GreatBongChicken (great name). You misunderstand how (not why) someone is an atheist. There isn’t a set of beliefs you must subscribe to, it is a name for those who don’t have belief.  A person is called an atheist because he doesn’t believe in gods, he doen’t disbelieve because he is an athiest. You can’t be the wrong kind of athiest. There is no dogma as such. 

It is the same position as you may take on pink unicorns. Your faith does not mean you CAN’T believe, it’s just that you consider it INCORRECT to believe because you have no evidence.

Distant Claws:I think it depends on the angle you look at it, because there’s more than one version of atheism and theism, common to both:
-simple belief in a religion or atheism - If you conclude that that’s the way things are without complete unquestionable proof/logic/personal experience that this is definitely how things are, sometimes this can be used in conjunction with the next point
-self categorisation, but due to the nature of categorisation, using pre-set limits probably won’t fit exactly with yourself and the limits can be arbitary, but it is a strong force in society, and that certain categories of people (ie people of certain jobs) should always hold certain views, which isn’t 100% true, and for those who do deviate it’s often significant deviation
-what best fits your current logical model of how things are and best explains stuff like NDE’s and the more everyday stuff that doesn’t really register, and both theism and atheism are used here too

I would definitely agree.

-James’

Does anyone know what Conservapeida’s definition of Atheism is?

I’m having a hard time believing that Tom is the same “Looking4Truth” from all those months ago. You would think that anyone with even a passing familiarity with this site wouldn’t be so quick to assume that we would bend over and accept blatant proselytizing (or become so childishly indignant when we don’t).

As I recall, L4T posting something on Rapture Ready about having found a site full of atheists that are highly resistant to the gospel.

I do not recall him using the name Tom, but that’s the name that popped up on his personal site, whatever it was.

In summary, I can well believe it’s the same person. I suppose it’s an itch he has to scratch.

elwedriddsche(strange name):To stay with the baldness metaphor, just because some bald people discuss certain abhorrent hairstyles, are sick and tired of being called bad persons by the coifs, and modest numbers join bald pride organizations, it still doesn’t follow that baldness is a hair color.

Ahem…

Baldness is the absence of hair… it can’t be a hair color.  There is no hair.

Atheism, by some definition is belief that God does not exists.  So, it can be a religion/stance on the supernatural/divine.

Agnosticism better describes the absence of belief, or stance.

: |

-James’

So, I believe that Pluto is a planet, so is that my religion?

Elwed, I’m well aware it’s the same guy. I just can’t believe he’d be so...dense. We know logic isn’t his strong suit, but I didn’t expect him to also fare so miserably when it came to certain social skills.

Last Hussar:GreatBongChicken (great name). You misunderstand how (not why) someone is an atheist. There isn’t a set of beliefs you must subscribe to, it is a name for those who don’t have belief.  A person is called an atheist because he doesn’t believe in gods, he doen’t disbelieve because he is an athiest. You can’t be the wrong kind of athiest. There is no dogma as such.

It is the same position as you may take on pink unicorns. Your faith does not mean you CAN’T believe, it’s just that you consider it INCORRECT to believe because you have no evidence.

According to Wikipedia, the official definition given first is

Atheism is the disbelief[1] in the existence of any deities.[2] It is contrasted with theism, the belief in a God or gods

Second one,

the positive belief that deities do not exist, or as the deliberate rejection of theism

So by some definition, it can be a religion.  But not a faith, or a theistic view.

-James’

So, I believe that Pluto is a planet, so is that my religion?

Does Pluto being a planet have anything to do with the Supernatural/divine/God or Gods/Goddesses?

If not then no… but if it does, then yes.

-James’

TheGreatBongChicken - If we’ll go with the use of the categories as theories (more credible than just belief) I would say that:
-Atheism is a theory with a view concerning the existance of god, and therefore in my view counts as a ‘hair colour’
-Agnosticism is a theory that existance might be possible and isn’t provable either way, although it leans on undecided, it commits ‘undecided’ forward as it’s ‘hair colour’ because it does have an opinion that god’s existance might be possible
-Secularism is the only thing in my view that isn’t a ‘hair colour’, because it’s the only thing that doesn’t engage with the issue, it is, by definition non-religous - reminds me of race and sexuality issues - you can only make a truely non-discriminatory decision concerning it when it isn’t an issue in the decision

Hmm.... if I understand you correctly, then yeah.  Makes sense.

-James’

GBC,

Note, the official definition first.

There’s your problem - there is no official definition of atheism. Nor is there a universally accepted one.

Baldness is the absence of hair… it can’t be a hair color.  There is no hair.

Well done. Atheism is not a religion, either.

Atheism, by some definition is belief that God does not exists.  So, it can be a religion/stance on the supernatural/divine.

And by some other definition, it’s the lack of the positive belief that gods exist. To point out the obvious, holding a position—even an uncommitted one—with regards to religious claims does not constitute a religion in and by itself.

If it makes you happy to claim that atheism is a religion, feel free. I just haven’t yet heard a coherent argument in support of such a claim.

There’s your problem - there is no official definition of atheism. Nor is there a universally accepted one.

Since there’s no official definition, that you agree that it could be a Religion?  And the absolute statement about it being like calling baldness a hair color is incorrect?

Well done. Atheism is not a religion, either.

Um… I don’t understand what you’re saying.  I didn’t say it is… and you can not say it is not if there is no official definition.  It could be, it may not be. 

: |

And by some other definition, it’s the lack of the positive belief that gods exist. To point out the obvious, holding a position—even an uncommitted one—with regards to religious claims does not constitute a religion in and by itself.

If it makes you happy to claim that atheism is a religion, feel free. I just haven’t yet heard a coherent argument in support of such a claim.

Please, consider the above.  I didn’t say it is, I said it could be.  You are saying it is not.  That is going against the point you are trying to make against me.  When you make a point, you have to apply it to your arguments to.

-James’

Buzz - So, I believe that Pluto is a planet, so is that my religion?

It’s difficult to define at what point something takes on the defintion of planet, it’s arbitarily decided by people, it’s also working on something that we are fully aware of existing

http://www.conservapedia.com/Atheism

Um… there does not appear to be a Conservapedia… I assume this was meant to be a joke?

-James’

GBC, first get everyone to agree on what a true Christian is, then we can call an atheist the opposite of that. It really doesn’t matter to me that you can find definitions to assert that atheism is a religion or a disbelief in God. I can provide almost as many that say atheism is a lack of belief in a God.

Since religion is the dominant religion in the US and many who write dictionaries are believers in God, they’ll tend to skew a definition to their comfort levels.

You’re just playing the old game of “I know I am but what are you?” Pee Wee Herman plays it better than you ever could.

Brock… I never said it is.  Do you agree that it “could be?”

Your statement was ridiculous if you do.  What’s the matter?  I’ve made ridiculous statements before, it’s quite the common thing.  Afraid to admit it?  To assert or make an absolute claim on something you believe can not be absolutely settled is ridiculous.  Baldness is not something we aren’t sure of, it’s pretty obvious that when someone’s bald, they don’t have hair.  But the definition of Atheism seems to be unclear, so it could be a religion.  Do you agree?

Could it be a Religion?  Is it possible?  Are you absolutely sure it’s not?  Are you absolutely sure bald people don’t have hair?

: |

-James’

What amuses me most about L4T/Word/Tom is that twice now the Akismet comment spam system I’m useing here has marked comments he left as potential spam and asked me if I wanted to delete them. That includes his second to last comment wherein he left a single link. In other words, his preaching is seen as comment spam by SEB’s anti-spam tools.

Well, if nothing else, we’ve established that we’re both very firm in our beliefs. Reading the opening and closing paragraph of an article, without looking at the meat of the arguments presented, is perhaps the height of close-mindedness.

As the owner of this blog I get a lot of links thrown at me both in the comments and in email, but I make an honest attempt to read most of them and that includes the one you sent above. Don’t assume that just because one or two people say they skimmed the link that all of us did.

Though after reading it I can’t blame the folks who did skim it.

The logic of the arguments presented is what drove me to share it, since this crowd insists on logic,logic,logic.

As others have already pointed out, the only logic in that piece was completely circular.

First let’s start by examining the credentials of the author of your academic piece, Professor William Lane Craig. Here’s a short bio from his Wikipedia entry:

William Lane Craig (born August 23, 1949) is an American philosopher, theologian, New Testament historian, and Christian apologist. He is a prolific author and lecturer on a wide range of issues related to the philosophy of religion, the historical Jesus, the coherence of the Christian worldview, and natural theology. He is married and lives in Atlanta, Georgia, and is currently a Research Professor of Philosophy at Talbot School of Theology, Biola University in La Mirada, California.

Imagine that. He’s a philosopher, theologian, New Testament historian who’s currently working as a Research Professor of Philosophy at the Talbot School of Theology.

Am I supposed to be surprised that he thinks he’s proven that Jesus’ resurrection actually happened? Do you think he might just be a tad bit biased in his opinion?

Beyond that the article itself provides no evidence outside of the Bible—which it assumes is historically accurate and that all the witnesses cited actually existed and actually saw what they claim to have seen. Because no one could possibly have made that up in their heads, right? It then uses circular logic to make its point based on this faulty assumption.

I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you cited the article without really reading it closely.

It seems if I present the gospel, I’m blown out of the water.

If you don’t provide us with any reason to accept it as being true then, yeah, you’re going to get blown out of the water. The same thing would happen if you were to throw quotations from Douglas Adams’s Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy at us and try to claim that they were the infallible truth as well.

As an aside, did anyone else find it hilarious that L4T/Word/Tom used Douglas Adams as an example considering that Adams was self-described “radical atheist” himself?

One analogy that Adams put forward on the subject of religion was that of the “sentient puddle”. This analogy is intended to refute the suggestion that the existence of God and His love for mankind would be proven by the fact that the world is perfectly designed for our needs. He compared such thinkers to an intelligent puddle of water. He said the puddle is pleased with itself and certain that the hole in the ground it occupies must have been designed specifically for it since it fits so well in it. The puddle looks up to the sun above and worships its divine benefactor. The fate of the puddle is to exist under the sun until it has entirely evaporated.

Continuing on with Mr. Multiple Personality Disorder:

If I present any personal thought, I’m personally ridiculed.

We’ve not seen a lot of personal thought from you, just a lot of preaching. If you came up and said something like: I don’t know, and maybe I’m wrong, but even with what I know about the universe I have a hard time not believing in idea of God and the Christian God is the one that makes the most sense to me. Then I think a lot of us would just let it slide, though KPG might not as he tends to be somewhat hostile to declarations of faith.

I can say for myself that my immediate response would probably be: “Whatever floats your boat, Tom.” I can say that because I have plenty of friends who are believers in different religions and we’ve had that conversation. One of my best friends, he posts here on occasion as JethricOne, is a Christian that I can have long and enjoyable conversations on God, religion, and the nature of belief without it ever getting heated. He’s different in that he realizes full well that he could be entirely wrong in his beliefs just as I could be. In that respect we’re on common ground.

You don’t do that, though. Instead you come here and tell us more or less the following: “God is real. He is a fact. He is proven by this book called the Bible. He loves you and wants you to be happy. You are not worthy of God’s love for you are an evil, evil creature thanks to the actions of one of your ancestors a couple of thousand years ago. As a result if you don’t believe in God then he will send you to Hell for eternity. This is all absolutely true and you are wrong for not believing it.”

We’ve heard that all before. A lot. More times than I care to recount. There’s nothing in that to give us any reason to accept it as truth other than you honestly believe it’s true. We don’t know you from Adam’s cat. You could be batshit crazy and hallucinating for all we know. You could also be the nicest and most sincere person on the planet, but sincerity and niceness doesn’t prove jack shit about reality. It just tells us that you’re nice and sincere and probably gullible.

If I present any outside links (even when it pertains to the original story posted), it’s disregarded without being digested.

See my previous comment about not assuming everyone here skims your links just because a couple of people do. Also keep in mind that for every regular commenter at SEB there’s probably a couple of dozen lurkers who follow links and consider for themselves how worthwhile they are regardless of what the regulars think.

I’m seeing that this forum exists (the religious pieces) simply as a place to mock True Believers. Hence, my recent bible quote about mockers.

As JulianP pointed out, you forgot the trademark on that True Believer. There is a difference between people who truly believe and the True Believers™.

The former are nice people whom we don’t tend to have much of a problem with. People like my aforementioned friend JethricOne and fellow blogger ***Dave. There’s not much to mock with these folks because they don’t tend to push their beliefs at the rest of us as absolute truth that we have to accept. They’re also perfectly willing to let us find our own way in life and they lead by example rather than by preaching to us.

The latter are folks like Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Sen. Sam Brownback and you. We tend to have problems with the latter people and we tend to mock them as a result. Usually because they’re so mockable. These sorts aren’t satisfied with simply living the good Christian life, but want to have everyone else live it as well. Whether they want to or not and many of them are willing to enlist the Government’s help in forcing it upon others if they can.

Les asked why my first instincts when I show up here is to act like an ass. After giving that question some serious thought, I’ve come to the conclusion that anyone posting here suggesting that the gospel is true will be considered an ass.

Here’s the problem: You didn’t suggest it was true. You stated it as though it were true. You assumed that we hadn’t considered the possibility that it might be true.

Yeah, yeah, go ahead and tell me that it’s my personal style that you’re all having a problem with.

All I can tell you, Tom, is that there are plenty of believers who comment here that manage not to incur the wrath of the SEB regulars in the same way you did. ***Dave drops by every day and comments here and there. JethricOne has occasionally even tried to playfully get rise out of folks and managed to walk away unscathed (usually because it’s all too clear he’s joking).

Sounds like a personal style issue to me.

I don’t think so. I believe that it’s impossible to present the fact that people are sinners needing salvation without raising defenses.

As Elwed pointed out, your mistake is in claiming your belief that people are sinners in need of salvation is a fact. Simply because you believe that to be true doesn’t make it true.

There are two parts to the gospel. A) You’re a filthy sinner in God’s eyes. B) Despite that, He loves you and provides a way to become righteous anyhow.

Makes God sound like a sanctimonious prick. “You aren’t worthy of my love you filthy sinner, but I feel sorry for you so I’ll love you anyway.” What a fucked up world view to have.

So, if someone listens to A, but rejects B, all they’re hearing is - “You’re bad.”

So you’re saying that being a “filthy sinner” isn’t bad? Wow, whodathunkit.

Would they go on to accept B, they would then reevaluate the giver of the news, and say “Hey, I hated to hear it, but thanks for letting me know that I needed salvation.’ If that doesn’t happen, it’s only natural to feel resentment.

Actually even if I accepted B I’d feel a lot of resentment. I’m only A because God decided that’s the way it should be.

So, I guess I need to realize that being looked at as an ass is O.K. I think I’ll get a t-shirt that says “Ass for God.”

I suppose that’s one approach, but I’d suggest you try not being an ass to begin with.

Wonder if they sell them at the local Christian gift shop?

I’ll sell you one. I can make it up pretty damn quick and put it on my Cafe Press shop. Just because you’re a True Believer™ doesn’t mean I won’t be happy to sell you stuff.

GBC: Um… there does not appear to be a Conservapedia… I assume this was meant to be a joke?

GBC - it was a link Buzz asked for, conservapedia was discussed not long ago in a different thread - a conservative spin on wikipedia that we had fun mocking. I will admit, conservapedia is very slow, whenever I’ve looked, it may have simply timed out on your browser

Brock: GBC, first get everyone to agree on what a true Christian is

I say someone who takes the bible as absolute truth, for me only fundies count as the ‘True BelieversTM’, those less in the grasp of fear-through-faith and consequently more open minded and reasonable deserve more credit

I’ll submit this before reading Les’s comment and come back - this is a fast growing thread

Oh come one Les…
Nothing to say about your old Pal TheGreatBongChicken?

Don’t remember me?

-James’

I say someone who takes the bible as absolute truth

Yeah, that describes me, but others may disagree, possibly just to intentionally make it less definable.  Not that I want to turn this into a debate about my beliefs, let’s stick to the topic here.

-James’

GBC - Perhaps the crux of the disagreement here isn’t in the definition of the word atheist, but rather in the definition of the word religion.

Off the top of my head, without resorting to any dictionary (because like anything else, dictionaries hold the bias of whomever compiled them:

Religion is a belief system constructed on faith without evidentiary basis, designed to explain the unexplainable. In the earliest of days, religions were used to explain why the sun rose and why rain fell from the sky. That eventually expanded to include such things as where did we come from and where do we go when we die. It has, at its very core, a firm belief that there are answers to these questions that are supernatural in nature.

Atheism does not qualify. It maintains that there is no need to posit a supernatural answer, that all such questions can and will eventually be answered by science.

Double dipping because The Great Bong Chicken suddenly decided to show up again…

What would you call Atheism?  The absence of Religious beliefs?

The best definition I’ve ever seen for atheism can be found here. A small snippet:

“What is atheism?”

Atheism is characterized by an absence of belief in the existence of gods. This absence of belief generally comes about either through deliberate choice, or from an inherent inability to believe religious teachings which seem literally incredible. It is not a lack of belief born out of simple ignorance of religious teachings.

Some atheists go beyond a mere absence of belief in gods: they actively believe that particular gods, or all gods, do not exist. Just lacking belief in Gods is often referred to as the “weak atheist” position; whereas believing that gods do not (or cannot) exist is known as “strong atheism.”

Regarding people who have never been exposed to the concept of ‘god’: Whether they are ‘atheists’ or not is a matter of debate. Since you’re unlikely to meet anyone who has never encountered religion, it’s not a very important debate…

It is important, however, to note the difference between the strong and weak atheist positions. “Weak atheism” is simple scepticism; disbelief in the existence of God. “Strong atheism” is an explicitly held belief that God does not exist. Please do not fall into the trap of assuming that all atheists are “strong atheists.” There is a qualitative difference in the “strong” and “weak” positions; it’s not just a matter of degree.

Some atheists believe in the nonexistence of all Gods; others limit their atheism to specific Gods, such as the Christian God, rather than making flat-out denials.
“But isn’t disbelieving in God the same thing as believing he doesn’t exist?”

Definitely not. Disbelief in a proposition means that one does not believe it to be true. Not believing that something is true is not equivalent to believing that it is false; one may simply have no idea whether it is true or not. Which brings us to agnosticism.

It goes on to define agnosticism as well. Consult the link if you’re curious.

I’ll skip reprinting the bit from Wikipedia you quoted…

So, Atheism is definitely not a “faith”, but you could call it a religion.  It is a stance on the supernatural, theology, and divine beings…

... and ask how the hell you derive the possibility that Atheism could be a considered a religion based on the Wikipedia quote? Did you not read it? It doesn’t say anything about Religion being a “stance” on the supernatural. Rather it says that religions consist of “a set of beliefs and practices ... involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience.”

Please explain to me what practices, rituals, mystic experiences and codified beliefs are involved in being an atheist?

Agnosticism, is not a Religion though because it makes no claims regarding the supernatural, it is simply a position… or the absence of a position?

Agnosticism certainly does make a claim regarding the supernatural: It claims that either there isn’t enough data to know the answer or that the answer is unknowable. By your rather odd definition of religion merely being a stance on divine beings then agnosticism is as much a religion as atheism is.

Bald though, is not a hair color because there is no hair to be colored. But Atheism can be a Religion because it has an official statement or belief regarding the supernatural “There is no God.”

That bit of nonsense actually made me laugh out loud. Try again.

GBC: Not that I want to turn this into a debate about my beliefs, let’s stick to the topic here

OK, when you’re ready to discuss, until then I won’t force the issue because it won’t work properly anyway because it would put me in the wrong somewhat making it more difficult (though not affecting the validity of the points)

Oh come one Les…
Nothing to say about your old Pal TheGreatBongChicken?

That’s asking for trouble, and if you wind people up you have to be ready to take some retaliation as part of the deal and respect people for not siezing on the oppertunity to retaliate, but Les probably is reading anyway and picking quotes ready for comment when needs be, sometimes it’s easier to deal with things in a mega-comment when the issue is a big, wide spanning thing. The above quote can also be used to make it look like you’re looking for attention

Before giving the definition of Atheism I gave the definition from Wikipedia of religion.  The definitions are well balanced on Wikipedia, and I often see references used by people on this site and nobody ever complains.

To put it briefly,
It is a set of beliefs or a stance regarding the supernatural.  Not necessarily belief in the supernatural, but in regards to the supernatural.

I certainly say that the peer reviewed Wikipedia is more reliable than your definition.  If they are biased to the many authors, than your one definition is biased.

You have made another absolute statement regarding this issue.  You say it “does not qualify.” If you believe that the definition of Atheism and Religion are unclear, than you can’t disagree with my statement(Atheism could be a Religion) or hold to yours(that it isn’t/doesn’t qualify.)

In defending a single comment, you have backed this discussion into a corner where nothing can be defined… I’m right no matter what because I didn’t give an absolute claim, I said it could.

: |

-James’