Is Atheism a religion? [Archive]

T'ai Chi

21st November 2003, 02:01 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Is bald a haircolor?

Bald isn't a hair color (no one is claiming that), but bald is a hair style.

Seriously, if you have hair, ask a hair stylist for "bald" and they'll do it. If you don't have hair and cannot grown hair, then you are bald, and that is how someone would describe the state of the top of your head.

Interestingly enough for this analogy, is that no one is totally bald, there is always at least a few stray hairs. Maybe no one is entirely without faith either because of stray belief??

Atheism is also only brought up in religious discussions. It doesn't even apply in any other sphere of life as far as I can see.

While I don't think garden varieties of atheism are religions, fundamental atheism certainly is one (see: Mao, Lenin, and others).

There are also atheist centers, tracts, books, protesters, causes, bumper stickers, music, organizations, clubs, clothing, and on and on. I don't think there is anything wrong with that- I am all for it. However, for all the protest that it isn't a religion, it not only plays by religion's rules, but plays on the same field. The more fundamental strands of atheism seem to replace a god(s) with scientism, Chance, Time, and possibly some vocal fundy atheists themselves get admired until they achieve Saint status.

There are obviously things fundy atheism lacks that most (but not all) religions have. Things like prayer. However, for the things it lacks, there are close substitutes.

The history of a word is one thing, but it is the current usage of a word that really defines it. In my opinion, atheism has come to mean 'staunch belief that no god(s) exist' whether that is correct, and whether atheists like it or not.

MRC_Hans

21st November 2003, 02:30 AM

You may make an academic argument for atheism being a religion, but it makes the term religion useless, because it will then encompass so much that we would need a new word for real religions.

The only useful stance is that atheism is not a religion. Quite another thing is that you can find atheists that pursue their atheism with a religious zeal. You might term such people religious atheists, but that does not make atheism as such into a religion, any more that somebody collecting stamps with religious zeal makes that a religion.

Hans

Yahweh

21st November 2003, 03:23 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
Bald isn't a hair color (no one is claiming that), but bald is a hair style.

Seriously, if you have hair, ask a hair stylist for "bald" and they'll do it. If you don't have hair and cannot grown hair, then you are bald, and that is how someone would describe the state of the top of your head.

Interestingly enough for this analogy, is that no one is totally bald, there is always at least a few stray hairs. Maybe no one is entirely without faith either because of stray belief??

Atheism is also only brought up in religious discussions. It doesn't even apply in any other sphere of life as far as I can see.

While I don't think garden varieties of atheism are religions, fundamental atheism certainly is one (see: Mao, Lenin, and others).

There are also atheist centers, tracts, books, protesters, causes, bumper stickers, music, organizations, clubs, clothing, and on and on. I don't think there is anything wrong with that- I am all for it. However, for all the protest that it isn't a religion, it not only plays by religion's rules, but plays on the same field. The more fundamental strands of atheism seem to replace a god(s) with scientism, Chance, Time, and possibly some vocal fundy atheists themselves get admired until they achieve Saint status.

There are obviously things fundy atheism lacks that most (but not all) religions have. Things like prayer. However, for the things it lacks, there are close substitutes.

The history of a word is one thing, but it is the current usage of a word that really defines it. In my opinion, atheism has come to mean 'staunch belief that no god(s) exist' whether that is correct, and whether atheists like it or not.

Maybe "baldness" and "atheism" arent necessarily analogous... or maybe its just a bad analogy.

Personally, I would define atheism as "one who lacks religous beliefs". (Sometimes I'm a little edgy with threads debating the semantics of a word).

Hey, if atheistic principles mimic a religious beliefs, I would think it has less to do with the nature of atheism, and more about social psychology. A person with belief (or lack thereof) in anything will tend to alter his life around that belief. In some cases, the belief will actually become a part of the personality of any given person. If in that case, its no suprise a person might go through the effort to set up a Atheists Club (or Skeptic Messagboard).

Some people think religion is a subjective thing. They think a person with belief (including the "I dont believe" belief) to be ones inner personal religion. Of course, to me, that sounds like a misuse of the word religion (semantics really... kinda like "there are no atheists, everyone worships something, whether it be god or money" is misappropriate use of "worship"... in that "worship" thing, that would, by technicality, make about everyone a polytheist).

I dont think atheism is a religion. One of the things that is pretty universal around all religions is the use of Morality and ethics. Atheism is moral neutral. I also consider Mythology. No mythology in Atheism. Most religions are derived from the teachings of a spiritual leader. I dont consider Mr. Randi a spiritual leader.

Personally, I consider mythology a prerequisite for religion (there's a chance I might be wrong). Without the mythology, the belief is only a Philosophy.

Now, is atheism a Philosophy? Well, its definitely falsifyable (that doesnt make it a science though). Except, atheism's attribute of being falsifyable relies on the unfalsifyable nature of religious belief (lack of evidence for one side isnt evidence for another... so I'm really in the dark on whether atheism is a Philosophy or lack thereof, or whether atheism is falsifyable... all God has to do is say "Hi, I'm here" where everyone on earth could here, but God is really shy, ya know). Maybe atheism is a lack of Philosophy also...

Cinorjer

21st November 2003, 03:39 AM

Atheism is no more a religion than a general belief in God is a religion. Religions aren't really about God or the lack of one, after all. They're about people, what our purpose is and how we should behave. Without this organized code of conduct that addresses human behavior, it's simply not a religion. With this code, a belief in God is irrelivent to whether or not a person is following a religion. Buddhists do not "believe" in a God, yet only through hairsplitting contortions can you claim Buddhism is not a religion.

Take any familiar religion. You are a Christian, why? Because you believe in a God? No, because you have "accepted Christ into your life". Oh, they may say "believe in the Lord and be saved", but that's only a bit of slight-of-hand. Being Christian means living the life of a Christian, after all. They would be the first to point out that just saying "I believe" doesn't make you a Christian.

Now take an atheist. What does the general statement of non-belief hold in the way of a guide to human behavior? There are all sorts of atheists, and all sorts of answers to that issue. Most have some sort of Humanist philosophy, and then you can argue that they're practicing a religion. But being atheist certainly doesn't mean anything.

ReasonableDoubt

21st November 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Probably been debated before, but is it? I think it is not. Anyone else?
Why do you ask? For some reason, some theists feel that they gain some victory by labeling atheism a religion. How feeble.

geni

21st November 2003, 05:20 AM

I think that some of the more extream forms of Atheism could be regarded as a religion if you use a suficently broad definition of religion. Other than that no.

Stimpson J. Cat

21st November 2003, 06:03 AM

Is Theism a religion?

No, of course it isn't.

Some religions are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither.

Some philosophies are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither.

Some world-views are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither.

Not all atheists have the same religious beliefs. Not all atheists are non-religious. Not all theists are religious.

About the only thing we can really say for sure, is that Wraith doesn't know what he is talking about. But then, we have all known that for months.

Dr. Stupid

pgwenthold

21st November 2003, 07:01 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Oh you bet it's a religion.
Atheists don't like to call it a religion though.
They like to claim that science implies the non-existence of God/s by default.

Of course it doesn't though. Science is completely silent on the "existence" of God.

Now, it does assume a non-controlling god, or, at least, a god who behaves in a predictable manner.

But science assumes nothing about a god who starts up the universe and lets it run. Interestingly, Hawking has pretty much stated this outright. Such a god could or could not exist, science doesn't know or care.

Science also allows for the omphalos case of a god who created us yesterday with all our memories. There is no evidence for such action, so it doesn't accept it, but it is certainly allowed (if you can figure out how to test it)

Foofer

21st November 2003, 11:31 AM

"If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease." - Clark Adams

Bentspoon

21st November 2003, 11:53 AM

Even if you believe in invisible sky beings it is not necessarily religion.

Religion takes worship, pure and simple.
You have to do something(s) for there to be a religion. It is more than believing.

For some you have to eat right or
you can't dance or
you have to drink blood and eat flesh or
stand at an ancient wall and fake banging your head into it or
grow special curls or
attend church on sunday or
read a special book or
tithe or
speak in tongues or
drink poison and kiss snakes or
say prayers or
sacrifice animals or
spray your semen all over everybody (ancient gnostics)
or ....................

it goes on and on. But in order for there to be religion you have to do something to worship. Even if it is a prayer once a week.

This is where the claim that 'atheism is a religion' fails. For atheists, there is definitely no worship.

For theists, deists - religion only ensues if some ritual is followed no matter how trivial. Otherwise, these traits do not mean religion.

If you beleive in all sorts of gods but you do absolutely nothing in regard to that, then there is no religion. Religion takes ritual - it takes acknowledgment

Atheism will never foster any of that.

Other than that the "not playing soccer is a sport" is the most cogent analogy. I fail to see how anyone cannot understand that.

Bentspoon

Faithkills

21st November 2003, 12:21 PM

Religion takes worship, pure and simple. - bentspoon

Well I like that but there are other definitions that might apply to some people

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Debating this point quickly gets to unconstructive semantics, as believers feel better thinking atheists are like them.

I however would like to know how many athiests are there that fall into this category? People who BELIEVE there is no god? People who would dismiss out of hand any credible evidence or logical suport for god? People who would even disregard some circumstantial evidence of god if any were forthcoming?

Stated simply how many of you are ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no god, to the extent you need not examine any information which might indicate the contrary because you KNOW it is and will always be wrong?

FK

Corey

21st November 2003, 12:29 PM

Disbelief in one core element of some religions doesn't constitute a religion in and of itself. This is a much brought up topic and there's not much new that could be said on the subject. It breaks down to "is atheism the belief that there is no god or the lack of belief in a god?". Either way, I still don't think not believing in one thing constitutes a religion. I'm sure there are more than a few contradictory religions who have at least one common disbelief among them.

Skeptical Greg

21st November 2003, 12:29 PM

Originally posted by Faithkills

Stated simply how many of you are ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no god....

FK

Sounds like a good idea for a poll..

Not me..

I 'm still open to evidence.. Not actively looking, though...

Consider the difference between:

" I do not believe there is a God. "

and....

" I have no reason to believe there is a God.."

Yahweh

21st November 2003, 03:12 PM

I think the questions are rhetorical, but what the Hell...

Originally posted by Faithkills
People who BELIEVE there is no god?

Yahweh doesnt believe in god(s).

[People who would dismiss out of hand any credible evidence or logical suport for god? People who would even disregard some circumstantial evidence of god if any were forthcoming?

That would be a display of arrogance, arrogance serves nothing to further intellectual development.

Stated simply how many of you are ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no god, to the extent you need not examine any information which might indicate the contrary because you KNOW it is and will always be wrong?

I dont believe in god(s), I have no faith.

I try as best I can to exclude faith from all judgement as possible.

Chanileslie

21st November 2003, 09:05 PM

No, there is no dogma in athiesm nor a belief system attached.

c4ts

21st November 2003, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Oh you bet it's a religion.
Atheists don't like to call it a religion though.
They like to claim that science implies the non-existence of God/s by default.

Oh, don't ever ever ever criticise matter. They hate it when their God is being taunted haha

Where's your evidence of this? Where's your proof?

DarkPrimus

21st November 2003, 11:07 PM

I like to quote Mike Wong on this subject.

Do you believe in the Norse god, Thor?
No?
Does that make you an AThorist?

Dorian Gray

21st November 2003, 11:21 PM

There is this thread on another forum (http://forums.crgaming.com/eqbb/viewtopic.php?t=90386) about whether atheism is a religion, and people drag out dictionary definitions and semantics, etc. I just wanted reassurance, I guess. Support. I personally don't think a single belief can be considered religion. Or disbelief, as the case may be.

Now an offshoot thread is that if atheism is not a religion, is it then not protected under the first amendment right to freedom of religion? I think that it is not, but that it is protected under freedom of speech and press.

gnome

23rd November 2003, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Now an offshoot thread is that if atheism is not a religion, is it then not protected under the first amendment right to freedom of religion? I think that it is not, but that it is protected under freedom of speech and press.

Actually one can think of it this way:

the 1st amendment guarantees the free exercise of religion. If atheism is not protected, that means that an exercise of religion is required--and that is not free exercise.

DarkPrimus

23rd November 2003, 03:58 PM

Not worshipping is protected under the freedom of worship, isn't it? I mean, not having to say the Pledge is protected under freedom of expression...

Plus, Jefferson thought that non-belief was part of freedom of religion.

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual.
-Thomas Jefferson

wraith

23rd November 2003, 08:12 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
About the only thing we can really say for sure, is that Wraith doesn't know what he is talking about. But then, we have all known that for months.

At least you have kept your sense of humour Cat haha
I'll give you this much, you're a smart guy. You know your 5hit. But you're a cannon pointing in the wrong direction. Sorry.

wraith

23rd November 2003, 08:17 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
But science assumes nothing about a god who starts up the universe and lets it run. Interestingly, Hawking has pretty much stated this outright. Such a god could or could not exist, science doesn't know or care.

Science does't know or care? Oh that's great thinking. Knowledge brings one closer to the Truth. Do you care?

wraith

23rd November 2003, 08:18 PM

Originally posted by Foofer
"If atheism is a religion, then health is a disease." - Clark Adams

Obviously, Clark Adams is an idiot.

wraith

23rd November 2003, 08:19 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
Where's your evidence of this? Where's your proof?

Matter creates consciousness right?
You figure it out.

c4ts

23rd November 2003, 08:29 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Matter creates consciousness right?
You figure it out.

So in other words, you don't have any evidence and you're just wasting my time.

Interesting Ian

23rd November 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by Vorticity

"theism" = belief in God or gods.
"a" = prefix that indicates simple negation.

therefore:

"atheism" = "lack of theism" = "lack of belief in God or gods."

Hmmmm, must mean rocks are atheists! :eek:

Often in dictionaries, the definition they give for the word "atheist" is really the definition of a "hard atheist" = "one who believes god(s) doesn't exist", which is subtly different. [/B]

Yep, they have have enough sense to avoid describing non-conscious existents as atheists.

Interesting Ian

23rd November 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
You may make an academic argument for atheism being a religion, but it makes the term religion useless, because it will then encompass so much that we would need a new word for real religions.

Hans,

Is theism a religion then? If so what religion is it?

Interesting Ian

23rd November 2003, 08:43 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Is Theism a religion?

No, of course it isn't.

Some religions are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither.

Some philosophies are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither.

Some world-views are theistic, some are atheistic, some are neither.

Not all atheists have the same religious beliefs. Not all atheists are non-religious. Not all theists are religious.

Wow! Stimp, I'm going to have to agree with you here I'm afraid :(.

Never mind, let's think of something to argue about. Ah yes, I know!

Do you think rocks are atheists?

Interesting Ian

23rd November 2003, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by pgwenthold
[B]

Of course it doesn't though. Science is completely silent on the "existence" of God.

Better argue with Dawkins about that. He thinks God is a scientific theory.

crocodile deathroll

23rd November 2003, 09:22 PM

In Australia 24,464 wrote "athiest" (http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/digest/0308/cusack.html) on their census forms. That is all it takes to qualify it as a religion in this country because it exceeds 10,000. But there were only 1,617 rationalists, that is way below the threshold.

CDR

Yahweh

23rd November 2003, 10:03 PM

Originally posted by crocodile deathroll
In Australia 24,464 wrote "athiest" (http://www.econ.usyd.edu.au/drawingboard/digest/0308/cusack.html) on their census forms. That is all it takes to qualify it as a religion in this country because it exceeds 10,000. But there were only 1,617 rationalists, that is way below the threshold.

CDR
Did someone say Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm)...

T'ai Chi

23rd November 2003, 11:05 PM

Originally posted by Chanileslie
No, there is no dogma in athiesm nor a belief system attached.

That is the dogma.

Foofer

23rd November 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Obviously, Clark Adams is an idiot.

It's not obvious to me. Care to elaborate?

T'ai Chi

23rd November 2003, 11:07 PM

Originally posted by Vorticity

This is based on the most minimal, utilitarian definition of the word "atheism".

"theism" = belief in God or gods.
"a" = prefix that indicates simple negation.

Neither the study of the history of words or looking at dictionaries can tell u what a word really means.

A word is defined primarily by its usage in society, and 'atheism' is mostly used to mean 'belief there is/are no God/gods', so that is what it means.

ReasonableDoubt

24th November 2003, 05:13 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A word is defined primarily by its usage in society, and 'atheism' is mostly used to mean 'belief there is/are no God/gods', so that is what it means. And the phrase "Jesus Christ" is mostly used to mean "Holy *****", so that's what it means.

crocodile deathroll

24th November 2003, 05:35 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Did someone say Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/religion/jedi.htm)...

I doubt if even the most zealous bible thumping Xtian prosecutor would fine 24,464 Australian atheists $1,000 for falsely providing information on a census. If they try that in this country there would be I million Australian atheists on the next census.

pgwenthold

24th November 2003, 07:42 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Science does't know or care? Oh that's great thinking. Knowledge brings one closer to the Truth. Do you care?

Science doesn't know or care about anything for which there is no evidence or otherwise physical effect.

There is no more reason for science to care about the god that I mentioned than for the evil invisible monkey that flies about my head.

DarkPrimus

24th November 2003, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

A word is defined primarily by its usage in society, and 'atheism' is mostly used to mean 'belief there is/are no God/gods', so that is what it means.

To which I point to the quote I posted earlier.

Do you believe in the Norse god, Thor?
No?
Does that make you an AThorist?

Valiant Dancer

24th November 2003, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by DarkPrimus

To which I point to the quote I posted earlier.

Do you believe in the Norse god, Thor?
No?
Does that make you an AThorist?

I think that makes him aAsatru.

:)

(edited to correct spelling of Asatru a.k.a. Norse paganism.)

Bentspoon

24th November 2003, 11:41 AM

"Stated simply how many of you are ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no god, to the extent you need not examine any information which might indicate the contrary because you KNOW it is and will always be wrong?"

I know it is kinda late but I would like to answer this one with my own opinion.

As with all things paranormal there is a spark in me that wants it to be true. And that spark would be revived by any evidence for any thing paranormal. This is why I love magic, though I doubt the existence of real magic. If it weren't for this spark I would not be a skeptic or atheist, for it is exactly this longing that set me down a path of not readily accepting.

So I would have to say no, I am not absolutely sure and yes I could be convinced.

However, that spark burns dim, suffuocated over the years by all the dogma (religious and otherwise) that my inquisitive spark uncovered. I have learned to accept data only under certain rules and qualifications.

But in the end I want to meet God, I want to see ghosts, I want to be abducted by aliens. Just don't burn me with false dogma.

Bentspoon

Foofer

24th November 2003, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi
A word is defined primarily by its usage in society, and 'atheism' is mostly used to mean 'belief there is/are no God/gods', so that is what it means.

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
And the phrase "Jesus Christ" is mostly used to mean "Holy ****", so that's what it means.

Reasonable Doubt - :clap: You made my day with that one.

jimlintott

24th November 2003, 01:05 PM

"Stated simply how many of you are ABSOLUTELY SURE there is no god, to the extent you need not examine any information which might indicate the contrary because you KNOW it is and will always be wrong?"

I am absolutely sure there are no gods. I would examine any evidence and in fact it is the evidence that has left me this way.

I have been atheist my entire life. I was never able to take the leap of faith, ever. I have had a whole lifetime of beng asked if I believe in god. I always ask for a definition. I have yet in my entire life to encounter a definition of god or gods that is consistent. I get a different response from every person. Some say god is an actual physical being that controls all of reality. Some say that he is a concept that lives in the hearts and minds of believers. While the former is laughable the latter isn't a real thing and therefore can't exist. This lack of a clear and consistent definition has only led me to conclude that there is no such thing.

I don't believe in big foot but I know what one is. If I ever encounter a large, hairy, bipedal mammal that appears hominid in design. I just might be looking at bigfoot.

When it comes to gods, without any clear definitions I can only conclude that such things don't exist. How would I even recognise one?

Stimpson J. Cat

24th November 2003, 03:57 PM

Ian,

Wow! Stimp, I'm going to have to agree with you here I'm afraid :(.

It was bound to happen eventually.

Never mind, let's think of something to argue about. Ah yes, I know!

Do you think rocks are atheists?

Well, let's go to the map.

A theist is somebody who believes in a personal god.

An atheist is somebody who is not a theist.

A rock is not anybody.

So no, I would not say a rock is an atheist. I would not say that a rock is illiterate, either.

Dr. Stupid

Interesting Ian

25th November 2003, 09:05 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
[b]Ian,

A theist is somebody who believes in a personal god.

It seems strange to me to describe someone as being an atheist who believes in an impersonal God.

An atheist is somebody who is not a theist.

No, you forget there are also agnostics.

A rock is not anybody.

So no, I would not say a rock is an atheist. I would not say that a rock is illiterate, either.

Do you then reject the defintion of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in a God?

gnome

25th November 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Do you then reject the defintion of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in a God?

A rock is not a someone.... so discounting a rock is not a rejection of this definition.

This word game is really getting you nowhere.

The fact remains that when someone says they are an atheist--and clarifies that by this they mean that they do not hold any beliefs in a supreme being--arguing that "atheist" should mean something different doesn't change their belief.

Stimpson J. Cat

25th November 2003, 01:19 PM

Ian,

A theist is somebody who believes in a personal god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems strange to me to describe someone as being an atheist who believes in an impersonal God.

It seems strange to me to describe someone as being a theist who believes in an impersonal God.

If my friend Bob defines God to be "the totallity of all existence", does that make him a theist? Does the fact that I believe that what he has defined as God exists, make me a theist?

Like I said, a theist is somebody who believes in a God, and who defines God to be some sort of sentient being (a personal God). Simply defining God to refer to something that is not a being (an impersonal God), does not make you a theist. If it did, everybody would be one, because everybody believes in something that somebody else would define to be God. You would render the term completely meaningless.

An atheist is somebody who is not a theist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you forget there are also agnostics.

No, I didn't. All agnostics are either theists or atheists. This is a tautology, because "atheist" means "not a theist". If you are not a theist, then by definition, you are an atheist. That is what the little "a" at the beginning of the word means.

I am an agnostic atheist, myself. Most of the theists I know are agnostic too. They just don't refer to themselves as agnostics. But if you ask them whether they actually know whether there is a God or not, most of them will say no.

A rock is not anybody.

So no, I would not say a rock is an atheist. I would not say that a rock is illiterate, either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you then reject the defintion of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in a God?

Did you just skip past the paragraph before that? Or are you illiterate? I just said that the rock is not someone at all!

Dr. Stupid

Valiant Dancer

25th November 2003, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Ian,

It seems strange to me to describe someone as being a theist who believes in an impersonal God.

If my friend Bob defines God to be "the totallity of all existence", does that make him a theist? Does the fact that I believe that what he has defined as God exists, make me a theist?

Like I said, a theist is somebody who believes in a God, and who defines God to be some sort of sentient being (a personal God). Simply defining God to refer to something that is not a being (an impersonal God), does not make you a theist. If it did, everybody would be one, because everybody believes in something that somebody else would define to be God. You would render the term completely meaningless.

No, I didn't. All agnostics are either theists or atheists. This is a tautology, because "atheist" means "not a theist". If you are not a theist, then by definition, you are an atheist. That is what the little "a" at the beginning of the word means.

I am an agnostic atheist, myself. Most of the theists I know are agnostic too. They just don't refer to themselves as agnostics. But if you ask them whether they actually know whether there is a God or not, most of them will say no.

Did you just skip past the paragraph before that? Or are you illiterate? I just said that the rock is not someone at all!

Dr. Stupid

But, Deism has an impersonal God. A creator or Archetect of the universe which set it in motion and has been hands-off ever since.

Quite frankly, a theist has a God belief. An atheist does not have a God belief. Agnostics have two camps, theistic Agnosticism which assumes the existance of a God and atheistic Agnostism which does not assume the existance of a God.

Bob would be expressing some aspects of Universalism and Deism. He is a theist because he expresses a belief in the theological construct called "God".

Loki

25th November 2003, 02:13 PM

crocodile deathroll,

I doubt if even the most zealous bible thumping Xtian prosecutor would fine 24,464 Australian atheists $1,000 for falsely providing information on a census. If they try that in this country there would be I million Australian atheists on the next census.
So you're predicting a very large decrease in the number of Australian Atheists!?!?!?!

From the 2001 census (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/9658217eba753c2cca256cae00053fa3!OpenDocument), the figure for "no religion" is 15.5% , and for "not stated, inadequately described" it's 11.7%. By my calculation that puts the number of self-described atheists at 2.9 million for 2001, and the total number of Australians unwilling to align themselves with *any* of the 124 religious categories offered on the census is just over 5 million (out of a total population of 18.7 million).

The following is also interesting :
In 2001, 82% of Australians aged 65 years and over identified themselves as Christian. This proportion was lower among younger age groups, with 60% of 18-24 year olds having identified themselves as Christian. Indeed, while 15% of all Christian affiliates were aged 65 years and over, 8% were aged between 18 and 24 years. In contrast, the other religions have a younger age profile. While 6% of Buddhist affiliates were aged 65 years and over in 2001, 13% were aged between 18 and 24 years. The largest group of Buddhist affiliates was 35-44 year olds. Similar trends were evident for Hindu and Muslim affiliates. In the 2001 Census, people in the 18-24 years age group were the most likely to state that they had no religion (20%).
No wonder the Australian churches are felling the need to 'change'!

Loki

25th November 2003, 02:20 PM

DarkPrimus,

Do you believe in the Norse god, Thor?
Sheesh...it's always about the guy with the damn hammer! Believe me, Thor's just not that interesting. Since he got that new anvil from Odin last christmas (yes, Valhalla moves with the times!) he's started up a little ironwork shop in Harstad (just north of Narvik). Makes candle holders mainly. It's a living, I suppose..

Interesting Ian

25th November 2003, 05:30 PM

Originally posted by gnome
Do you then reject the definition of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in a God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A rock is not a someone.... so discounting a rock is not a rejection of this definition.

But that is a trivial point. The crucial definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a God, therefore a rock is an atheist. It does not matter at all that it's not a someone, because being a someone is not part and parcel of a lack of belief. Only having a belief would being someone be of relevance.

This word game is really getting you nowhere.

I take it you're kidding right?? Very amusing I'm sure.

The fact remains that when someone says they are an atheist--and clarifies that by this they mean that they do not hold any beliefs in a supreme being--arguing that "atheist" should mean something different doesn't change their belief.

Ants probably don't have a belief in God. Thus according to your definition ants are atheists.

Interesting Ian

25th November 2003, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A theist is somebody who believes in a personal god.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems strange to me to describe someone as being an atheist who believes in an impersonal God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems strange to me to describe someone as being a theist who believes in an impersonal God.

{shrugs} I can't help that. You need to try and accept what the word theism means.

If my friend Bob defines God to be "the totallity of all existence", does that make him a theist? Does the fact that I believe that what he has defined as God exists, make me a theist?

Remember the concept of God has to involve consciousness of some description. I can't just call "god" my kettle or chair or whatever.

Like I said, a theist is somebody who believes in a God, and who defines God to be some sort of sentient being (a personal God).

Just consciousness will do, and consciousness doesn't necessitate that the God be personal.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
An atheist is somebody who is not a theist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, you forget there are also agnostics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I didn't. All agnostics are either theists or atheists.

Not at all, what about a person who simply lacks a belief in either theism or atheism?

This is a tautology, because "atheist" means "not a theist". If you are not a theist, then by definition, you are an atheist. That is what the little "a" at the beginning of the word means.

Words mean what people use them to mean. Atheism actually means the opposite of theism, not just a negation of theism.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A rock is not anybody.

So no, I would not say a rock is an atheist. I would not say that a rock is illiterate, either.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Do you then reject the defintion of an atheist as someone who lacks a belief in a God?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Did you just skip past the paragraph before that? Or are you illiterate? I just said that the rock is not someone at all!

I phrased my question that way for convenience. Obviously a lack of belief in a God does not require that a someone has a lack of belief. But anyway, you are arbitrarily deciding that a someone has to have a lack of belief. In that case would you say that cats are atheists?

Yahweh

25th November 2003, 05:51 PM

Random observation...

Perhaps "atheist" is a human specific term...

Another observation...

Perhaps the "is a rock an atheist" question is meaningless... what I mean by that is: Who cares...

Yahweh

25th November 2003, 06:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
{shrugs} I can't help that. You need to try and accept what the word theism means.

[snip]

Words mean what people use them to mean. Atheism actually means the opposite of theism, not just a negation of theism.

Semantics-based arguments are often the least productive...

I phrased my question that way for convenience. Obviously a lack of belief in a God does not require that a someone has a lack of belief. But anyway, you are arbitrarily deciding that a someone has to have a lack of belief. In that case would you say that cats are atheists?
I do like kitties, I know plenty about them... unfortunately, Ian, I think your semantics-based inquery "are cats atheists" is rooted in catergory of compositional fallacy.

wraith

25th November 2003, 08:23 PM

Originally posted by c4ts
So in other words, you don't have any evidence and you're just wasting my time.

Well that's not the argument at this point.

Accordinig to you, matter creates consciousness?

wraith

25th November 2003, 08:28 PM

Originally posted by Foofer
It's not obvious to me. Care to elaborate?

Sure. Adams does indeed believe in a God. The thing is, he doesn't like to call his God, "God". He likes to give his Master an alias - "Matter".

Yahweh

25th November 2003, 08:30 PM

Originally posted by wraith
Sure. Adams does indeed believe in a God. The thing is, he doesn't like to call his God, "God". He likes to give his Master an alias - "Matter".

Putting words in other people's mouth to make it easier to attack them makes you, wraith, very very naughty! BAD!

Yahweh

25th November 2003, 08:32 PM

Originally posted by wraith
Accordinig to you, matter creates consciousness?

Consciousness cannot exist without matter, WHAT A TOTALLY INSANE KURRRAZY CONCEPT!!!

epepke

25th November 2003, 08:58 PM

Originally posted by Cinorjer
Atheism is no more a religion than a general belief in God is a religion.

Great answer!

I know many people who belive in a god but who aren't religious by any stretch of the imagination. One of those I know says flat out, "God doesn't have anything to do with religion."

Thing is, the people who are constantly asserting that atheism is a religion are people deeply steeped in particular religions themselves. They can't separate the concepts, so they assume that everyone must have some religion.

wraith

25th November 2003, 10:02 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Putting words in other people's mouth to make it easier to attack them makes you, wraith, very very naughty! BAD!

Ahhh no. The implications of Atheism is exactly that.

wraith

25th November 2003, 10:10 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Consciousness cannot exist without matter, WHAT A TOTALLY INSANE KURRRAZY CONCEPT!!!

haha!

Again, that's not the point being discussed.

A simple "yes" or "no" answer is sufficient.

So Yahweh, am I wrong to say that matter is your Master? ;)

Foofer

25th November 2003, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by wraith

Sure. Adams does indeed believe in a God. The thing is, he doesn't like to call his God, "God". He likes to give his Master an alias - "Matter".

So, you assume you know the beliefs of someone you've never met, but he's the idiot. The quote wasn't "Hi, I'm Clark Adams and I don't believe in god. Matter is my master." But, hey, let's say you're right. Why then is it obvious that he is an idiot? Please explain it to me...I'm rather slow. :)

Yahweh

25th November 2003, 10:42 PM

Originally posted by wraith
So Yahweh, am I wrong to say that matter is your Master? ;)

I dont understand the question...

I'll just treat it as rhetorical and use this oppertunity to add another kitten to the forum...

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/35/52/b/3552e744b7cedee32a7facf9e5565e2d.jpg

Dorian Gray

25th November 2003, 10:50 PM

You call your matter 'God', and your science 'religion', and your evolution 'creation'. You call your hypothesis testing 'prayer', and your universities 'churches', and your scientists 'preachers' or 'pastors' or 'bishops' or 'rabbis' or 'clerics'. You refer to atheism as 'all other religions'. You refer to your critical thinking as your 'savior'.

When you put it that way, I can see how there is absolutely no difference between us whatsoever. Come with me and test a hypothesis in my university. Let me introduce you to my critical thinking and explore the wonders of matter. Learn from our scientists and know your evolution.

This must seem as comfortable for you as putting on an old shoe.

athon

26th November 2003, 12:00 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
You call your matter 'God', and your science 'religion', and your evolution 'creation'. You call your hypothesis testing 'prayer', and your universities 'churches', and your scientists 'preachers' or 'pastors' or 'bishops' or 'rabbis' or 'clerics'. You refer to atheism as 'all other religions'. You refer to your critical thinking as your 'savior'.

When you put it that way, I can see how there is absolutely no difference between us whatsoever. Come with me and test a hypothesis in my university. Let me introduce you to my critical thinking and explore the wonders of matter. Learn from our scientists and know your evolution.

This must seem as comfortable for you as putting on an old shoe.

WTF??

'God', as I define it, is an omnipotent intellect within any society that is deemed to be greater than any or all parts of the community beneath it (I could build on this, but it serves the discussion as it is). 'Matter' is a principle that explains the observations we make every day.

Science is not, here me, 'NOT!' a religion. Religion is based on faith - faith is negated by humility (conceiving that you could be wrong). Science is the opposite - it is negated by conceit, and is strengthened on the principle that it could be wrong if met with new evidence.

Hypothesis testing is about speculating the 'what if' of your idea, and saying 'if I am wrong, I should be able to do this...'. 'Prayer' is about communicating with your deity in a personal way.

Church is a place where people can go to share a common belief. Ever been to a science faculty meeting at a university? Please! Sharing common beliefs is one thing that does not happen... :) Otherwise, I might admit that churches and universities have some things in common - drinking alcohol, for instance.

As for scientists being our 'bishops', in religion you are not encouraged to disagree with such learned people. In science, the very basis of the methodology is founded on the idea that when faced with a new idea, you must see where it fits into the existing scheme.

Atheism is not a dogma. It is an absence of 'theism' - atheists practice no common creed, read no common canon, believe in no common methodology, and are united only in the common belief that there is no higher intelligence controlling the universe.

How can you possibly think atheism is a system?

Athon

wraith

26th November 2003, 01:56 AM

Originally posted by Foofer
So, you assume you know the beliefs of someone you've never met, but he's the idiot.

Was he lying when he said that?

The quote wasn't "Hi, I'm Clark Adams and I don't believe in god. Matter is my master."

It was actually ;)

But, hey, let's say you're right. Why then is it obvious that he is an idiot? Please explain it to me...I'm rather slow. :

haha
It's because he thinks that Atheism is True by default.

wraith

26th November 2003, 01:57 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
I dont understand the question...

No, I think that you understand it fairly well ;)

I'll just treat it as rhetorical and use this oppertunity to add another kitten to the forum...

ahhh....yeah you do that. :rolleyes:

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 02:04 AM

Originally posted by wraith
No, I think that you understand it fairly well ;)

No, I really dont.

I'll ask you a question: If what is, may become, and what aint, is, how many pancakes will kill a dog?

wraith

26th November 2003, 02:21 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
No, I really dont.

Alrighty....
What don't you get about the question?

I'll ask you a question: If what is, may become, and what aint, is, how many pancakes will kill a dog?

...someone get this guy some pills :rolleyes:

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 02:33 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Alrighty....
What don't you get about the question?
Why dont you understand my question. [/satirize]

So Yahweh, am I wrong to say that matter is your Master?
Its not a metaphor, the context of the question (and your character) suggest the question is to be taken literally, not symbolically. "To be one's master" is not a qualititive property of matter, I dont know what is being asked.

In the same way, if I were to ask "What color is it when running", you would be equally confused. "Color" is not a qualititive property of "running", you cant make any sense out of it.

wraith

26th November 2003, 02:40 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Its not a metaphor, the context of the question (and your character) suggest the question is to be taken literally, not symbolically. "To be one's master" is not a qualititive property of matter, I dont know what is being asked.

In other words, I'm asking you if you are controlled entirely by non-conscious TLOP.

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 02:56 AM

Originally posted by wraith
In other words, I'm asking you if you are controlled entirely by non-conscious TLOP.

The answer is "No". The Laws of Physics are not appropriate to describe cognition (because I'm capable of cognition, I can move around at my own accord, think, and perform a whole host of functions.). Neurology is more appropriate to describe cognition, deliberate cognition, etc. than the Laws of Physics. And yes, the concept of "Free Will" is perfectly compatible with a material reality.

You said "non-conscious Laws Of Physics", I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of what the Laws of Physics really are. A rock is non-conscious, a plant is non-conscious, a person in either of the 4 out of 5 non-REM stages of sleep is non-conscious. The Laws of Physics describe the interactions between matter and energy, in common everyday verbiage, Physics is treated almost as something which exists as concretely as an apple (which is the mistake I gather that you are making). Physics doesnt exist as some kind of aether or phlogiston substance, its the concept used to describe matter and energy and their interactions. When you say "non-conscious Laws of Physics", it makes about as much sense as "pi is red".

Stimpson J. Cat

26th November 2003, 04:43 AM

Ian,

If my friend Bob defines God to be "the totallity of all existence", does that make him a theist? Does the fact that I believe that what he has defined as God exists, make me a theist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember the concept of God has to involve consciousness of some description. I can't just call "god" my kettle or chair or whatever.

That is exactly what I mean by "personal God". I even clarified this, just in case you were maybe thinking I meant something more than that.

Like I said, a theist is somebody who believes in a God, and who defines God to be some sort of sentient being (a personal God).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Just consciousness will do, and consciousness doesn't necessitate that the God be personal.

I have no idea what you mean by "personal God". I specifically stipulated that what I mean by it is some sort of sentient being. In other words, a consciousness. These word games of yours are getting quite tedious.

No, I didn't. All agnostics are either theists or atheists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all, what about a person who simply lacks a belief in either theism or atheism?

Atheism is not a belief, so lacking belief in atheism does not mean anything. If you believe in a conscious God, then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist.

This is a tautology, because "atheist" means "not a theist". If you are not a theist, then by definition, you are an atheist. That is what the little "a" at the beginning of the word means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words mean what people use them to mean. Atheism actually means the opposite of theism, not just a negation of theism.

Different people use the word "atheism" to mean different things. It is pointless for us to bicker about what the "correct" meaning is, because there isn't any. Take your word games to somebody who gives a sh*t.

Did you just skip past the paragraph before that? Or are you illiterate? I just said that the rock is not someone at all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I phrased my question that way for convenience. Obviously a lack of belief in a God does not require that a someone has a lack of belief. But anyway, you are arbitrarily deciding that a someone has to have a lack of belief. In that case would you say that cats are atheists?

Are cats illiterate? Are cats unemployed? Are you completely retarded? Or are you just pretending to be?

Valiant Dancer,

But, Deism has an impersonal God. A creator or Archetect of the universe which set it in motion and has been hands-off ever since.

As I said, by "personal God" I mean a God which is defined to be some sort of sentient being (or consciousness, if you prefer). Deists who who believe in such a God are theists. Deists who believe that the Universe was created by some force external to it, and who define God to be that force, but do not claim that this force is a sentient or conscious being, are atheists.

Quite frankly, a theist has a God belief. An atheist does not have a God belief.

Which is fine and dandy, if you actually have a definition for what constitutes a "God belief". My use of the term "personal God" was to stipulate what constitutes a "God belief" for the purposes of theism/atheism, and what does not.

If you define theism to be "a God belief", but do not define what qualifies as a God, then your definition is utterly meaningless.

Agnostics have two camps, theistic Agnosticism which assumes the existance of a God and atheistic Agnostism which does not assume the existance of a God.

I agree.

Bob would be expressing some aspects of Universalism and Deism. He is a theist because he expresses a belief in the theological construct called "God".

Just naming it "God" doesn't change the content of the belief. If he decided not to call it God, but instead just "everything", his belief would be absolutely the same. For this purely semantic distinction to be the determining factor in whether he is a theist, or an atheist, would render the distinction completely meaningless.

Dr. Stupid

wraith

26th November 2003, 05:12 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
The answer is "No".

Really? Well go on...

The Laws of Physics are not appropriate to describe cognition (because I'm capable of cognition, I can move around at my own accord, think, and perform a whole host of functions.).

Not appropriate? You are the physical brain which is totally dictated by TLOP. Why does having consciousness allow you to take control over TLOP? Why say that the ability to think is outside the scope of TLOP? Unless you speak of the source of your consciousness (your soul) then this is what you're saying.

Neurology is more appropriate to describe cognition, deliberate cognition, etc. than the Laws of Physics.

Fundamentally, why? It's still physics.

And yes, the concept of "Free Will" is perfectly compatible with a material reality.

Well, it's not. But "free-will" is a different issue.

You said "non-conscious Laws Of Physics", I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of what the Laws of Physics really are. A rock is non-conscious, a plant is non-conscious, a person in either of the 4 out of 5 non-REM stages of sleep is non-conscious. The Laws of Physics describe the interactions between matter and energy, in common everyday verbiage, Physics is treated almost as something which exists as concretely as an apple (which is the mistake I gather that you are making). Physics doesnt exist as some kind of aether or phlogiston substance, its the concept used to describe matter and energy and their interactions.

Well according to Atheism, you are matter. So why are you excluded from the concepts that describe matter?

You may reply by saying, "Well, I can think."

If this is the case, then read my second reply above.

When you say "non-conscious Laws of Physics", it makes about as much sense as "pi is red".

It makes perfectly good sense. TLOP are either conscious or not conscious in nature.

What I'm getting at is that Atheists have a God aka Matter.
Enjoy ;)

Stimpson J. Cat

26th November 2003, 05:21 AM

You are wasing your time, Yahweh. I tried to explain to Franko/Wraith that the laws of nature are not some entity which controls the Universe, but instead just a description of how the Universe works. He either does not get it, or pretends not to get it because it entertains him to bother people with his nonsense.

I suspect the latter.

He is a troll, with absolutely no interest in any kind of rational discussion. He posts here for no other reason than the entertainment he derives from watching people get upset when he deliberately pushes their buttons.

Dr. Stupid

Interesting Ian

26th November 2003, 05:51 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Random observation...

Perhaps "atheist" is a human specific term...

Another observation...

Perhaps the "is a rock an atheist" question is meaningless... what I mean by that is: Who cares...

Yahwah,

I am attacking the notion that atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god, otherwise a rock would be an atheist. Even if they then backpeddle and say there needs to be a someone who lacks a belief (an arbitrary stipulation) they are then committed to saying that all sentient creatures who do not believe in God are atheists! :eek:

Does that make sense to you?

Interesting Ian

26th November 2003, 05:53 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Semantics-based arguments are often the least productive...

I do like kitties, I know plenty about them... unfortunately, Ian, I think your semantics-based inquery "are cats atheists" is rooted in catergory of compositional fallacy.

You believe incorrectly.

Interesting Ian

26th November 2003, 05:54 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

Consciousness cannot exist without matter, WHAT A TOTALLY INSANE KURRRAZY CONCEPT!!!

Pleased to be informed about that. Is this because it is logically impossible? Presumably so. Care to provide your proof of this?

Interesting Ian

26th November 2003, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh

I dont understand the question...

I'll just treat it as rhetorical and use this oppertunity to add another kitten to the forum...

http://216.218.248.155/datastore/35/52/b/3552e744b7cedee32a7facf9e5565e2d.jpg

Is that cat an atheist? Answer the question.

CWL

26th November 2003, 06:01 AM

Jeez. Are we actually still debating this?

Well, alrightie then.

If atheism (i.e. not believing in [a] God) is a religion then, by all means, not playing soccer is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, not eating at the moment is having a spot of lunch, not reading is enjoying some literature, etc., etc., etc.

Besides, many religious people would have us believe that we (including myself and other atheists) are all religious. I submit that it's the other way around. We are all atheists - more or less. Take Christians for example - they just happen to believe in one more god than I do. :halo:

LuxFerum

26th November 2003, 06:06 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Jeez. Are we actually still debating this?

Well, alrightie then.

If atheism (i.e. not believing in [a] God) is a religion then, by all means, not playing soccer is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, not eating at the moment is having a spot of lunch, not reading is enjoying some literature, etc., etc., etc.

Besides, many religious people would have us believe that we (including myself and other atheists) are all religious. I submit that it's the other way around. We are all atheists - more or less. Take Christians for example - they just happen to believe in one more god than I do. :halo:
religion and believe in god are not the same thing.
By www.m-w.com
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
- re·li·gion·less adjective

Interesting Ian

26th November 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If my friend Bob defines God to be "the totallity of all existence", does that make him a theist? Does the fact that I believe that what he has defined as God exists, make me a theist?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Remember the concept of God has to involve consciousness of some description. I can't just call "god" my kettle or chair or whatever.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is exactly what I mean by "personal God". I even clarified this, just in case you were maybe thinking I meant something more than that.

In that case you really should be try to understand the terminology you employ. Otherwise it just leads to futile pointless arguments. An impersonal God also involves consciousness.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, I didn't. All agnostics are either theists or atheists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not at all, what about a person who simply lacks a belief in either theism or atheism?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Atheism is not a belief, so lacking belief in atheism does not mean anything. If you believe in a conscious God, then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist.

I'm talking about the type of atheism held in the modern western world. It tends to express a certain interpretation of reality eg naturalism and the belief that there is no purpose to our lives and the Universe etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a tautology, because "atheist" means "not a theist". If you are not a theist, then by definition, you are an atheist. That is what the little "a" at the beginning of the word means.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Words mean what people use them to mean. Atheism actually means the opposite of theism, not just a negation of theism.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Different people use the word "atheism" to mean different things. It is pointless for us to bicker about what the "correct" meaning is, because there isn't any. Take your word games to somebody who gives a sh*t.

You're asking to be put on ignore unless you attempt to be a bit more friendly towards me.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Did you just skip past the paragraph before that? Or are you illiterate? I just said that the rock is not someone at all!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I phrased my question that way for convenience. Obviously a lack of belief in a God does not require that a someone has a lack of belief. But anyway, you are arbitrarily deciding that a someone has to have a lack of belief. In that case would you say that cats are atheists?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Are cats illiterate? Are cats unemployed? Are you completely retarded? Or are you just pretending to be?

So they are not atheists? You agree then that atheism doesn't mean a lack of belief in God or gods?

wraith

26th November 2003, 06:14 AM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
You are wasing your time, Yahweh. I tried to explain to Franko/Wraith that the laws of nature are not some entity which controls the Universe, but instead just a description of how the Universe works.

Just a description? So are those laws anything but laws when they are not being described?

SO STIMP, are you or are not in total control by those descriptions?

Why don't you give a brother a hand and help out Yahweh on this one. ;)

He either does not get it, or pretends not to get it because it entertains him to bother people with his nonsense.

I suspect the latter.

Good good...keep going... :rolleyes:

He is a troll, with absolutely no interest in any kind of rational discussion. He posts here for no other reason than the entertainment he derives from watching people get upset when he deliberately pushes their buttons.

Well then, it shouldn't be too hard to defend your beliefs?

wraith

26th November 2003, 06:20 AM

Originally posted by CWL
Jeez. Are we actually still debating this?

You bet :roll:

Graham

26th November 2003, 06:39 AM

wraith

26th November 2003, 06:43 AM

Originally posted by Graham

I second this, for what it's worth.

Graham

Man, maybe you two need to get a room lol ;)

gnome

26th November 2003, 06:54 AM

Foofer

26th November 2003, 09:27 AM

Originally posted by wraith

Was he lying when he said that?

It was actually ;)

haha
It's because he thinks that Atheism is True by default.

Weeeeellllll....I certainly can't argue with well thought-out logic like that .......MORE KITTEN PHOTOS YAHWEH! :D

Valiant Dancer

26th November 2003, 12:45 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Valiant Dancer,

As I said, by "personal God" I mean a God which is defined to be some sort of sentient being (or consciousness, if you prefer). Deists who who believe in such a God are theists. Deists who believe that the Universe was created by some force external to it, and who define God to be that force, but do not claim that this force is a sentient or conscious being, are atheists.

I'm sorry. In all the definitions I have heard for God, it has always contained a consciousness. Mere labeling of something does not make it so. Your narrow definition of what is being called God in the example is merely relabeling the universe as God and does not involke a God belief of any type.

Which is fine and dandy, if you actually have a definition for what constitutes a "God belief". My use of the term "personal God" was to stipulate what constitutes a "God belief" for the purposes of theism/atheism, and what does not.

If you define theism to be "a God belief", but do not define what qualifies as a God, then your definition is utterly meaningless.

A God is defined quite loosely as a higher consciousness which transcends the universe. A sentient force which sits in judgement of the actions of all men. Usual traits of omnipotence and omnipresent are typically part of the definition. This seems to be the basic definition that theists and atheists abide by.

Chanileslie

26th November 2003, 12:53 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Is that cat an atheist? Answer the question.

Yes.

Valiant Dancer

26th November 2003, 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Yahwah,

I am attacking the notion that atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god, otherwise a rock would be an atheist. Even if they then backpeddle and say there needs to be a someone who lacks a belief (an arbitrary stipulation) they are then committed to saying that all sentient creatures who do not believe in God are atheists! :eek:

Does that make sense to you?

Evidentally there are some unstated assumptions which have to be addressed.

Theism and atheism are philosophies which require the funtioning of a rational process. Inanimate objects lack this basic functionality. All sentient creatures which lack a God belief are atheists. Since we can only communicate with humans in the sophisticated manner which is required for philosophical persuits, we can only make any judgements of theism and atheism based on humans. For all we know, the same debate of theism and atheism could be the subject of whale songs in the Pacific or cat yowls in the midwest. There is no data to suggest a result either way.

Chanileslie

26th November 2003, 12:56 PM

Originally posted by T'ai Chi

That is the dogma.

Mmm, yeah right. And left is right and right is left and no is yes and yes is no. That is an absurd answer.

Dorian Gray

26th November 2003, 01:33 PM

Athon, that whole thing was really just a sarcastic riff on Yahweh's statement that someone called their god 'matter'.

And I can't believe we are still debating this either. It is so obvious that atheism is not a religion, there is no god, and the religious are deluded.

*wink*

Dorian Gray

26th November 2003, 01:33 PM

Loki

26th November 2003, 01:58 PM

Ian,

I am attacking the notion that atheism simply means a lack of a belief in god, otherwise a rock would be an atheist. Even if they then backpeddle and say there needs to be a someone who lacks a belief (an arbitrary stipulation)...
An arbitrary stipulation? Why play such a stupid game Ian? In what way is it sensible to try and link "concepts/philosphies" to "an absense of rational thought"? Surely "beings capable of rational thought" is a given when discussing this?

Seems to me that you are saying 'it's just an arbitrary stipulation to say that something must be capable of rational thought before it can hold a philosophical belief'. I'd say it's a necessary stipulation. Why do you disagree?

... they are then committed to saying that all sentient creatures who do not believe in God are atheists!
Again, it's not "sentient creatures", it's "creatures capable of philosphical thought". Seems pretty obvious to me (so obvious that I don't see (a) why it should need to be stated explicitly or (b) why anyone would choose to make an issue of it) that to be an atheist, you must have at least the capability/potential to be a theist. Since rocks and cats as far as we can tell have no capability for being theists it seems somewhat pointless to label them atheists?

Rocks and kittens are also not poets (as far as we know) - does it add anything meaningful to a discussion of poetry to include them?

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 02:33 PM

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
You are wasing your time, Yahweh. I tried to explain to Franko/Wraith that the laws of nature are not some entity which controls the Universe, but instead just a description of how the Universe works. He either does not get it, or pretends not to get it because it entertains him to bother people with his nonsense.

I suspect the latter.

He is a troll, with absolutely no interest in any kind of rational discussion. He posts here for no other reason than the entertainment he derives from watching people get upset when he deliberately pushes their buttons.

Dr. Stupid

It's obvious he is a troll. I dont think he really believes his own Philosophy.

Why do I engage him? Is it because I'm genuinely interested in sorting out his backwards Philosophy? Not as much you'd think... I usually dont have the patience to work with Franko.

Perhaps I'm just looking for a reason to up my post count (sounds like a reasonable possibility to me!). Fortunately, I've got a sense of humor and I'm in a silly mood today, I've got dozens more pictures of kitties and some time to waste.

I dont like participating the derailing of threads (its amazing how Franko/wraith can derail any thread at the drop of a hat), but so be it (I wouldnt think a title of "Is Atheism a religion" would get much further than a semantics battle, not too much lost).

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 02:39 PM

Originally posted by Foofer
Weeeeellllll....I certainly can't argue with well thought-out logic like that .......MORE KITTEN PHOTOS YAHWEH! :D

Well, sense you insist :)

Foofer

26th November 2003, 02:52 PM

Thank you :)

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 03:10 PM

Originally posted by wraith
Really? Well go on...

Not appropriate? You are the physical brain which is totally dictated by TLOP. Why does having consciousness allow you to take control over TLOP?
Wrong.

Neurology and the Laws of Physics are perfectly compatible with each other.

Did you ever wonder what makes planets revolve around the sun? If I gave you a book on ecology, would that give you the answer? No, because ecology is not appropriate to describe Physics (in this case, conservation of angular momentum).

Did you ever wonder how an electric motor works? If I gave you a book on cosmology, would that give you the answer? No, because cosmology is not appropriate to describe electrodymanics.

Did you ever wonder how pathogens affect the body? If I gave you a book on acoustics, would it tell you the answer? No, because acoustics are not appropriate to describe microorgranisms.

Why say that the ability to think is outside the scope of TLOP? Unless you speak of the source of your consciousness (your soul) then this is what you're saying.
Deliberately putting words in my mouth to make it easier to attack me does not consititute as a valid argument.

And no, the source of consciousness is limited to being described by a soul. You are merely tacking definitions to the word "soul" so you could get away with saying something like "by definition, the soul has to exist", that's not a valid form of reasoning (and I personally consider it intellectually dishonest).

Here is some information:
A Nagelian Neurology of Consciousness? (http://www.sci-con.org/theory/20030401.html)

A NEURAL THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS (http://neuropsychiatryreviews.com/oct02/npr_oct02_consciousness.html)

They both describe the neurology of consciousness without assuming the hypothetical existence of a soul.

Fundamentally, why? It's still physics.
Evasive maneuver...

Fundamentally, Physics are not appropriate to describe cognitive processes because the systems involved (a big ol' central nervous system) are that of neurology. See the above examples for detail.

You wont really get anywhere with me with semantics-wordplay.

Well, it's not. But "free-will" is a different issue.

Well according to Atheism, you are matter. So why are you excluded from the concepts that describe matter?

You may reply by saying, "Well, I can think."

If this is the case, then read my second reply above.

Your use of "according to Atheism, you are matter" is incorrect (you are attempting to tack on defintions to make atheism easier to attack, try a more honest approach to debate next time). Atheism means "lacks religous beliefs". A person can be an atheist and an immaterialist at the same time.

It makes perfectly good sense. TLOP are either conscious or not conscious in nature.
I'll just copy and paste what I said previously...

You said "non-conscious Laws Of Physics", I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of what the Laws of Physics really are. A rock is non-conscious, a plant is non-conscious, a person in either of the 4 out of 5 non-REM stages of sleep is non-conscious. The Laws of Physics describe the interactions between matter and energy, in common everyday verbiage, Physics is treated almost as something which exists as concretely as an apple (which is the mistake I gather that you are making). Physics doesnt exist as some kind of aether or phlogiston substance, its the concept used to describe matter and energy and their interactions. When you say "non-conscious Laws of Physics", it makes about as much sense as "pi is red".

What I'm getting at is that Atheists have a God aka Matter.
Enjoy ;)
Silly silly semantics (and not very good semantics from what I can see).

Franko, what is your definition of "god".

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Is that cat an atheist? Answer the question.

"Did you ever stop beating your wife? Yes or no."

"Where did you hide the money you stole?"

"Does the Chancellor plan two more years of ruinous privatization?"

Sometimes, the questions in themselves may be unfair to ask...

But if you really desire an answer: By your definition of atheism, cats are in fact soft-atheists (just the way God intended...). Edit to add: As Stimpy points out below, make sure to note the difference between atheism and atheist.

A rock on the other hand is not capable of beliefs or disbeliefs, to ask "is a rock an atheist" makes silly presuppositions that simply dont apply to the rock, that makes the question "unfair".

And like I said before, semantics-based arguments are often the least productive...

Yahweh

26th November 2003, 04:04 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Pleased to be informed about that. Is this because it is logically impossible? Presumably so. Care to provide your proof of this?
Quick observation: If I fail to provide "proof" that you would accept, does that support your side. Only about as much as attacking evolution proves creationism, only about as much as asking "what caused the big bang" is evidence of God (that's the satirical way of saying "No").

Here's some information to take a look at:
Science and Consciousness (http://psych.pomona.edu/scr/) (it even hosts some crazy Philosobabble on Consciousness...).

From that websites Philosophy Page (http://psych.pomona.edu/scr/theory.html):
Philosophy and Theory

SCR is a scientific website, which means that we focus on TESTABLE
ideas. Some ideas are not testable. But when philosophy or theory can be subjected to empirical evidence, we are eager to publish summaries, just as we publish summaries of existing scientific articles. Please consider sending us your testable ideas! (The great tradition in philosophy contains hundreds of empirical ideas...)

For whatever reason, no additional updates have been made to that particular website since Feb. 2003.

More sites you can visit:
Science-of-consciousness.com (http://www.science-of-consciousness.com/) (that site has some interesting information)

Towards a Science of Consciousness (http://www.cts.cuni.cz/tsc2003/?page=program)

Here's something I know you'll like:
The Science and Philosophy of Consciousness The Empirical Description of Conscious Experience. (http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~lka/conz.htm), this the paper that I like the most. Its very detailed, lots of information of both the scientific and Philosophical perspective.

What kind of proof would like to demonstrate that consciousness does not exist without matter. I can give you all sorts of empirical evidence that consciousness does exist with matter (and if you disbelieve in the existence of matter, I can describe how we know of its existence in extraneous detail). Unfortunately, I only know of one way to prove the non-existence of claim or object, and that is by proving how it is logically impossible for that claim or object to exist.

Here's one way: Consciousness is concept used to describe knowledge of one's own existence, condition, sensations, mental operations, acts, etc., consciousness is not a substance. In the instance of consciousness, it is a qualititive characteristic that is used to describe people or things (i.e., this concept cant be used to describe other concepts).

Dont get yourself trapped in a Franko's Paradox (its caused when you try to treat an abstract concept as something which exists concretely).

Now, I dont care if you wish to describe all the "incoherencies" of Materialism, but can you just show me one conscious item who's existence in the universe is accepted that is not made of matter (it could be made of energy perhaps, or possibly even your idea of immaterial-matter)?

(Quite a derailment we've got going on...)

Stimpson J. Cat

26th November 2003, 04:36 PM

Ian,

That is exactly what I mean by "personal God". I even clarified this, just in case you were maybe thinking I meant something more than that.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In that case you really should be try to understand the terminology you employ. Otherwise it just leads to futile pointless arguments. An impersonal God also involves consciousness.

More pointless semantics. An atheist is somebody who does not believe in a conception of God which defines God to be a consciousness. There, happy? :rolleyes:

I could really not care less whether you choose to call that a personal God or not. It is completely irrelevant.

Atheism is not a belief, so lacking belief in atheism does not mean anything. If you believe in a conscious God, then you are a theist. If you do not, then you are an atheist.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm talking about the type of atheism held in the modern western world. It tends to express a certain interpretation of reality eg naturalism and the belief that there is no purpose to our lives and the Universe etc.

Then you are talking about a specific philosophical belief system which just happens to be atheistic. You are not talking about atheism. Now who is failing to understand the terminology he is employing?

You're asking to be put on ignore unless you attempt to be a bit more friendly towards me.

:dl:

That is rich, coming from you. Like I give a puddle of warm spit whether you put me on ignore or not. :cry:

Are cats illiterate? Are cats unemployed? Are you completely retarded? Or are you just pretending to be?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So they are not atheists? You agree then that atheism doesn't mean a lack of belief in God or gods?

Atheist and atheism are different words. Atheism is the lack of belief in God. An atheist is somebody who lacks belief in God. This isn't rocket science, you know. :rolleyes:

Valiant Dancer,

As I said, by "personal God" I mean a God which is defined to be some sort of sentient being (or consciousness, if you prefer). Deists who who believe in such a God are theists. Deists who believe that the Universe was created by some force external to it, and who define God to be that force, but do not claim that this force is a sentient or conscious being, are atheists.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm sorry. In all the definitions I have heard for God, it has always contained a consciousness. Mere labeling of something does not make it so. Your narrow definition of what is being called God in the example is merely relabeling the universe as God and does not involke a God belief of any type.

I would tend to agree. Calling something like that a God is just playing with words. But the sad truth is that some people do exactly that. My specification of theism and atheism referring only to definitions of God that are the kinds of things we mean when we say "God", was simply to make it clear that it does not apply to any arbitrary definition somebody might make up.

A God is defined quite loosely as a higher consciousness which transcends the universe. A sentient force which sits in judgement of the actions of all men. Usual traits of omnipotence and omnipresent are typically part of the definition. This seems to be the basic definition that theists and atheists abide by.

By that definition, anybody who believes in God is a theist, and anybody who does not is an atheist. Not all people define God that way.

Dr. Stupid

athon

26th November 2003, 05:25 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
Athon, that whole thing was really just a sarcastic riff on Yahweh's statement that someone called their god 'matter'.

And I can't believe we are still debating this either. It is so obvious that atheism is not a religion, there is no god, and the religious are deluded.

*wink*

Oh, yeah!? Well, um, that's what you say!! And...and fine!

Athon
(hmm, I think I take life way too seriously sometimes :( )

wraith

27th November 2003, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Foofer
Weeeeellllll....I certainly can't argue with well thought-out logic like that .......

Thanks ;)

wraith

27th November 2003, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
[B]Athon, that whole thing was really just a sarcastic riff on Yahweh's statement that someone called their god 'matter'.

And I can't believe we are still debating this either. It is so obvious that atheism is not a religion.

Oh of course not. Because you say that it's not, then all is said and done. :rolleyes:

there is no god

Sure there is. Atheist like to give their God an alias so it looks as if they have nothing to show for their beliefs.

and the religious are deluded.

...now that's just being ironic.

*wink*

I hope that wasn't directed at me haha

wraith

27th November 2003, 01:48 AM

Originally posted by Yahweh
It's obvious he is a troll. I dont think he really believes his own Philosophy.

Why do I engage him? Is it because I'm genuinely interested in sorting out his backwards Philosophy? Not as much you'd think... I usually dont have the patience to work with Franko.

This guy needs a beer...

I've got dozens more pictures of kitties and some time to waste.

....spot the suspect lol!

I dont like participating the derailing of threads (its amazing how Franko/wraith can derail any thread at the drop of a hat), but so be it (I wouldnt think a title of "Is Atheism a religion" would get much further than a semantics battle, not too much lost).

My intention is to show that Atheists do indeed have a God when they pretend that they don't have one.

wraith

27th November 2003, 02:52 AM

wraith: Not appropriate? You are the physical brain which is totally dictated by TLOP. Why does having consciousness allow you to take control over TLOP?

Yahweh: Wrong. Neurology and the Laws of Physics are perfectly compatible with each other.

Ahhh that's great, but where did I say that they were not?
You said that you are not controlled by TLOP. I'm simply asking you how possessing consciousness transcends the sovereignty of TLOP.

Did you ever wonder what makes planets revolve around the sun? If I gave you a book on ecology, would that give you the answer? No, because ecology is not appropriate to describe Physics (in this case, conservation of angular momentum).

Did you ever wonder how an electric motor works? If I gave you a book on cosmology, would that give you the answer? No, because cosmology is not appropriate to describe electrodymanics.

Did you ever wonder how pathogens affect the body? If I gave you a book on acoustics, would it tell you the answer? No, because acoustics are not appropriate to describe microorgranisms.

Again, this is not what I am saying. You said that TLOP isn't appropriate when discussing consciousness. TLOP encapsulates all those different branches of science that you stated above. Neurology is one of those branches.

So it is just plain gibberish when you say that TLOP is not appropriate when discussing consciousness.

wraith: Why say that the ability to think is outside the scope of TLOP? Unless you speak of the source of your consciousness (your soul) then this is what you're saying.

Yahweh: Deliberately putting words in my mouth to make it easier to attack me does not consititute as a valid argument.

And no, the source of consciousness is limited to being described by a soul. You are merely tacking definitions to the word "soul" so you could get away with saying something like "by definition, the soul has to exist", that's not a valid form of reasoning (and I personally consider it intellectually dishonest).

Here is some information:
A Nagelian Neurology of Consciousness? (http://www.sci-con.org/theory/20030401.html)

A NEURAL THEORY OF CONSCIOUSNESS (http://neuropsychiatryreviews.com/oct02/npr_oct02_consciousness.html)

They both describe the neurology of consciousness without assuming the hypothetical existence of a soul.

Yes, but we are discussing how having consciousness gives you power over TLOP ( or should I say "power of neurology :rolleyes: )

Those links that you provided gives views over how consciousness came to be, which takes the view point of matter creating consciousness. This is not argument at this point.

The point is why you are saying that you are not controlled by TLOP when you are trying to establish the correlations between consciousness and matter (where matter creates consciousness, which is advocated by those links that you posted). Those articles try to explain consciousness through matter. They do not explain how, once consciousness is achived, it gets power over TLOP (which is what you are saying).

Evasive maneuver...

Fundamentally, Physics are not appropriate to describe cognitive processes because the systems involved (a big ol' central nervous system) are that of neurology. See the above examples for detail.

Read my reply to those examples ;)

Your use of "according to Atheism, you are matter" is incorrect (you are attempting to tack on defintions to make atheism easier to attack, try a more honest approach to debate next time). Atheism means "lacks religous beliefs". A person can be an atheist and an immaterialist at the same time.

Point? Atheism asserts a system of beliefs which claims to be True by default. That's nothing short of being a religious fanatic.

wraith: It makes perfectly good sense. TLOP are either conscious or not conscious in nature.

Yahweh: I'll just copy and paste what I said previously...

You said "non-conscious Laws Of Physics", I'm afraid you have a misunderstanding of what the Laws of Physics really are. A rock is non-conscious, a plant is non-conscious, a person in either of the 4 out of 5 non-REM stages of sleep is non-conscious. The Laws of Physics describe the interactions between matter and energy, in common everyday verbiage, Physics is treated almost as something which exists as concretely as an apple (which is the mistake I gather that you are making). Physics doesnt exist as some kind of aether or phlogiston substance, its the concept used to describe matter and energy and their interactions. When you say "non-conscious Laws of Physics", it makes about as much sense as "pi is red".

Something is either conscious or not.
TLOP is either conscious or non-conscious in nature.

Spamming your above reply won't make the question go away Yahweh :rolleyes:

wraith: What I'm getting at is that Atheists have a God aka Matter.

Yahweh: Silly silly semantics (and not very good semantics from what I can see).

All I see is talk and no action haha

Franko, what is your definition of "god".

Franko defines God as an entity that has the power to generate this universe. I would have to agree. ie God is very sane and more evolved.

CWL

27th November 2003, 03:35 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum
religion and believe in god are not the same thing.
By www.m-w.com

Nor are "hobby" and "collecting stamps".

www.m-w.com:

Main Entry: 2hobby
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hobbies
Etymology: short for hobbyhorse
Date: 1816
: a pursuit outside one's regular occupation engaged in especially for relaxation
Not collecting stamps is indeed something I regularly do outside my regular occupation. In fact, I find abstaining from the collecion of stamps to be thoroughly relaxing. Does this in your reasonable opinion mean that "not collecting stamps" is my "hobby"?

The only appropriate answer is of course "potatoe, potata". With definitions we can accomplish anything (as long as we don't require the definitions to be sane and reasonable). However, abstaining from religion cannot - at least by any sane and reasonable standards - be defined as constituting a "religion".

However, I'll play along and put my own atheism to the test with the help of the Merriam-Webster definition provided by you.

1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

Nope. Not applicable to me. I do not practice (1) the service and worship of God or the supernatural, nor am I (2) committed or devoted to religious faith or observance.

2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

"Personal set of beliefs"? You have got to be kidding. Are my personal beliefs that Steely Dan is one of the greatest bands ever, or that Terry Gilliam is a terrific director, signs of religion?

"Institutionalized"? Show me the institution of my non-religion.

3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

I think we can leave this one aside, don't you?

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

This is kind of over defining if you ask me - this definition overlaps with both 1 and 2. Again, what do we mean by cause? Is any member of any political party religious because of his/her political beliefs?

Besides, how can lack of ardor and faith be said to be held with ardor and faith?

LuxFerum

27th November 2003, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by CWL

"Personal set of beliefs"? You have got to be kidding. Are my personal beliefs that Steely Dan is one of the greatest bands ever, or that Terry Gilliam is a terrific director, signs of religion?

It is for Elvis (http://www.frankwu.com/elvis1.html)

Some words have more than one meaning, in fact, I guess that most of the words have more one meaning.

And what we have here is a discussion about the meaning of a word. Both sides decided that their definition is the right one, and the other is wrong. But the truht is, both are right and wrong at the same time.

Let me play with the word atheism (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism)

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
Now we know that atheism is a doctrine (http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=doctrine)
1 archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
and now we know that doctrine is a system of belief.
therefore Atheism is a system of belief, like a religion.

That is because religion have a broad definition, like doctrine.
That is why atheism is not a religion in some definition, and that is why atheism is a religion in some definition.

And both statements are true, those definition are perfectly valid and used in every day life.

On a side note, that is why i think that we are far far away from a computer able to deal with this languages concepts.

CWL

27th November 2003, 05:19 AM

Originally posted by LuxFerum
*snip*

That is because religion have a broad definition, like doctrine.
That is why atheism is not a religion in some definition, and that is why atheism is a religion in some definition.

*snip*

I have already conceded to this. Our (fundamental) disagreement lies in your next set of contentions:

Let me play with the word atheism

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Now we know that atheism is a doctrine

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 archaic : TEACHING, INSTRUCTION
2 a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : DOGMA c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and now we know that doctrine is a system of belief.
therefore Atheism is a system of belief, like a religion.

That is because religion have a broad definition, like doctrine.
That is why atheism is not a religion in some definition, and that is why atheism is a religion in some definition.

And both statements are true, those definition are perfectly valid and used in every day life.

*snip*

I don't think a definition of "religion" which encompasses any and all "doctrines" is perfectly valid, nor is it used in every day life.

Is the "doctrine" of modern natural science religion? Is the "doctrine" of the American Democratic Party? Is the legal "doctrine" of res iudicata? Is the "doctrine" of subtext in Xena Warrior Princess?

By your standards it appears that the answer to the above questions is "yes" and I certainly do not think that such a definition of "religion" is reasonable.

crocodile deathroll

27th November 2003, 05:43 AM

Originally posted by Loki
crocodile deathroll,

So you're predicting a very large decrease in the number of Australian Atheists!?!?!?!

From the 2001 census (http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/9658217eba753c2cca256cae00053fa3!OpenDocument), the figure for "no religion" is 15.5% , and for "not stated, inadequately described" it's 11.7%. By my calculation that puts the number of self-described atheists at 2.9 million for 2001, and the total number of Australians unwilling to align themselves with *any* of the 124 religious categories offered on the census is just over 5 million (out of a total population of 18.7 million).

The following is also interesting :

No wonder the Australian churches are felling the need to 'change'!

No, I am only referring to the 24,464 Australians who wrote the word "atheist" on the census. That would only account for 1.5% of all atheists in this country.

LuxFerum

27th November 2003, 05:56 AM

Originally posted by CWL

I don't think a definition of "religion" which encompasses any and all "doctrines" is perfectly valid, nor is it used in every day life.

Let me try this with sets.
The set "doctrine" contain a sub-set "religion"
And the set "religion" contain a sub-set "doctrine".
It is a paradox, but that is the way language works.

You can say "I exercise religiously" with religiously meaning one thing and you can say "I live religiously" with religiously meaning another thing that don't have nothing to do with the other meaning. And yet both are used in every day life, and both are clearly understandable.
The only problem in this is that someone will say that religiously means unique one thing and other that will say that means unique other thing.
That is what is happening here.

Originally posted by CWL

Is the "doctrine" of modern natural science religion? Is the "doctrine" of the American Democratic Party? Is the legal "doctrine" of res iudicata? Is the "doctrine" of subtext in Xena Warrior Princess?

By your standards it appears that the answer to the above questions is "yes" and I certainly do not think that such a definition of "religion" is reasonable.
What you are doing in those question is puting meaning A in one side and puting meaning B in the other and saying that they are not compatible.
But they don't have to be compatible.
It's like a genealogic tree, and doctrine and religion share the same grandfather. You can use doctrine as a synonymous for the religion only in this grandfather concept area, but not in the others. The others ancestrals, might be completely incompatible and they no longer act as synonymous.

So, to answer your question clearly, the answer is maybe. If you write a text where you explain that you are in the grandfather concept area, then it is yes, If you write a text that explain that you are not in that area, the answer is no. That one line statment is incomplete, like the title in this thread.

Yahweh

27th November 2003, 10:41 AM

Originally posted by wraith
This guy needs a beer...
I'll be happy with an Orange Soda.

Yahweh

27th November 2003, 11:56 AM

Originally posted by wraith
Ahhh that's great, but where did I say that they were not?
You said that you are not controlled by TLOP. I'm simply asking you how possessing consciousness transcends the sovereignty of TLOP.

Consciousness is compatible with the Laws of Physics.

Again, this is not what I am saying. You said that TLOP isn't appropriate when discussing consciousness. TLOP encapsulates all those different branches of science that you stated above. Neurology is one of those branches.

Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions, its broken into groups such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And if you really believe neurology is another group of physics, just think of cognitive neurosciences as another branch of Physics (wow, that's exactly what you just said!). Branch Cognitive Neuroscience is only appropriate for describing Cognitive Neuroscience, however it is inappropriate for describing Acoustics or Nuclear Physics. In any instance, consciousness is compatible with the Laws of Physics.

However, I maintain Cognitive Neuroscience is not equivelant to Physics. Cognitive Neurosciences can be grouped into fields of Psycholinguistics, neurobiology, Genetic Neurobiology, Animal Behavior, and the list goes on and on.

The reason why Neurosciences are not equivelant to Physics is because the systems involved are inappropriate to be described by Physics.

Another science that is inappropriate to be described by Physics is Biology. Biology including biomes, life cycles, molecular biology, entomology, Physiology (thats a very large group itself), lots more -ology sounding words. The reason being is because the systems involved in Biology are inappropriate to be described by Physics.

Other sciences not properly described by the Laws of Physics is Modern Medicine, Political Science, Psychology, Social Sciences, Cosmology, etc..

Teaching that humans are conscious beings is compatible with physics, teaching that they have a hypothetical soul that goes to Heaven or alternate dimension (see Buffyverse for alternate dimensions) is incompatible with science (in fact, its incompatible with logic).

While most of those sciences are inappropriate to describe one another, they are all compatible with each other and work together fairly well.

So it is just plain gibberish when you say that TLOP is not appropriate when discussing consciousness.
I think the gibberish has a little something to do with your lack of undertstanding of what Physics (and other sciences) really are.

Yes, but we are discussing how having consciousness gives you power over TLOP ( or should I say "power of neurology :rolleyes: )

Neurology does not give me the power to shoot lasers out of my eyes, or to lift objects with the power of my mind, or change the internal structure of protons, or anything described as supernatural or paranormal. Neurology gives you no such "power" to function beyond the Laws of Physics.

The point is why you are saying that you are not controlled by TLOP when you are trying to establish the correlations between consciousness and matter (where matter creates consciousness, which is advocated by those links that you posted). Those articles try to explain consciousness through matter. They do not explain how, once consciousness is achived, it gets power over TLOP (which is what you are saying).

If you take the time to read my above replies, you should already realize you entire argument rests on a few principles, one of which is the logical fallacy of composition.

Atoms are invisible
You are made of atoms
Therefore, you are invisible
Is a Fallacy of Composition.

A bus uses more petrochemicals than a car
Petrochemicals hurt the environment
Therefore, buses hurt the environment more than cars
Is a Fallacy of Composition.

Aluminum is a very low-mass metal
That shed is made entirely out of aluminum
Therefore, that shed is very light-weight
Is a Fallacy of Composition.

You are made of atoms
Atoms "obey" the Laws of Physics
Therefore, the Laws of Physics control you
Is a Fallacy of Composition.

Point? Atheism asserts a system of beliefs which claims to be True by default. That's nothing short of being a religious fanatic.
Now this is just a semantics game.

Atheism is the lack of religous beliefs.

CWL used this analogy:
If atheism (i.e. not believing in [a] God) is a religion then, by all means, not playing soccer is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, not eating at the moment is having a spot of lunch, not reading is enjoying some literature, etc., etc., etc.

The things you are trying to say sound like gibberish to me, but the reason behind that is because of the semantics of the word "God". You say "atheists god is the Laws of Physics", that is about as sensicle as "Biologists God is Biology".

Something is either conscious or not.
TLOP is either conscious or non-conscious in nature.
False dichotomy. You are neglecting something very important:
Consciousness is a qualititive property of things which exist concretely.

The Laws of Physics are not a substance (i.e. they do not exist concretely), it is not an entity which controls the universe, it is a description of how the universe works.

(Note: Christianity also provides a description of how the universe works, but it is an inaccurate description.

Note: Although other religions provide descriptions of how and why the universe works, it does not make them sciences.
--Note-Extension: See above note, see how Physics is not a religion, see how religions are not a science.)

Spamming your above reply won't make the question go away Yahweh :rolleyes:
I think your next reply sums up how I feel about your above quote...
All I see is talk and no action haha

So far, you've done nothing to defend you beliefs. Either your beliefs have no substance or basis in reality, or you agree with me (perhaps there is a hidden option #3 that I'm missing...).

Franko defines God as an entity that has the power to generate this universe. I would have to agree. ie God is very sane and more evolved.
Well there you have it. You answered your very own question: Physics is not an entity which has the power to control the universe, therefore it is not a god.

My definition of god(s) is slightly different: God(s) is a supernatural entity which controls the universe or some part of the universe.

By your defintion and mine, Atheists have no god.

Now, how do you define religion? That should clear up pretty well whether atheism is a religion or not.

Dorian Gray

27th November 2003, 04:53 PM

Oh of course not. Because you say that it's not, then all is said and done.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
there is no god
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sure there is. Atheist like to give their God an alias so it looks as if they have nothing to show for their beliefs.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and the religious are deluded.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

...now that's just being ironic.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*wink*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope that wasn't directed at me haha It was directed at all delusional religious nuts. Note the *wink*.

LuxFerum:and now we know that doctrine is a system of belief. Nice twisting of words. It actually says a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief It is, according to this definition, a principle or position.

LuxFerum

28th November 2003, 02:44 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
LuxFerum:
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and now we know that doctrine is a system of belief.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nice twisting of words. It actually says
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It is, according to this definition, a principle or position.

It can be:
1. a principle in a branch of knowledge
2. a principle in a system of belief
3. a position in a branch of knowledge
4. a position in system of belief
5. the body of principles in a branch of knowledge
6. the body of principles in a system of belief.

You can see by this, that a branch of knowledge and a system of belief shares one small concept that is not enough to describe neither of the words.

It is like e=mc², a T.V have mass, therefore it is energie, A soap have mass, therefore it is energie. But most of the time you can't simply say that T.V.=Soap, but in a specific situation, like in a black hole, both things will be the same, and you can work with a T.V.=Soap.

Same thing for atheism and religion, you can find a place where they are the same, but most of the time they aren't.

wraith

28th November 2003, 07:25 AM

wraith: Ahhh that's great, but where did I say that they were not?
You said that you are not controlled by TLOP. I'm simply asking you how possessing consciousness transcends the sovereignty of TLOP.

Yahweh: Consciousness is compatible with the Laws of Physics.

The doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by saying that consciousness is compatible with TLOP?

Physics is the science of matter and energy and their interactions, its broken into groups such as acoustics, optics, mechanics, thermodynamics, and electromagnetism, as well as in modern extensions including atomic and nuclear physics, cryogenics, solid-state physics, particle physics, and plasma physics.

And if you really believe neurology is another group of physics, just think of cognitive neurosciences as another branch of Physics (wow, that's exactly what you just said!). Branch Cognitive Neuroscience is only appropriate for describing Cognitive Neuroscience, however it is inappropriate for describing Acoustics or Nuclear Physics.

That's not what I am saying. The whole universe is based on rules, which I collectively say as "TLOP". I am not saying that you should explain consciousness through plasma physics.

In any instance, consciousness is compatible with the Laws of Physics.

...and by saying this, do think that answers my question to why you think that your every action is not due to those laws?

However, I maintain Cognitive Neuroscience is not equivelant to Physics. Cognitive Neurosciences can be grouped into fields of Psycholinguistics, neurobiology, Genetic Neurobiology, Animal Behavior, and the list goes on and on.

All of which are based on rules due to TLOP.

The reason why Neurosciences are not equivelant to Physics is because the systems involved are inappropriate to be described by Physics.

If anyone is playing semantic word games, it would be you.
The underlying rules that are in play for neurology are exactly the same for any other field in science.

Another science that is inappropriate to be described by Physics is Biology. Biology including biomes, life cycles, molecular biology, entomology, Physiology (thats a very large group itself), lots more -ology sounding words. The reason being is because the systems involved in Biology are inappropriate to be described by Physics.

Other sciences not properly described by the Laws of Physics is Modern Medicine, Political Science, Psychology, Social Sciences, Cosmology, etc..

More word games. :rolleyes:

Teaching that humans are conscious beings is compatible with physics, teaching that they have a hypothetical soul that goes to Heaven or alternate dimension (see Buffyverse for alternate dimensions) is incompatible with science (in fact, its incompatible with logic).

OH incompatible with logic hey!?
WELL, since you're such a Heman, just explain your so called "free-will" and how you don't obey TLOP for starters.

While most of those sciences are inappropriate to describe one another, they are all compatible with each other and work together fairly well.

Again, I am not asking you to explain consciousness through plasma physics.

I think the gibberish has a little something to do with your lack of undertstanding of what Physics (and other sciences) really are.

No, the gibberish is coming from you ;)

wraith: Yes, but we are discussing how having consciousness gives you power over TLOP ( or should I say "power of neurology" )

Yahweh: Neurology does not give me the power to shoot lasers out of my eyes, or to lift objects with the power of my mind, or change the internal structure of protons, or anything described as supernatural or paranormal. Neurology gives you no such "power" to function beyond the Laws of Physics.

Please answer the question at hand Yahweh :rolleyes:
Due to TLOP, you can't flap your arms and fly. How is this saying that TLOP isn't responsible for your posts on this forum? ie You are not controlled entirely by TLOP.

If you take the time to read my above replies, you should already realize you entire argument rests on a few principles, one of which is the logical fallacy of composition.

Atoms are invisible
You are made of atoms
Therefore, you are invisible

Is a Fallacy of Composition.

Aluminum is a very low-mass metal
That shed is made entirely out of aluminum
Therefore, that shed is very light-weight

Is a Fallacy of Composition.

etc etc

You are made of atoms
Atoms "obey" the Laws of Physics
Therefore, the Laws of Physics control you

Is a Fallacy of Composition.

Unlike the other fallacies, the above syllogism doesn't omit information.

For clarification, I could add another premise to the above syllogism.

Anything made of atoms, obeys the Laws of Physics
You are made of atoms
Atoms "obey" the Laws of Physics
Therefore, the Laws of Physics control you[/quote]

Cleary, you have said that the conclusion is false. So are you saying that things made of matter/energy don't entirely obey TLOP?

wraith: Point? Atheism asserts a system of beliefs which claims to be True by default. That's nothing short of being a religious fanatic.

Yahweh: Now this is just a semantics game.

Atheism is the lack of religous beliefs.

CWL used this analogy:

If atheism (i.e. not believing in [a] God) is a religion then, by all means, not playing soccer is a sport, not collecting stamps is a hobby, not eating at the moment is having a spot of lunch, not reading is enjoying some literature, etc., etc., etc.

The things you are trying to say sound like gibberish to me, but the reason behind that is because of the semantics of the word "God". You say "atheists god is the Laws of Physics", that is about as sensicle as "Biologists God is Biology".

No, it's not a word game. It's clear cut logic. I too believe that TLOP is God (ie The Will of God), but unlike Atheists, I don't go around preaching that TLOP is non-conscious.

Let's take a look at the Church of Atheism shall we?
Atheism asserts that consciousness is created through matter, via non-conscious laws of physics, and when consciousness is achieved, "free-will" is obtained. Hence, TLOP is not entirely in control of my actions. Also, our beliefs are True by default.

Hell, if that's not religious fanaticism, I don't know what is!

False dichotomy. You are neglecting something very important:
Consciousness is a qualititive property of things which exist concretely.

This is just more fluff in the air.
You say that TLOP is non-conscious in nature.
Am I correct in saying this?

The Laws of Physics are not a substance (i.e. they do not exist concretely), it is not an entity which controls the universe, it is a description of how the universe works.

So the rules that govern a falling rock, only exist when you're there observing it?

(Note: Christianity also provides a description of how the universe works, but it is an inaccurate description.

At least they don't go around saying that your actions don't have consequences :rolleyes:

So far, you've done nothing to defend you beliefs. Either your beliefs have no substance or basis in reality, or you agree with me (perhaps there is a hidden option #3 that I'm missing...).

Well, keep telling yourself that ;)

Well there you have it. You answered your very own question: Physics is not an entity which has the power to control the universe, therefore it is not a god.

My definition of god(s) is slightly different: God(s) is a supernatural entity which controls the universe or some part of the universe.

By your defintion and mine, Atheists have no god.[quote]

God's Will has power over me ie. I'm controlled entirely by TLOP. The fact is, you are controlled by TLOP entirely (which you deny, yet show no logic/evidence to the contrary). I don't care, whether you call non-conscious TLOP a god or not. Why does God have to be supernatural?

You know what? By my definition, a car has to have 5 wheels. So really, my four wheeled automobile isn't a car.

[quote]Now, how do you define religion? That should clear up pretty well whether atheism is a religion or not.

I would define religion as a set of beliefs that governs your worldview.

But hey, you can stick with the official dictionary meaning if you want. You have a God (which you don't acknowledge) and you have the commandments. ;)

wraith

28th November 2003, 07:30 AM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
It was directed at all delusional religious nuts. Note the *wink*.

eh...I guess you'll need a mirror then.

Yahweh

28th November 2003, 08:26 AM

Originally posted by wraith
The doesn't answer the question. What do you mean by saying that consciousness is compatible with TLOP?
Atoms are not conscious, humans and other organisms are clearly conscious, usually one might find a flaw in the existence of atoms. However to see that flaw would be a Fallacy of Composition. You asked " I'm simply asking you how possessing consciousness transcends the sovereignty of TLOP", by Neuroscience, consciousness is described in terms of matter. That is how you conclude Neuroscience and the Laws of Physics (in terms of matter) are compatible.

That's not what I am saying. The whole universe is based on rules, which I collectively say as "TLOP". I am not saying that you should explain consciousness through plasma physics.

So the totality of all things that behave in the universe are based on what you call the Laws of Physics. In that case, you are being very inspecific on what your verbiage.

In the same way "theory" has totally different definitions in commonplace dialouge and in science, you need to make distinctions between what you call things.

If you want the totality of all things behaviors in the universe to be described in one word, I dont recommend using "the Laws of Physics" as that word, the Laws of Physics obviously mean different things to a scientist and to you.

...and by saying this, do think that answers my question to why you think that your every action is not due to those laws?

Compatible with Physics in NOT equivelant to "described by Physics" or "equivelent to Physics".

All of which are based on rules due to TLOP.

By your defintion of the Laws of Physics (what I can make out of it is "the totality of all the behavior in the universe" or something like that), the yes, everything in the list is based on rules due to the Laws of Physics.

However, I maintain that we have different defintions and conflicting concepts of the Laws of Physics.

If anyone is playing semantic word games, it would be you.
The underlying rules that are in play for neurology are exactly the same for any other field in science.

Saying "there are no such things as atheists, because everybody worships something, whether it be money or whether it be God" is a semantics wordplay game.

Stating facts such as "the systems involved in Physics are not the same as the systems involved in Neuroscience" is not argument of Semantics. Its no more semantics than saying "Hunting animals with a knife and hunting animals with a bow are not equivelant".

You do nothing to back up your assumptions of "the underlying rules that are in play for neurology are exactly the same for any other field in science".

More word games. :rolleyes:

Try harder.

Playing word games would suggest I'm inventing my own defintions or using the wrong defintions to gain an advantage in an argument, that is exactly what I am NOT doing.

OH incompatible with logic hey!?
WELL, since you're such a Heman, just explain your so called "free-will" and how you don't obey TLOP for starters.
On page 3, second post from the top (http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=31021&perpage=40&pagenumber=3), you used the quote:
But "free-will" is a different issue.

Naughty naughty...

No, the gibberish is coming from you ;)
Try attacking the argument next time...

Please answer the question at hand Yahweh :rolleyes:
Due to TLOP, you can't flap your arms and fly. How is this saying that TLOP isn't responsible for your posts on this forum? ie You are not controlled entirely by TLOP.
Flapping your arms and being unable to fly and my posts being the result of physics are nonanalogous. The first one is a physical limitation (or the Physics word: aerodynamics), the second cognitive neural science. The systems involved in aerodynamics and cognitive neural science are not the same.

Unlike the other fallacies, the above syllogism doesn't omit information.
I dont understand what you mean by "information".

For clarification, I could add another premise to the above syllogism.

Anything made of atoms, obeys the Laws of Physics
You are made of atoms
Atoms "obey" the Laws of Physics
Therefore, the Laws of Physics control you

Is a fallacy of composition. In fact, you attempted to refute my argument that "the laws of physics control you" is a logical fallacy by simply repeating the same words. The extra premise you added only makes the "proof" more redundant, you accomplished nothing, you may have well not read my post.

Cleary, you have said that the conclusion is false. So are you saying that things made of matter/energy don't entirely obey TLOP?

Using my defintion of the Laws of Physics:
A description of how the universe works, I am saying the Laws of Physics are not appropriate to describe my actions.

Using your definition, it appears your vagueness you be grouped into various catergories to prevent confusion. Perhaps you can call one catergory "Cognitive Neuroscience", then you can refer back to my above statement.

No, it's not a word game. It's clear cut logic. I too believe that TLOP is God (ie The Will of God), but unlike Atheists, I don't go around preaching that TLOP is non-conscious.
Your beliefs are clearly different from that of most atheists beliefs. For one, I can say with reasonable assurance that most atheists dont concieve the Laws of Physics as an entity.

Let's take a look at the Church of Atheism shall we?
Atheism asserts that consciousness is created through matter, via non-conscious laws of physics, and when consciousness is achieved, "free-will" is obtained.
Bullplop, atheism makes no such assertions. A person can be an atheist with no belief in "free will", no belief in matter, no belief in the people around him.

This is just more fluff in the air.
You say that TLOP is non-conscious in nature.
Am I correct in saying this?
I'd say your question is based on an incorrect premise. I dont believe the Laws of Physics are an entity, and therefore the qualitive propery of "consciousness" is nonsense. Its nonsense in the same way asserting a person who has yet to be concieved in the womb is dead.

So the rules that govern a falling rock, only exist when you're there observing it?
That is exactly what I never said nor implied. Putting words in my mouth to deliberately misrepresent my position is a terrible way to make an argument.

Well, keep telling yourself that ;)
Its actually an inside joke between me and my friends. Its a form of satire, dont let the vagueness of the joke get to you...

(I've thrown in dozens of inside jokes throughout our exchanges, in fact most my 5000+ posts are littered with subtle jokes that I throw in, they're not funny to anyone in any way, just something I like to do...)

I would define religion as a set of beliefs that governs your worldview.

I see where you are coming from. Atheism is a religion, Christianity is a religion, by your defintion Grandeur is a Religion, Yin-Yang Philosophy is a Religion, mental/sensory handicap is a Religion, Depression is a Religion, being a male is a Religion, being a Republican is a Religion, Schizophrenia is a Religion, Anorexia is a Religion, Observation is a Religion, etc. etc. etc. You chose the most vague form of "religion" you could find, I'm forced to conclude you are merely trolling and deliberately trying to ellicit a negative reaction out of the people here. Good job, pat yourself on the back.

Dorian Gray

28th November 2003, 11:14 PM

It is like e=mc², a T.V have mass, therefore it is energie, No. m= e/c squared.

So a TV is energy divided by the speed of light squared.

eh...I guess you'll need a mirror then. Wow, that's some funny stuff there.

Atheism is either
1) not a religion
or
2) a religion, and so is every single belief or system of beliefs about everything man has ever conceived.

If the situation is anything in between, then the line I draw is just as good as the line someone else draws.

LuxFerum

29th November 2003, 05:39 PM

Originally posted by Dorian Gray
No. m= e/c squared.

So a TV is energy divided by the speed of light squared.

c is a constant, it doesn't change. And if you have a system of measurement where the light have a speed of 1unit of space/1 unit of time , this formula will be reduced to

e=m

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

Atheism is either
1) not a religion

they have some similarities

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

or
2) a religion, and so is every single belief or system of beliefs about everything man has ever conceived.

They have some similarities too

Originally posted by Dorian Gray

If the situation is anything in between, then the line I draw is just as good as the line someone else draws.
Yes it is, except that the line between those concepts is already draw and acepted by most of the people, and those concepts share one part of their territory

wraith

29th November 2003, 08:05 PM

Originally posted by Yahweh
Atoms are not conscious, humans and other organisms are clearly conscious, usually one might find a flaw in the existence of atoms. However to see that flaw would be a Fallacy of Composition. You asked " I'm simply asking you how possessing consciousness transcends the sovereignty of TLOP", by Neuroscience, consciousness is described in terms of matter. That is how you conclude Neuroscience and the Laws of Physics (in terms of matter) are compatible.

So how does this imply that you are not controlled entirely by those laws? By simply saying that you are conscious does not imply this at all. Instead, you are assuming that this is the case.

In any case, I still think that it's circle talk when you say that neuroscience is compatible with TLOP. That's sort of like saying that my door is compatible with my house.

So the totality of all things that behave in the universe are based on what you call the Laws of Physics. In that case, you are being very inspecific on what your verbiage.

Science is based on rules. What I collectively say as "TLOP" doesn't make it any less True.

In the same way "theory" has totally different definitions in commonplace dialouge and in science, you need to make distinctions between what you call things.

If you want the totality of all things behaviors in the universe to be described in one word, I dont recommend using "the Laws of Physics" as that word, the Laws of Physics obviously mean different things to a scientist and to you.

Well, since we have cleared that up, you may as well stick to that terminology.

Compatible with Physics in NOT equivelant to "described by Physics" or "equivelent to Physics".

So explain how you are not governed entirely by those laws.
You simply can not assume that once consciousness is achieved, the laws of physics do not control you entirely or control you partially.

By your defintion of the Laws of Physics (what I can make out of it is "the totality of all the behavior in the universe" or something like that), the yes, everything in the list is based on rules due to the Laws of Physics.

Roger that.

However, I maintain that we have different defintions and conflicting concepts of the Laws of Physics.

Does that make my definition of TLOP any less True?

Saying "there are no such things as atheists, because everybody worships something, whether it be money or whether it be God" is a semantics wordplay game.

Well you are controlled entirely by TLOP. That's quite a Force. Whether you believe this or not, does not change my position on the subject.

You do nothing to back up your assumptions of "the underlying rules that are in play for neurology are exactly the same for any other field in science".

Well all of science is based on only one set of laws of physics (laws of the universe - if you prefer). If there is another set, then please explain.

Naughty naughty...

?

wraith: Due to TLOP, you can't flap your arms and fly. How is this saying that TLOP isn't responsible for your posts on this forum? ie You are not controlled entirely by TLOP.

Yahweh: Flapping your arms and being unable to fly and my posts being the result of physics are nonanalogous. The first one is a physical limitation (or the Physics word: aerodynamics), the second cognitive neural science. The systems involved in aerodynamics and cognitive neural science are not the same.

Yet the underlying laws that govern them are the same. Regardless of which, saying that they are not the same type of science, does not imply that you are not controlled entirely by TLOP.

I dont understand what you mean by "information".

More premises.

Is a fallacy of composition. In fact, you attempted to refute my argument that "the laws of physics control you" is a logical fallacy by simply repeating the same words. The extra premise you added only makes the "proof" more redundant, you accomplished nothing, you may have well not read my post.

No, the syllogism flows.
The premises link from each other.
If you believe that the conclusion is False, state which premise/s is/are False.

wraith: Cleary, you have said that the conclusion is false. So are you saying that things made of matter/energy don't entirely obey TLOP?

Yahweh: Using my defintion of the Laws of Physics:
A description of how the universe works, I am saying the Laws of Physics are not appropriate to describe my actions.

Using your definition, it appears your vagueness you be grouped into various catergories to prevent confusion. Perhaps you can call one catergory "Cognitive Neuroscience", then you can refer back to my above statement.

Oh get serious! This is pure semantic fluff.
You are the physical brain which is made of matter. Matter entirely obeys TLOP. By simply saying that you possess consciousness, does not constitute as evidence to the contrary.

It's just wishful thinking on your behalf.

Your beliefs are clearly different from that of most atheists beliefs. For one, I can say with reasonable assurance that most atheists dont concieve the Laws of Physics as an entity.

...and I agree with you.

Bullplop, atheism makes no such assertions. A person can be an atheist with no belief in "free will", no belief in matter, no belief in the people around him.[quote]

Yes, but the majority of the Atheists on this forum take this stance. Is this an accurate description of your beliefs?

[quote]I'd say your question is based on an incorrect premise. I dont believe the Laws of Physics are an entity, and therefore the qualitive propery of "consciousness" is nonsense. Its nonsense in the same way asserting a person who has yet to be concieved in the womb is dead.

What if I asked you whether the wind was conscious?

That is exactly what I never said nor implied. Putting words in my mouth to deliberately misrepresent my position is a terrible way to make an argument.

You said:
The Laws of Physics are not a substance (i.e. they do not exist concretely)

In other words, you are saying that the TLOP does not exist concretely.
That's how I interpreted it.
What did you mean by this?

Its actually an inside joke between me and my friends. Its a form of satire, dont let the vagueness of the joke get to you...

(I've thrown in dozens of inside jokes throughout our exchanges, in fact most my 5000+ posts are littered with subtle jokes that I throw in, they're not funny to anyone in any way, just something I like to do...)

Thanks for the heads up :rolleyes:

I see where you are coming from. Atheism is a religion, Christianity is a religion, by your defintion Grandeur is a Religion, Yin-Yang Philosophy is a Religion, mental/sensory handicap is a Religion, Depression is a Religion, being a male is a Religion, being a Republican is a Religion, Schizophrenia is a Religion, Anorexia is a Religion, Observation is a Religion, etc. etc. etc. You chose the most vague form of "religion" you could find, I'm forced to conclude you are merely trolling and deliberately trying to ellicit a negative reaction out of the people here. Good job, pat yourself on the back.

No. What I'm saying is that Atheism thinks that by simply negating the belief of something makes the negation True by default.

You believe that the True default position to hold is that God does not exist.

I'm sorry, but that is blind faith.