religion, oh god... gods!

This is one of those cases where I feel like I'm saying something that's either so obvious and true or so stupid and wrong but I'll go ahead.

I don't see how the multiverse theory hacks away at miracles. If an alternate universe exists in which, for instance, the dead come back to life, then it is not a miracle there. I really don't understand how circumstance changes it. The «window to another universe» seems like a slice of humble pie. It is something that even the greatest physicists have problems talking about. There seems to be a non sequitur in going from «the most brilliant minds can't understand it» to «let's argue about the definition of miracle».

Speaking of humble pie, your entire comment is one so I'll eat it and keep bashing the point that I don't understand it. You seem to put yourself in position to be asked an anti-metaphysical question: is it that Science is unable to know everything (even if it knows everything about ''our'' universe) or are the things that Science is unable to know not things at all?

Leibniz sounds like he wrote under the influence of LSD. My main question was about atheism being a form of belief.

I wanna know what drugs Joseph Smith was on

You should quote the entire post more correctly too, since you were asking :



I have answered as for example :



Then, up to your last post :



Believing there is no god, as known as being atheist, is still a belief. It's different from agnosticism.




You even went as far as insulting Leibniz "just because" -- a way to say you're rude because of knowledge/understanding 's lacuna or because of dishonesty ? Both ?


You randomly comment my post without some consistent agrument. Maybe it was too hard to swallow ?

As for what is a miracle, ask doctors they know some of. It is not a matter of what science can handle or not, but also of expectation and occurences. There's no need to argue.

Plus concerning mutly-universe and such, you just try to drown the fish in some logorrhea only built with spite and zero argumentum.

Yes, I agree paranormal and supernatural are different concepts. But how do we distinguish between them? How are we to know what may one day be explained by science and what will remain eternally a mystery? For all we know, dark flow may well be simply a fluke of the random component.

Which brings me to another point, why do we get random error in experiments? Even the most rigorously controlled environments rarely yield the same result in repeats, yet the physics should predict exactly what happens. The best explanation we have for this is the parallel universes idea Fligger talked about. But we don't know, and we don't think we ever will know. So does that make random error a miracle?



He's right, Atheism is a belief. The question is whether it should be grouped under the heading of 'religion' or not.



Back in those days? Probably opium.

I don't quote the entire post as to avoid having long walls of quotes in each post.

And I'm sorry to say you make a big mistake in saying atheism is the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the rejection of the proposition that there is a god. I don't know where this idea comes from but it is very silly if you take up other examples. In other words, atheism isn't the anti-belief, it is the lack of belief. I don't understand why people tend to put up mirrors in this discussion.

If belief in god is a cake, then all believers eat a slice of it. Atheists simply don't eat the cake. Like Neil deGrasse Tyson says, being an atheist is like being a non-golfer. It is not like being the opposite of a golfer.

When it comes to swallowing, heck, I have no idea. I did say you talked about complex subjects that I don't understand. It has been a while too but I think what I said was essentially that hyper complex and advanced theories in physics did not seem to entail a new construction on the word miracle. I always see it as a self dug grave when people come up with «oh look, we have no clue what this thing here does» and then proceed to use it as an argument.

And I don't see what doctors or expectation have to do with it. Maybe what you are getting at is taking a random John who has 99.9999999% chance to die with cancer, survives and climbs mount Everest. That wouldn't be a miracle either.

Speaking of zero argumentum, I don't see in what way yours are different than mine. At least I'm trying to be grounded on the definition of miracle. Like I said, I eat my humble pie when I have to and I'm doing it with physics.



No, he's not. Read above to see why. What was it that Bill Maher said? «Atheism is a belief the same way abstinence is a sex position» Or maybe he said «religion» instead of belief. I dunno, but I think it follows. I don't think I'll ever find out why people keep trying to add onto the concept of atheism. It is really empty actually.

A couple of times now, I've debated adding a post into this thread or not. I feel it could be one of those things that gets completely out of control, far too long, and trying way too hard to accurately describe all my non-aggressive thoughts on the matter. Its getting late, however, and I find myself bored tonight with lagging internet. If i can't browse to my pleasure, I'll do a crappy job of speaking my mind to other fap-happy strangers on fakku.

To skip all the nitty-gritty, no, I don't have any beliefs of my own or any confidence in what others tell me is true. I come from a heavily religious family and through my own processes - without any influence from the internet, mind you - by the age of 12 or so, I realized that none of it is true. (26 now, if that is relevant) Now, I could say that I "believe" there is no greater power, but I don't "believe" it, I perceive it as a "known" fact.

I am the last person to EVER jump into a debate on religion. It's one of those things with too much pride and hostility stemming from both sides. If asked, I'll answer, but in the most roundabout way possible so that it isn't offensive and the subject is quickly dropped.

"What religion are you?"

To that, I have no answer, because there is no answer from my perspective. When asked if I "believe", my response causes people to try and label me under "atheist" and other similar titles. It seems a bit silly to me and has no place from my perspective.

I'll try to liken my stance with a Pokemon analogy.
Christians believe Charmander is the best starter pokemon.
Mormons choose bulbasaur as the best starter.
Catholics know Squirtle is the superior choice.
Atheists say pokemon is stupid, so they're all wrong.
What about those to whom Pokemon is irrelevant and they have no opinion?

From my perspective, even the "atheist" label is something that only exists in a world where the presence of a "god" is debatable. Its like being asked if you're a believer or non-believer of Santa Claus... the whole question/topic seems so pointlessly redundant that the topic should not need discussing in the first place.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

I think atheist is a word used for technical reasons mainly because the way I see it, atheism itself is empty. If playing Pokémon is such a big deal in the world, those that don't play Pokémon stand out. If playing Pokémon became less and less important, the term «non-Pokémon player» would make no sense.

It is exactly the same as Tyson said about golfers. It makes perfect sense to say «Tiger Woods is a golfer» the same way it makes perfect sense to say «Josh is a believer». But if being a believer wasn't such a big deal, being a non-believer would be the exact same as claiming to be a non-golfer.

I also think the term atheist would become completely meaningless if religion were to end.

You just quote near 90% of my post. So why forget the rest ? Was it disturbing ?

You can also use the spoiler balises, if you think it's becoming some long wall.




That rejection is not backed up for all I have learnt. So it is just a conviction, a belief.

The word disturb you but yeah : there is no proof whether our universe is originated from a "god" or whatever you could call it, or "nothing".

You may have your own conviction, it does not prove anything.




First, you have forgotten the agnostic ones.

Second, even if you don't "eat the cacke", it does not mean you don't eat your own sweets on the same purpose. You just do the same with a little nuance.




You don't understand, so you answer with spite and insult ? My, what a poor pride :-/




So you've just said you don't understand about what it is, then you think you can built any "opinion" or whatever ? Do you really get if you're wrong or right about what you want a miracle to be ? All to say you just show your ignorance.




It is not because you don't understand that I would have no argumentation. Rather the contrary since for few posts, you try by spite and insult to run away each time I hit a nail.




Your quote go along what I've said X-)

Is it for joking you cling on your "he's not" ? Thanks to that Bill Maher :-)







Then you can't believe your entourage when they give you your name nor any form of testimony, even the knowledge from science you could reach on any media. Or else, you would contradict yourself.

I don't say you should take every speech for true. I myself use my discernment in order to select what I can confidently take for sure and what take as nonsense.




That's called a conviction, not a "knowledge" in any possible form.




If you are religious, you know your answer. If your aren't, the same -- should not be difficult to answer simply none, is it ?



Simple. It's because you answer I "believe" there is no greater power. This is just atheism, don't get offensed for so little.

I won't comment that clumsy comparison with a hobby. I can do the same as a comparison with people being bald and those who don't. What is the point ? Saying you don't like to be put on a label ? Don't worry : you just have to quit living in society to escape that phenomenom.




You put it like there was only the choice in believing or not in some god(s). BUT there is also the status quo.

Which means it's different. Three choices :

• Believing there would be no great power.

• Believing there would be a great power.

• Staying without clear-sided opinion.

Me I'm agnostic. Because when you put analysis to its very extremity -- meaning every hypothesises have been reviewed and run out -- you reach two point :

• Why is there something instead of nothing ?

• The origine of the universe.

Beyond those two points, it's impossible to know whether or not there would be some "power" also called by many people (with or without religious attachement) "god" or even "gods".

You may reject the possibility of something like a god but you have no proof to sustain your belief, because as long as it remains a conviction, it is not the reality but rather your own belief or even "opinion" -- if something so few backed up can be called an opinion.

Besides religions, which you're not forced to follow against your will/heart, you can't brush away a hypothesis solely on the basis you reject it without solid back up. It is not to say whether religions would be right, wrong, or whatever. Just the fact :

WE. DO. NOT. KNOW.


That's why as for myself I'm agnostic and I won't despise people believing in any form of (a) god(s), as long as it does not contradict the facts from objective reality.

I simply disagree with you here.

Claiming that Atheism is not a belief is like Buddhism claiming it is not a belief because they don't believe in a god (granted some Buddhists do, but it's not a requirement).

If you were to say that Atheism is not a religion (or religious belief) then I would agree with you. I think religion requires a belief in the supernatural, whereas Atheism does not.

I suppose you could argue that Atheism is a general term for any number of ideologies, philosophies etc. which do not include belief in a god. In which case Atheism would be an aspect of ones belief. This claim is supported by the fact that you can have agnostic atheism as well as agnostic theism, that is to say, not all theists and atheists are gnostic.

To use the analogy of sex, Atheism and Theism would be like vaginal and anal sex, of which either can be practiced in any multitude of positions.



You think it's impossible. You have no evidence to support the fact that there is no way to answer these questions. As it stands in current society, we have no answers, but there is no reason as to why we may not come across an answer in the future. Although even if we did, I doubt it would be an end to religion, because some people will simply claim that whatever evidence we have against religion was put their by god to test our faith or something like that.



We have no proof, but proof is not necessary to support an opinion. What we need is evidence. And their is plenty of that to be found if you're looking for it. For instance, I would argue that the presence of suffering in the world is good evidence against at least omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent gods (i.e. the christian god).



I disagree that you're not forced. If you look at some places, speaking out against the common religion is liable to get you in serious trouble. Thus you are forced to follow the common religion against your will. And even if you look at believing rather than following, then I could argue that one is conditioned from birth to follow the belief of ones parents, and that this is akin to being forced into a religion.



YET.

I'm a Christian Baptist, so I believe and God, Jesus, and all that jazz. Half of it has to do with family influence, the other has to do with my own choice.

Ever since I was little I was taught about Christ and how he died for our sins, but I was also taught that everything they said is an opinion. Agreeing with their opinions and choosing to believe in Him, or disagreeing and follow a different religion or become an atheist, was up to me.


Anything skeptical... oh yeah, the fact that nonbelievers of God (no matter how much of a great person they are) get cast into Hell. I've met a good handful of non-Christians, most of which were very nice people, so believing that these people are going to burn in Hell just because they don't believe in Him, it just seems wrong to me.

Christianity can definitely be misleading if you're anything like the fucks from Westboro. Hell, I consider them a cult rather than a Christian congregation. I was raised to worship and love God, but also to respect others' beliefs in different gods or having no belief whatsoever. I'm pretty sure the world would be a LITTLE bit better of all Christians followed this example, and not shove their beliefs down someone's throat.

Now, I don't know what in the holy hell is going to happen exactly when I die, but if I'm wrong and there is no God, worst case scenario I rot 6 feet under. And I'd rather rot in the dirt than burn.

.. nevermind, not worth quoting anything there.

This is why I stay far away from the subject- even Fakku will have its resident egotist who must turn the thread into an intellectual battle of wits, philosophies, tight-ass definitions, and generally-hostile bs. This post asked for folks' general opinions on the matter, not to debate the finer details of what's right, wrong, or unproven, so I gave just that.

Peoples' gods' forbid this topic from cropping up and keeping the peace, I suppose. If you can't prove or disprove our ideas, then lets compete and show who has spent more time and energy into thinking their thoughts. Yeah!

I say it's impossible because I don't want to give into speculations about future. That's all.




Ho ? I think the suffering exist to distinguish whether something is bad for a living being or not. No more but, above all, no less. Without that precious knowledge you may be in danger by ignoring something is harming you.

It may be seen not as a "curse", rather as a "bliss" -- a way to say it was really an amazing and efficient invention, so much that it is very widespread amongst living being in a looooot of forms.

So I can comprehend some biologists being christian even though you would argue/oppose the existence of suffering as some "evidence" their god would be "false" or not "omnipotent" and such.




Where you see people forced to "believe" I see people a least forced to look as if, or even brain-washed but it is not true only for religions :-/

But I doubt someone willing to change his/her mind or whatever could be "stopped", even though his/her education. There's always a tiny, even the tinyest, part of choice whether you would follow or not your parents' path. Not that's always easy, in one way but also the other.

As for example :





Speculation :-)







So would it be better to let some of us trample on other belief / way to think (like believing in god) instead of them being respectful ? Nonsense.

Of course if you're willing to do so, be prepared to meet some opposition. At least when some individuals call upon reasoning and such, they should back up their "opinion" if they're willing "to be right" in spite of everyone/everything.

But why do things that are bad for us/harm us exist? Surely, if god loves us, he would not want us to come to harm, and therefore those things should not exists. Their is a good quote from Epicurus for this:
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both willing and able?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him a God?"

In addition, why is it that suffering is not distributed evenly. People who are born below the poverty line in many third world countries suffer far more than people born into an early substantial inheritance. Are men not supposed to be equal.



I disagree that you can't stop them. People are easy to manipulate. When people are deciding on a religion, they are looking for a reason to believe. All you have to do is identify what reason would make them follow you, and tell them of that reason from only your belief. For people who seek a comfort from suffering or the death of a loved one, telling them about your religion's afterlife and not of any other religions' afterlife will incline them towards your religion. If they look for evidence, show them the evidence for your relgion, but no evidence against it or for other religions. Or in fact, if you hide the existence of any belief other than your own from someone, they would have no reason to believe anything else.

I'm not one of the christians so I would be awkward to answer in their name :-/

Although I have some opinion I'm sure one of them would get you a better answer than any of my own speculations -- and I don't intend to share those speculations here.




Equality is a human concept. In nature, you only have chances and choices.

As for humans, some/most of our societies don't stand on the same ground regarding equality. You have noblemen and commoners in England and Japan. You have castes in India and Guinea. You have social classes in USA and China. Altogether those divisions go along some pragmatic inequality, and sometime even ideologic inequality.

Plus there are poor people more happy than rich people too. Lives are different, but people too are different, so reactions and actions may be different.


Back to a more biologic level. Since you have evolution of Life, you also have competition : rivals, predators, preys... because you have Selection. It is one of the most efficient motor of darwinian evolution. Then the suffering is neither "bad" nor "good". It just is and each individual deals it eiher to harm or get out of it.




Well. They do be volatile in some way, so you might manipulate them. Sometime.

That's my purpose about getting brain-washed.




It's called proselytism.




Except their own knowledge and/or background, which is hard to handle or even truly control.

Your buddhism example is wrong. It doesn't really matter whether we talk about god or hot cakes. Buddhism is the name given to a set of beliefs. If atheism would be a set of beliefs, it would be a set of one belief and that belief would be the rejection of the proposition that god exists on the grounds that it is insuficient.

I don't agree that atheism is a general term for certain ideologies. And if it is, it is part of them, not a belief itself. For instance, there's a set of beliefs called Satanism (at least LaVey's Satanism) and atheism is a part of it, it is not a belief as is.

The way I see it, people have sex. They like it so much that they write books about it, they follow rules, they have sex communities. Those who disagree simply don't have sex. Saying they have the belief that they would have different sex is silly if they don't believe in sex. I think the reason people see atheism as a belief is that they see it as the end which is wrong. Atheism, I submit, is the beginning. The ethics and humanism associated with atheism come after the god proposition is rejected. I keep saying, like Tyson and Harris, atheism by itself is empty. It is simply not having sex or not eating cake.

It need not be a Christian view. Epicurus was an ancient Greek, so his comment was directed at their gods, although it can apply to all gods. Granted as an agnostic you may still prefer to leave it to actual theists to come up with a counter point.



Everything you say is true.

Inequality is a veritable fact. Not just as a human concept but in the natural world itself, inequality is present. But some religions claim things like 'all men are created equal'. If that is the case, why is their such blatant inequality everywhere, as you have demonstrated?



I'm not quite sure what you mean by saying it's wrong. Buddhism is a belief, but they can be atheists also. In that regard, Buddhism does not take a slice of cake, but is still classified as a belief. So why is atheism any different?

And what do you mean by 'it is insufficient'? Do you mean that it is not a good enough explanation for how the world works? Or did you mean to say there is insufficient evidence?



Perhaps 'general term' is not the right phrase. It is a way of grouping together all belief systems that have the common aspect of not believing in a god. Much like polytheism groups together all religions with more than one god.

LaVeyan Satanism is an interesting one, as while they do believe that there is no god, they also believe in 'magic'. However, they do not state that this 'magic' is a type of supernatural thing, and that's probably up to the individual Satanist to decide. They also often do/use things that are symbolically connotated with superstition and the supernatural (the very name Satanism being an example). It seems to me like they want to deliberately distance themselves from common theistic philosophy and ideology, which I don't understand.



I simply don't view it as not having the cake or not having sex. It's just a different type of cake. Otherwise how would we distinguish between those who don't have it? I'm sure you'll agree that atheists don't all have the same views on life. So while each slice of cake represents a separate religion, there is nothing to separate a LaVeyanist from an atheist Buddhist. So let's try another analogy.

Whether or not you are an atheist or theist is like choosing which parent you prefer. You can prefer your dad, you can prefer your mum or you can have no preference. Atheism, theism and agnosticism, respectively. Their is no other option. And you can separate individual beliefs by the reasons for which they prefer the parent they do.

I'm sorry but if you are going to say buddhists are atheists it seems you are completely missing the point. They may not believe in a god (I'm following you on this since I don't know much about buddhism) but they still have a set of beliefs and a deity. Atheists simply don't have those things. I can't make it much simpler. So on one hand you have things, on the other you don't have things. How can they be different sides of the same thing?



No, it is not. It literally makes no conceptual sense. It seems as though you drag Satanism and perhaps Marxism and other things under the umbrella of atheism. Like I said, atheism is the very beginning, not the end nor boss. It's jut a way to take a first step towards building something. To say that, I think you open yourself to saying that Marxism or Hobbesianism is all about atheism.



The problem here is that we are talking about atheism without knowing for certain what atheism is. I understand it as the rejection of the proposition that god or gods exist and therefore it implies the lack of belief in it. So, according to my definition, which I obviously believe to be true, atheism, by defnition, is NOT a belief. If you disagree, you have to come forth with your definition and find a way to prove mine wrong.

How would we distinguish? We'd just notice that they simply don't eat cake... Atheism itself is simply a way to set oneself apart from religion. All that follows, all «beliefs» atheists have are not part of atheism.

I'm sorry but why is agnosticism having no preference? It is not. Agnosticism is a position of knowledge, not belief. The agnostic position is the one that claims we can't know god's existence or inexistence so we should shut up. In that analogy, the agnostic would think choosing a parent is stupid.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88Ylg0ddEiA

Woops, I mistook the quote and the (+) buttons -- hard to type well with a migraine...




My bad. I misunderstood because not every religions would say their god would erase suffering or such. Moreover that stuff about evil and such are nowadays so much labeled from religions of the books, that I unvoluntary amalgamate your words with these. My apologize for the mistake.

If I remember well, suffering had help Odin to get the knowledge about magic and all, so without suffering you can't learn some of the important things within this wolrd. The same for evil and the rest. I also remember some words like what "god(s) move(s) in mysterious ways" and all.

Maybe it would be just people who are misinterpreting those so called god's words or god's ways. People are not that much intelligent they will always behave the suitable way to fit their own objectives, so no need to expect them to understand everything as well.

Just for fun : You know the Matrix movies maybe ? When the A.I. sat up a perfect world with no inequality, no ordeal, nothing to put humans into suffering, the matrix collapse -- it was a disaster. So the A.I. were forced to build up an unperfect world with lot of trials and such to make humans feel as well living and in a way happy. A delicate metaphor to highlight that suffering/difficulties is/are necessary to make of you as well the worst or the best of yourself.




You miss a point : there is no inequality without equality. Woud you think "inequality" would be a "natural" concept or "truth" ?

That's why I said "In nature, you only have chances and choices."







Simple : you can't have the concept of unexistence without the concept of existence. Ex : if you have light, you also have dark.




In which way Marxism and all would not be atheism ? What would be the difference(s) ?



Build what ? Or for which goal ? Is atheim some finallism pathway ? Then seems to me atheism shows more and more similarities with theist belief.




Hobbes was a materialist (and also a contractualist). I don't see the point to build up some "hobbesianism". Niether I would see some opposition between atheism and marxism.




The lack of belief on god or the belief in the rejection of god ?




It is just a conviction of yours, nothing that (god existence) would have been proven neither impossible nor incorrect about the two matters I have oppose you (see upper posts).



Good followers :-) It feel like muslims forbidden to eat pork X-)




What a dichotomy -- or illogism ? How an atheist belief would not be a part of atheism ? Without breaking logic I mean.

Words stringed together don't imply ideas would "strings" as well :-/



It is. Between the two propositions, it's the status quo.




Why choose a parent would be stupid if your heart is willing to ???

We don't know, but we choose the status quo instead of believing in some god or believing there would be no god.

(The video smells the brain wash...)

You've contradicted yourself. 'A deity' and 'a god' are synonymous. So how can they not believe in a god, yet have a deity? They believe in karmatic reincarnation and nirvana (a weird concept I won't go into). But that is irrelevant to atheism. You can believe whatever else you want and still be an atheist, so long as you don't believe in the existence of any gods.

So let's try this analogy. Imagine what someone believes (excluding anything about deities) is an ice cream flavor. Now imagine that atheism and theism are different flavor sauces you can have on your ice cream. What flavor your ice cream is has no affect on the flavor of your sauce, the chocolate sauce is still chocolate sauce whether it's on vanilla or strawberry ice cream. In the same way, someone who doesn't believe in god is still an atheist whether they follow LaVeyan Satanism or Buddhism.



I do qualify (LaVeyan) Satanism as Atheism, as they do not believe in the existence of a god.

However, with Marxism and Hobbesianism, it's different. The philosophies themselves (as far as I know) give no reference to the question of god. Therefore, I would say that the choice to belief in a deity is up to the individual. If he does, he is a theist Marxist/Hobbesian, if not, he is an atheist Marxist/Hobbesian.

And I don't think, if this wasn't already clear, that athiesm is the end or beginning of anything. It is a completely separate choice to whatever other beliefs you decide on.



I define Atheism by looking at the etymology (from the ancient greek). Firstly, theism comes from the greek word theos, meaning god. The suffiix -ism refers to a distinctive practice or philosophy. Thus theism is a distinctive practice or philosophy based around a god or gods. Modifying this by the prefix a- does not stick a not in front of the whole term (making it 'not a distinctive practice or philosophy based around a god' basically your definition). It only changes the root word, not the suffix, making it 'a distinctive practice or philosophy not based around a god'.

To sum up:
Atheism =/= not believing there is a god
Atheism = believing there is not a god

By this definition, then yes it is a belief. A belief that there are no gods.

This might be where the guy in your video was coming from. That in a-theism, the a- affects the suffix as well, but in atheism it doesn't. Maybe, but it's hard to tell because we only was a very little clip of the talk.



I'm talking about telling what other other people believe irrespective of their take on theism. An atheist can gauge what religion someone is (and by extension many of their philosophical and spiritual views) by what slice of the cake he's eating. But the religious people can't tell what an atheist believes aside from that their is no god, because there is no cake equivalent to gauge it from. But different atheist groups have very distinct views, often more distinctive than those of the religious.



Fair enough, that was my bad. But it's not thinking that choosing which you prefer is stupid. It's more like saying that, regardless of which you prefer, both have good and bad points.



A good example. Odin is an example of a god I do not explicitly reject, because he is not omnipotent. He may be fond of humans, but he has his own kingdom and people to worry about first, and he is by no means infallible. So I would accept the possibility of Norse paganism being true, but I still would not believe it because I find it unlikely.

And I also thought 'god moves in mysterious ways' was an incredibly feeble way to grant a reason for suffering. You'd think somewhere in between giving Moses the commandments and Jesus being crucified, someone would have thought to give a bit of reasoning behind god's ways. Even something like 'god has to kill people off to control population inflation' would be a huge improvement in our understanding of why bad stuff happens.

And look I've gone and made an unneeded reference to Christianity on impulse. This is what society has done to us.



I can see why a perfect world would be bad for some, as with no challenge they would be bored out of their mind and have no sense of achievement. Some would be alright with it though, the type of people who play over the campaigns in video games on easy repeatedly and still get satisfaction out of it.



Maybe not a natural concept, but a natural occurrence. And all calling it 'truth' does is alter it to be an occurrence that is compulsory in nature. I'm not sure if it would be compulsory. After all, inequality (in the philosophical sense) can only occur in sentient beings, and it is almost certain that there was a time in the natural course of the universe where no sentient life existed, and thus there would be no inequality.

Maybe I did in theory, maybe I should have gotten a better word. But since religion is, almost by definition, incoherent I'll sleep well tonight. What I meant by deity is essentially Buddha. They may not believe in «a god» but Buddha is according to buddhism something other than man, he's a touch above the rest. I believe it is said that Buddha was born of a slit on his mother's side which, I mean c'mon, it is textbook religion.



I think LaVeyan Satanism is a way to give atheism something because, as I keep saying, atheism is empty. I mentioned Marxism and Hobbesianism because they are more or less on the atheist side. Marx because of his lovely quotes on how we should break free from religion and Hobbes because, even though he claimed to believe in a god, his political theories involved an absolute power above everything else, god or man. He claimed to believe in god although I think that was just to avoid getting killed. So my point is that those theories start on atheism but if you think atheism is a belief itself, then they would fall under the umbrella of atheism, not, as I think, start above the root of it.

I think atheism is the beginning of, maybe not philosophy, but ethics. Many people, mostly believers, would disagree but I think ethics begins when we realize there is no reason to believe in divine supervision. But that's a much longer discussion.



Etymology isn't the most reliable source because as ways of thinking change, words tend to stay the same for traditional reasons. Logic has also come a long way since Ancient Greece. If atheism is the belief that there are no gods, then if I tell you that an elephant walked through your room a moment ago then you have two choices: either you believe and you have a belief or you see no reason to assume I'm being honest, you conclude the proposition is false and... you have a belief? A belief in not believing? A belief in the opposite? A belief in it being false? It makes literally no sense. It's like finding room in a book shelf to keep a «non-book» whatever that is.

By the way, the guy in the video is a very, very dishonest one and quite a bit of an arrogant idiot.



They may as well have distinct views but do to philosophy, not religion nor atheism. Again, an atheist thinker or, rather, a thinker who happens to be atheists, maybe have opinion X on a, b and c and another thinker maybe have opinion X on a, b, and c but that has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with other things. It may be difficult to explain because we're not in agreement but I think it comes from every other work. To take Marx again - some atheists are marxists, others aren't. That has nothing to do with atheism, it has to do with economics.



I don't see how...