Do you believe religion?

[Godlygamer23]

Yes! You are most certainly right, thank you! You have good knowledge of the Bible.

I was a Jehovah's Witness for about 7 years so I experienced the Bible quite a bit.

[themaniac]

I don't believe in any god/s nor any religion but I will keep an open mind if I'm given enough physical proof that god/s exists than I might believe in them but currently there is no physical proof that they exist so there for I don't believe but I will keep an open mind

[skylane]

I asked you how atheism invites laziness of the mind. I never got a response to it.

Oh, sorry I misunderstood your query. Atheism like any belief system is rooted in a supportive belief structure - such as scientific inquiry/method - and conversely a "dis-belief" structure, things relegated to non-belief either through doctrine or because of limited knowledge. If by atheism you mean people took the time to study both the belief structure and the supposed non-belief doctrine - religious theology - and came to a conclusion that yes, spiritual beings are not responsible for the creation of the universe then it wouldn't be intellectual laziness. But I would hazard that most don't and can not. It's folly to use "science" as a belief structure against religion as their domains cover different ground. Say specifically if one is an atheist then they most likely would believe in cosmology. How would they explain the creation of the universe? Yet, I have personally met very few people that can give even a remotely correct summation of cosmology, even in layperson terms. That is laziness in my opinion.  

[Godlygamer23]

Oh, sorry I misunderstood your query. Atheism like any belief system is rooted in a supportive belief structure[.]

I need to stop you right there. Atheism is not a belief system.

[Albatross]

I was a Jehovah's Witness for about 7 years so I experienced the Bible quite a bit.

 

Oh, I see. If you don't mind me asking, when did you find out you did not believe in God/religion?

[Godlygamer23]

Oh, I see. If you don't mind me asking, when did you find out you did not believe in God/religion?

Two or three years ago.

[skylane]

I need to stop you right there. Atheism is not a belief system.

Everything is rooted in a belief structure. Even scientific inquiry. Thomas Khan stated it best - scientific progress is marked by the the overturning of scientific belief that was held as truth until proven incorrect. 

[Godlygamer23]

Everything is rooted in a belief structure. Even scientific inquiry. Thomas Khan stated it best - scientific progress is marked by the the overturning of scientific belief that was held as truth until proven incorrect. 

Atheism is not rooted in a belief structure. It has to do with non-belief. There are things in science that are not belief at all - for example, nuclear fusion and electronics.

[skylane]

Atheism is not rooted in a belief structure. It has to do with non-belief. There are things in science that are not belief at all - for example, nuclear fusion.

Sorry but if Atheism has any links to science then there is a belief structure. Namely because most of the theoretical underpinnings of mathematics and physics is unproven and are given the benefit of the doubt - otherwise known as belief. Things in science are not as clear cut as they may appear mostly because there is so much in theoretical physicist that is just that. Even in your example of nuclear fusion, there is more problems left yet unanswered (in high energy physics, quantum field physics and classic field theory) that we have to assume is correct for the time being.  

[Godlygamer23]

Sorry but if Atheism has any links to science then there is a belief structure.

Atheism in of itself does not link to science. It is simply a lack of belief in deities. That is it. If you want to be technical, everyone is an atheist in some fashion.

[o0Martin]

Sorry but if Atheism has any links to science then there is a belief structure. Namely because most of the theoretical underpinnings of mathematics and physics is unproven and are given the benefit of the doubt - otherwise known as belief. Things in science are not as clear cut as they may appear mostly because there is so much in theoretical physicist that is just that. Even in your example of nuclear fusion, there is more problems left yet unanswered (in high energy physics, quantum field physics and classic field theory) that we have to assume is correct for the time being.

 

Atheism doesn't have links to science, not all Atheists use science to forward their arguments 

 

The only thing that binds different forms of atheism together is the base definition of atheism, which is that if you're an atheist you have a lack of belief in the existence of God, not that you don't believe God exists 

 

It's two very different things for someone to say 

a ) I don't believe God exists  or 

b ) I lack belief in the existence of God

 

'a' is a belief system you're right there, but 'b' isn't, and a lot of people get that mixed up when they either preach atheism or talk about atheism

[Godlygamer23]

It's two very different things for someone to say 

a ) I don't believe God exists  or 

b ) I lack belief in the existence of God

Those two statements say the same thing. They're both lack of belief. Neither is taking an active position of belief.

[skylane]

Atheism in of itself does not link to science. It is simply a lack of belief in deities. That is it. If you want to be technical, everyone is an atheist in some fashion.

There are many argumentative structures of atheism. Although they all share the cornerstone of lack of belief in deities there are still either philosophical, scientific or rhetorical/logical motivations that led to that lack of belief. 

[Godlygamer23]

There are many argumentative structures of atheism. Although they all share the cornerstone of lack of belief in deities there are still either philosophical, scientific or rhetorical/logical motivations that led to that lack of belief. 

But it does not entail belief, though I think at this point we're going to be running in circles, so to speak. While there may be concepts in science that are not fully understood(I mean there are a lot), everyone should have a level of skepticism in everything, but not so much that people question things like the Earth being an oblate spheroid without having proper evidence to prove their idea(s) such as the case of the "Flat Earthers." Atheists can certainly argue from a scientific point of view, but that is not a default. We can also point out holes in religious stories found in the Quaran and Bible.

[skylane]

 

Atheism doesn't have links to science, not all Atheists use science to forward their arguments 

 

If memory serves me I think there was a historic link between atheism and "naturalist philosophers" or what we would consider early scientist with a whiff of non-science philosophy. The better question then would be if you are an atheist then what led you to that dis-belief or reaffirmed your dis-belief? 

[skylane]

But it does not entail belief, though I think at this point we're going to be running in circles, so to speak. While there may be concepts in science that are not fully understood(I mean there are a lot), everyone should have a level of skepticism in everything, but not so much that people question things like the Earth being an oblate spheroid without having proper evidence to prove their idea(s) such as the case of the "Flat Earthers." Atheists can certainly argue from a scientific point of view, but that is not a default. We can also point out holes in religious stories found in the Quaran and 

Without getting into a semantic argument about belief - most of the theoretical physics which is the intellectual groundwork for everything from chemistry, biology to electronics is based on unproven theories. This is not a bad thing. There is perhaps no other time other than the early days of quantum physics where so much is in the cusp of discovery. Theoretical physics was dead for 20 years but it's a truly exciting time now. I encourage anyone with a high mathematical aptitude to investigate it as a career.

 

Going back to your early question about why I think atheism can cause intellectual laziness. It is precisely that - the mere dis-belief in deities is all it takes. Not the understanding or studying of a field but the mere statement of dis-belief. Dis-belief is not a cornerstone of intelligence. Belief, application and study is. And this is coming from someone who does not believe in god, yet wouldn't label myself an atheist - even if I am one by definition. 

[Albatross]

Two or three years ago.

 

What changed?

[Godlygamer23]

Without getting into a semantic argument about belief - most of the theoretical physics which is the intellectual groundwork for everything from chemistry, biology to electronics is based on unproven theories. This is not a bad thing. There is perhaps no other time other than the early days of quantum physics where so much is in the cusp of discovery. Theoretical physics was dead for 20 years but it's a truly exciting time now. I encourage anyone with a high mathematical aptitude to investigate it as a career.

Going back to your early question about why I think atheism can cause intellectual laziness. It is precisely that - the mere dis-belief in deities is all it takes. Not the understanding or studying of a field but the mere statement of dis-belief. Dis-belief is not a cornerstone of intelligence. Belief, application and study is. And this is coming from someone who does not believe in god, yet wouldn't label myself an atheist - even if I am one by definition.

You say that atheism invites laziness in the mind and yet you fit the definition of it. That being said, Youtubers such as Thunderfoot don't like calling themselves atheists - they prefer the term "rationalist." Personally I think you're being hypocritical.

[o0Martin]

Those two statements say the same thing. They're both lack of belief. Neither is taking an active position of belief.

 

I think you're mixing belief in a general sense and belief in a religious sense, if you think they are the same, then take A, 'I don't believe God exists' if that is the case and that is what you're advocating then the burden of proof is not only on the person saying God does exist but also on you, to make any sort of claim on the existence or non existence of anything (religious or non religious) comes with the burden of proof, this is widely accepted in both Science and Philosophy. So it is taking an active position, doesn't matter if you mean it to or not, but worded like that it actually is an active position and a position of belief.  

 

If memory serves me I think there was a historic link between atheism and "naturalist philosophers" or what we would consider early scientist with a whiff of non-science philosophy. The better question then would be if you are an atheist then what led you to that dis-belief or reaffirmed your dis-belief? 

 

Are you asking like me specifically? Or as in general? 

 

Because if someone asked for my religious stance then I wouldn't tell them I'm an atheist because as soon as you tell someone that there are a lot of misconceptions that go along with it and having a debate about it with some people becomes impossible, and I don't think the topic of if God exists or not is of much importance, and I don't strive to find that conclusion.

 

Instead I'd explain to them 'New Atheism' which is essentially a mix of Antitheism which as the name suggests is a stance that is fundamentally against theism, not in a 'God doesn't exist' kind of way, but it is a direct opposition to organised religion, and I strongly believe theism and religious belief is not only dangerous to society but also harmful in several ways to humanity. On the surface that seems like a pretty extremist approach, but it really isn't, I don't want to get into details about it because some people can be sensitive on the topic, but it isn't saying all people who practice religion are bad people, far from it. The 2nd half of 'New Atheism' is Secular Humanism which to sum it up basically aims that people can have good ethics/morals by embracing human reason and using this to form our own ideas on what is good and what is bad and it rejects things like dogma/superstition/supernaturalism as bases to form your own ethics on, again not because they are all wrong,- because I study both sides of the coin and I have just as many book on religion as I do books from people like Daniel Dennett or Sam Harris and I also grew up a Christian and was raised in Catholic Schools and it's clear to me that not all things religion teaches is bad (That's pretty obvious), but because these teaching and dogma are also accompanied by teachings which are harmful to society and because some religions are so unclear on so many matters and so outdated I don't think religion is a good medium to teach anyone young or old about good ethics/morals.

 

That's pretty much the summery of what I believe, and why I don't follow religion, so it isn't as such a 'dis-belief' just a lack of belief, and a feeling of lack of need.

[Godlygamer23]

What changed?

The start of it all was daydreaming.

[Godlygamer23]

I think you're mixing belief in a general sense and belief in a religious sense, if you think they are the same, then take A, 'I don't believe God exists' if that is the case and that is what you're advocating then the burden of proof is not only on the person saying God does exist but also on you

Do you believe in unicorns? Fairies? Lack of belief is not a claim and in the above examples, saying something like "I don't believe in unicorns" is not a claim at all. It is simply a lack of belief.

[o0Martin]

Do you believe in unicorns? Fairies? Lack of belief is not a claim and in the above examples, saying something like "I don't believe in unicorns" is not a claim at all. It is simply a lack of belief.

 

You really don't get what I'm trying to explain to you, maybe I'm explaining it bad which is probably true seeing as I did just wake up and I do have a hangover  :unsure:

Try searching it up yourself I'm sure if you even just googled something like, 'Is atheism a belief system' or the burden of truth in a religious sense then you would come across the argument I'm trying to provide you. 

 

Unicorns and fairies?  :huh: I know lack of belief isn't a claim that's what I'm trying to tell you, but saying you don't believe is very much different, that is a claim of not believing, and in that case you must provide reasoning, all I was trying to tell you in the first place was that you shouldn't mix those words aha, because if you were in a good debate then your words would get easily twisted and even though you mean one thing to people who study the difference it would say another and would open you up to a certain burden of proof 

[Admire]

No comments in the thread....Just wanted to give @alpenwasser credit for his edit....I enjoyed it a lot:P

Swiss Justice!( Fun fact....Search for swiss justice, and you will find pictures of sepp blatter and fifa)

[minibois]

Lol, I followed this thread.. RIP notifications

[FaZe Booce]

Lol, I followed this thread.. RIP notifications

360 noscope that unfollow button. (idk if there even is one I don't want to put my notifications at risk)