There is no God bus slogans

[Badjelly]

Jrandom came up with a marvellous description of the distinction on another thread. I'll see if I can track it down.

Ah, here it is

But, yes, any further discussion of the definitions of 'atheist' and 'agnostic', the differences between the statements "the supernatural is simply ridiculous fairy tales based upon no evidence whatsoever" and "the supernatural is unknowable and therefore uncommentable upon", etc, should be taken over there.

Where "over there" is the Scottish Thread.

I shall take heed of the sage's warnings regarding the thread whose name must not be uttered and cease my flirtation with this forbidden topic here.

[Ocean1]

Hmmm, interesting distinction in an angels-on-heads-of-pins sort of way.

Dude, that's what the words mean. Literally.

Jrandom came up with a marvellous description of the distinction on another thread. I'll see if I can track it down.

Standing by to be enlightened.

[Badjelly]

Hmmm, interesting distinction in an angels-on-heads-of-pins sort of way.

Dude, that's what the words mean. Literally.

Hmmm, fair comment. It was bad form on my part to argue about a semantic distinction and then suggest that this was mere nit-picking. But the words "believe" and "know" are very tricky to pin down.

[Mikkel]

You (and Hitcher I think) are confusing absence of belief (the core of atheism) with belief in absence.

I consider myself to be an atheist. I do not claim to have proved the non-existence of God (though I find the combination of characteristics attributed to the Christian God highly implausible). Neither do I claim to have proved the non-existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I think you are the one who's confused. I merely stated that atheism was:

Noun

Singular
atheism


Plural
atheisms

atheism (plural atheisms)

1. Absence of, or rejection of, belief in the existence of God or gods.
2. The belief that there are no gods.

Usage notes

* The term atheism may refer either to an explicit belief that God or gods do not exist (sense 2 above), or to the mere lack of an explicit belief that God or gods do exist (sense 1 above). Some speakers do not distinguish between these senses; others distinguish them by using the terms strong atheism and weak atheism (respectively), or by using atheism to mean “strong atheism” and agnosticism or nontheism to mean “weak atheism”. (Similar distinctions may be drawn for related terms, such as atheist.) The distinction between strong atheism and weak atheism tends to be made primarily by atheists themselves.

...as opposed to atheism having to imply you don't believe in anything at all. E.g. Buddhism is an atheistic religion - Buddha, while an enlightened being, is a man not a god. Plenty of superstitious dogma to go with it as well though.

However, since - as you rightly point out yourself as well - it is impossible to prove the non-existence of pretty much anything, it is ultimately a belief in and of itself.

Personally, I don't consider myself anything - neither atheist nor agnostic. I find the whole idea of having to put yourself in a pigeon-hole in order to establish your identity downright pathetic. I think Discordianism is probably the only term I can relate to - at least it has humour.

[candor]

My dog has a god. I bought the little wooden carving of a puppy in Egypt but not realising it's significance.

Oddly he lies by it when insecure due to strangers, and when there are fireworks in November he goes to it without fail. When he got badly hit by a bus he ran 4 blocks home from the park and was found right by it. I felt redundant. Idolator!

[Badjelly]

I think you are the one who's confused. I merely stated that atheism was:

The paragraphs I was responding to were..

Atheism actually doesn't imply anything besides the rejection of the idea of god (in any shape or form).

As such you could, validly, argue that atheism is indeed a religion since it is impossible to prove the non-existence of god, and as a consequence it is a belief rather than any true knowledge that lies at the base of atheism.

The first is indeed an accurate statement (in my opinion) of what atheism does or doesn't imply.

The second is the one I take issue with. As someone wiser than me said, "If not believing in god is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby".

[Mikkel]

The first is indeed an accurate statement (in my opinion) of what atheism does or doesn't imply.

The second is the one I take issue with. As someone wiser than me said, "If not believing in god is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby".

My counter point being that you can have religion without a god. Thus, having no belief in god does not preclude religion. While I do appreciate the subtle difference between having no belief in god and actively believing that there is no god, I also find the distinction largely irrelevant.

Taking it a step further, since it is impossible to disprove the existence of god, it is a matter of belief rather than knowledge. If you choose to make that belief a central part of how you live and perceive your life, we are only a short step away from religion.

I was merely saying that you could, validly, argue the case. I didn't say that atheism is, has to be or is even likely to be a religion to most people.

[PrincessBandit]

Sitting waiting patiently for my thread to be magically moved to......

[wbks]

Isn't saying "belief in no god constitutes religion" a bit like putting a buttered piece of toast on a cats back and expecting anti-gravity?

[Badjelly]

...Taking it a step further, since it is impossible to disprove the existence of god, it is a matter of belief rather than knowledge. If you choose to make that belief a central part of how you live and perceive your life, we are only a short step away from religion....

There's some heavy conceptual rearrangement going on in that paragraph! Reading your writings is like watching a magician trying to distract your attention while the rabbit he is about to pull out of his hat squirms under his jacket. I mean, "since it is impossible to disprove" implies "a matter of belief rather than knowledge"? Whatever.

I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.

I was merely saying that you could, validly, argue the case. I didn't say that atheism is, has to be or is even likely to be a religion to most people.

That's all right then. I agree with that entirely, except for one adverb: "validly".

[Mikkel]

There's some heavy conceptual rearrangement going on in that paragraph! Reading your writings is like watching a magician trying to distract your attention while the rabbit he is about to pull out of his hat squirms under his jacket. I mean, "since it is impossible to disprove" implies "a matter of belief rather than knowledge"? Whatever.

I mean that in the nicest possible way, of course.

Uh, do not compute. As for distractions, not at all intended - and I can't see how it would be, provided one is equipped with an attention spanner

That's all right then. I agree with that entirely, except for one adverb: "validly".

So in which way do you consider the argument invalid?

[bogan]

well I'm with mikkel (or what he could argue anyways) The firm beleif that there is no god still requires faith. Though I'm not sure whether faith alone consitutes a religion, theres no worship/scriptures... but there some religions like that too I spose, and for the aethiests who try to force thier beleifs on others I would say it's a religion then.

[Dave Lobster]

The firm beleif that there is no god still requires faith.

Rubbish. Quite the opposite. Knowing/believing there to be no god is the opposite of faith.

[bogan]

Rubbish. Quite the opposite. Knowing/believing there to be no god is the opposite of faith.

how so? faith is defined as the firm belief in something for which there is no proof, and theres no proof that there are no gods... or does the double negative just cancel out here?

[Karl08]

Rubbish. Quite the opposite. Knowing/believing there to be no god is the opposite of faith.

Try putting that on the side of a bus.