.
This is patently absurd. There is nothing about atheism which prevents a person from understanding the definition of religion. First, there is no reason to think that there is anything about lacking a religion which would entail that a person wouldn’t understand what a religion is. I don’t have any dogs, but I have a concept of what a dog is and can define what a dog is. I don’t have any boats, but I have a concept of what a boat is and can define what a boat is. Why shouldn’t the same be true about religion?
Secondly, not all atheists are irreligious or at least were not always irreligious. Some religions are atheistic and many atheists were, at one time, religious theists. If there is something about religion which requires personal contact in order to understand it, then there is absolutely nothing about atheism which precludes that understanding.
If Roland disagrees with the definitions of religion I discuss, he is free to offer an argument - but the ad hominem argument that I as an atheist cannot comprehend religion won‘t work. Curiously, he never did try to offer that argument. He never did come up with any sort of substantive critique of the definitions I use.
I respect your right to your beliefs/non-beliefs, as God gives me the choice to believe or not believe.
Here we have the implicit claim that atheism is something chosen — this is a necessary premise for a great deal of Christian apologetics because as long as atheism is chosen, then atheists can be held morally accountable for their atheism. Atheism can be treated as a sin and atheists can be sent straight to hell. The fact of the matter is, though, that beliefs really aren’t chosen through acts of will in the same way that raising or lowering an arm is an act of will. Beliefs are products of a great deal of what goes on around us.
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
Take it into consideration, the possibility of the existence of God. Not a god. but God. Also ask yourself, “Do I know everything in the universe”. You sure dont. Now ask “Do I know half of everything in this universe?” No you dont. Ill stop there tho. Lets say that you know half of everything there is to know. Which you most certainly never will. But if you did, and you had no clue what existed in the other half, then would it be plausible to say that God may exist without you having a single clue? It takes FAITH on your part to claim that in that whole other half,there is no God.
And please, spare us all with your drivel about the “denomination” of atheism. Lets utilize Occam’s Razor here, and look at the fundamentals. Atheism means No God. You have no way to prove that, thus atheism becomes a religion, just like evolutionism.
Why? Is there any good reason to bother?
Not necessarily. It depends on how “God” is defined. Besides, one doesn’t have to say that “there is no God” in the whole universe in order to be an atheist. It’s nothing more than ego and arrogance for a person to imagine that atheists have to deny their god in particular in order to be atheists at all.
There are no “denominations” in atheism.
No, atheism means no theism. Theism is belief in the existence of at least one god of some sort; atheism, then, means no belief in the existence of any gods.
First, your conclusion is invalidated by an incorrect premise. Once we have the correct definition of atheism, we find that there is no claim to prove. Second, the inability to prove something doesn’t mean that one has a religion — you are defining religion just as incorrectly as you defined atheism. Finally, there is no such thing as “evolutionism.” The scientific of theory of evolution, in contrast, is no less secure and proven than any other scientific theory — like plate tectonics and the germ theory of disease. You don’t appear to know any more about evolution than you do about atheism.
Please, the next time you have the urge to write something, do some homework first in order to ensure that you at least have the basics clear.
There’s no need to prove that there is no god since no one has ever proved that there is a god. How can you prove that something that doesn’t exist doesn’t exist.
Just because someone believes in something doesn’t mean it is a religion. It is possible for evolution to be disproved. However, religion is so fantastic that no disproof is possible. How do we not know that God is a purple cow?
Did you even graduate high school? The last half of your last sentence is a non sequitur.