religion, oh god... gods!

I think your ideas about Buddhism are ill-informed.

In reference to the slit in the stomach, I've never heard that. It could be a reference to how his mother had a dream of an elephant entering her side on the night of his conception (something along those lines). In which case it's more symbolic then literal (given it probably wasn't a Cesarian. Alternatively, since Buddhism was not taught in English, it could simply be a poor translation of some idiom of the language. But either way, there are more reliable historical accounts which make no reference to him being born in any peculiar or unnatural way.

And Buddhism is a non-theistic faith, it makes no actual reference to god. The original Buddha himself never claimed to be a god, simply an enlightened man. And in fact, he is not the only buddha. Anyone can become a buddha by achieving the state of being 'fully awakened'. Since the faith has no set view on god, it is up to the individual buddhist as to whether they see him as a 'superhuman' or as a normal human who is simply enlightened. Either way, they do not worship him, they normally use idols of him as a sign of respect for his teachings, or as a sign to others that they are a buddhist.



I can't see a way forward for this argument. My ice cream analogy (which I'm very proud of, by the way) is essentially the perfect analogy for my view on atheism. Chocolate sauce works better with some ice cream flavors than strawberry, as atheism works better with some philosophies than theism.

I am confident that I understand your view. And I would hope that after the ice cream, you understand mine. But we just don't agree with each other.

I can certainly understand that we would not have the concept of 'atheism' without theism. But then equally, we would not have a concept of 'theism' without atheism.



When you say that atheism is 'empty', I'm guessing you mean it has no direct relation to any specific other philosophical views? So saying you're an atheist will not tell someone anything about what you believe other than that there is no god? If so, I will accept that, but argue that the same can apply to theism.

I sort of see where you're coming from with LaVeyanism. Atheism is a key factor in the construction of it's philosophy. But it's not necessarily the origin. You could just as well argue that believing the universe was meaningless was the origin, and that the rest (including atheism) stemmed from that. Granted Atheism would still be in the early stages of it's growth.

But Marxism? Given that it does not require you to not believe in god, I would reject the supposition that atheism is the root of Marxism. Since Marx was, I'm guessing, an atheist, that may well have influenced why he chose the philosophies he did. But for a theist Marxist, it could be that theism influenced why he chose Marxism. So for them, theism would be a root of Marxism. And for someone who doesn't care about theology, neither would influence the choice of Marxism.



I think I can draw this example into a logical fallacy. Here it goes.

Let's flip your statement around. Let's say you tell me an elephant didn't walk through my room. I can, as you say, believe you, or reject your proposition. Now combine the two scenarios. If I'm saying an elephant didn't walk through the room, in the first scenario, I'm rejecting your proposition, in the second, I believe you. Since what I'm saying is the same in both cases, then:

Rejecting the first proposition = believing the second proposition

Thus, by your argument that rejecting it is not a belief:

Not a belief = a belief

Which is clearly logically impossible. If we generalize this scenario, we get:

Rejecting a proposition = believing the inverse proposition

Thus, by rejecting the proposition that there is a god, we believe the proposition that there is no god.

Not a bad attempt at a logical proof, I feel. But then again, I'm not to familiar with the conventions of logical proofs, so I'm interested to see how you respond to this.



I fail to see the relevance of this information.



I don't think you understand my problem with the analogy. I'm not saying differences in philosophy have anything to do with theology. I'm simply asking why there is no way to differentiate different atheist groups like there is for religious groups, when we can separate different atheists groups in real life. I.e. Marxist-Leninist Atheism is different to LaVeyan Satanism.



As I have said before, you can have atheist agnostics and theist agnostics, who have chosen what they believe to be true, but state that the truth is ultimately unknown. Thus they would have either considered the evidence for and against each side and chosen which they believe, or not looked at any evidence and guessed which was more likely. So while they may prefer one parent over the other, they would understand their are good and bad points to both.

I went to church under my mum's influence but I never prayed to God or anything but I was more of an Agnostic but after I went to China, I started to question my religion, Mum was cool with it but my Grandma hated my decision and I occasionally go church I'm officially an atheist but I'm cool with religions as long as they don't fucking bible-bash me or anything. Even if there was a God, I still wouldn't bother.

I wouldn't call them ill informed, I'd call them nearly inexistence. The slit thing I heard from Christopher Hitchens. It simply suggests that part of buddhism is the belief that the, shall we say, prophet is slightly more than human.



I'm sorry but you make a serious mistake here. Our analogies imply two very different ideas. Atheism can't be a flavor and the rejection of flavor at the same time. At least one of us is wrong. Now you are going all Hegel on me... I think you are wrong when you flip the situation too. The point of understanding atheism is by having theism but I don't think the opposite follows. It is like saying we only understand tennis players by looking at non tennis players. We understand tennis players by looking at people playing tennis.



Answering in reverse, it's not about atheism influencing Marx and it's certainly not about a theist saying it was theism. It is about the structure of the ideas not being compatible with theistic precepts.

When I say it is empty I mean that atheism by itself doesn't hold anything other than being offered cake and saying «No, thank you». The point of atheism being empty is that whilst everyone else eats cake, you have nothing to do. Literally nothing. If the vast majority of people in the world eat cake and you don't you are rejecting something. When you reject something, you don't have that thing which means, in this context, you have nothing. The confusion people make is that since humanist ethics and political fights such as freedom of speech and freedon of/from religion are associated with the atheistic movement, they call them atheist values and then go on to say pathetic things such as «their god is Science/Hitchens/Dawkins/Devil». Atheism in and of itself is empty because it turns down something.



You make quite a mistake there too which is taking «believe» as the opposite of «reject». It would have to be accept or reject, not believe. The other point is mirrors. Rejecting the proposition «god exists» doesn't mean to say I accept the proposition «god does not exist» either. It simply means thinking that the proposition «god exists» is false.

Also, if you say an «elephant didn't walk through the room» you are not rejecting, you are presenting the counter proposition. Rejecting a proposition implies studying it's premises and deciding whether it is valid or not. By saying that, it seems as though you strike yet again the point in which we disagree which is that atheism says «we believe there is no god». I submit and keep submiting, atheism says «we don't believe in god». There's a significant difference.



He's a snake who twists philosophical concepts in shamless ways all in order to desperately try to prove something he calls self evident. He's a liar who's been corrected on simple points many times. In philosophy, maybe more than in other areas, you have to be extra careful with your sources because if you bring them up, you have to stick with them. If they turn out to be bad for your argument, you will either have to defend something you don't agree with or fight against yourself. I for one would be very alert if you quoted that guy in a debate against me. I'm not saying he's automatically wrong just because it's him but the odds of it are strong.



In philosophy there is but that's different than the main point. There is a way to differentiate because at that point, they have a set of beliefs namely marxism and satanism. Why should anyone keep calling them atheists? The point is that atheism *by itself* is the rejection of something as I keep saying over and over.



Like it always happens on internet debates, the conversation shifts hard. Atheist agnostic is a bit of an oxymoron too but I'll leave that. I think I might leave the rest of it too. It's not a matter of understanding anymore, it's a matter of disagreement. I'd suggest you listen to Sam Harris and Neil deGrasse Tyson on atheism.

For the most part, Buddhists don't view him as a 'prophet' (mainly as that would imply some sort of supernatural being contacting him, which it didn't). They view him as more of a philosopher, or sage. Certainly not as 'more than human'. Just someone who was wise.

There are buddhists who believe he is now something more than human in Nirvana. But most don't view it as such. I guess Nirvana could be seen by them as how we atheists see death. Simply an end to ones life, except viewed as a state of peace due to the 'end of suffering'. I'm sure the views varies greatly, but that's one interpretation.



I didn't say that both of us were right. I was simply saying I understand what your view is, not that I agree with it.

And to back up my flip of the situation, if nobody played tennis, we wouldn't refer to anyone as a non-tennis player. But equally if everyone played tennis, we wouldn't call anyone a tennis-player, because we would take it as agiven that they play tennis. If everyone believed in a god, we would not call them theists, as we would not know that there was any alternative.



Nothing is incompatible with theism, except atheism. If I may go back to my ice cream analogy, it's like what I said about how one sauce goes better with one flavor of ice cream than another. Marxism is certainly more compatible with atheism, but that does not mean it is incompatible.

The line I put in bold, I feel is a very poor statement. Mainly because of the use of 'vast majority'. You imply, possibly unintentionally, that not doing something which is the norm is a 'rejection'. And I disagree heavily.

And I still disagree that atheism is the rejection of something. But I'm pretty sure we've both made our thoughts on that abundantly clear.



If I recall correctly, you used 'believe' to refer to accepting the proposition in the original analogy:



So you made the same mistake I did, from my view. And even so, Google tells me:



Thus to accept a proposition is to believe the proposition to be true, and therefore is a belief, and thus the inaccuracy of my vocabulary bears no relevance to the outcome of the proof.

Even if I am giving a counter proposition, it still holds, as I still have to accept it if I reject the original proposition, and vice versa (since in this case, the counter proposition is the direct inverse of the original proposition). That is, rejecting the proposition that a god exists is synonymous with accepting the proposition that no god exists.



I still see no relevance. All I did was offer a view on what he may have been talking about.



You can't use the things that you are putting into an analogy in the analogy. You can't say you differentiate people who don't eat cakes' beliefs by their beliefs. My entire point here was that your analogy broke down when it came to differentiating atheist beliefs, not anything about the 'rejection' point of view.

And just to add a little bit, I refer to myself as atheist because most of my philosophical views are contradictory and variable depending on the situation, except my view that god does not exist.



I don't see how it's an oxymoron...

And I've heard some quotes from Tyson, but I'll check out more of him and the other guy. But they are unlikely to shift my view.

The reason I keep mentioning great philosophers is because the idea that atheism is a rejection of belief is far from being my idea. It is not what I think when I walk home from school, it is an analysis of concepts. The main core of your argument is a sort of sleight of hand of argument and a misunderstanding of what nihilistic concepts such as «a[something]», «non[something]».



I didn't say that is what you said either... I just like to point out at this point that the onus is more or less on you. You are the one coming up with a new idea which means you are the one who has to prove «my» idea is wrong. So far, that seems to entail saying that atheism i.e. the absense of a belief, is in itself a belief. Conversations here tend to go way overboard when they can, like in science, be summed up to one thing.

The point here is historical. There was a time when everyone took it for granted you were a believer so nobody identified as atheist. When philosophy comes up, some people start to question that.

Anyway, I've tried my best in this post to say as little as I could. I usually enjoy our talks but I can't say that about this one. It got completely derailed which was stupid since we were not in synch in the beginning. That is not to say in agreement, just clear on the basis of each argument. One thing I've been learning recently, most from Hitchens, is to realize when I have nothing else to say. I think this is one of those moments.

I advise you to look further into this because either two things happen. You realize you are right and tons of people are wrong, which means progress, or you realize you are wrong which means good for you for learning. I'd place my bet on the second because the only people who advocate the idea that atheism is a belief tend to be religious morons.

It is certainly not a misunderstanding of nihilistic concepts, because I don't actually know how nihilism defines those terms. I base my arguments on the literal meanings of those terms, based on the lexical structure of the Ancient Greek language.



Atheism is only 'the absence of belief' in your view. If your view is wrong the contradiction in this sentence no longer occurs.



Did you mean 'a theist'? Granted either is true. But nobody identified as an atheist because no-one was an atheist. No-body identified as a theist because there was no reason to.



I quite enjoyed it, to be honest. I enjoy the challenge presented when people ask me to validate my opinion, and offer counterpoints and such. I don't get it enough in real life. Although in this case, it was less satisfying because no major conclusions have been reached. Neither of us have changed our opinions on the main subject at all, because of a fundamental difference of opinion.



Well, this being a philosophical (and quite possibly subjective) question, I doubt I could 'realize that I am right', as it were. I could only find more arguments to support my view. But since there are still going to be people doing the same for the opposite view, it would be difficult to change someone's opinion.

Also, interestingly, one reason why I think atheism is a belief is that most of those who say it isn't are very 'hardcore' atheists, who would have a strongly biased opinion.

And finally, I'm just gonna leave this here, lifted from my copy of the Oxford English Dictionary:

1st) You're insulting any religious people, regardless whether or not they would be real moron.
[size=10]In my eyes, a possible/probable sign that you're uncomfortable with your own back-up argument, or unable to counter opposition's arguments.[/h]


2nd) We can oppose to your assertion these people far more intelligent (than you and most/all Fakku fellows) as Blaise Pascal, Louis Pasteur, and looot of great scientists who made major steps in Science ; still believing in god until the end, whatever their possible religious practice.


3rd) Within this very thread, there are atheists who have defended the fact that atheism, on the same level as any form of theism, is a belief. [size=10]Silence of the Yanderes has been quite clear about it.[/h]


All too say your gratuitous assertion is quite rude and oblivious.

I am insulting and I think insults play an important part in philosophy. I don't agree with the idea that if it is an insult, it is automatically bad. Insults can be true and can be used properly. And I would suggest you get your sight checked. If I'm uncomfortable, why would I insult someone else? My point is simply that the idea that atheism is a belief is held by those closest to religion, not those closest to philosphy. By the way, I don't think those two things are remotely close to each other.

Ah, Blaise Pascal... Quite a smart guy there to try to play Blackjack with god. I for one prefer Capablanca who dared him to a game of chess. You know, I actually also don't agree with the idea that people in the old days are more intelligent than people know. The way I see it it makes no sense. Both of us can study those people's work, understand it and, because we «are in the future» we can see what is wrong with it in a way they could only dream of. To put it shortly, the fact that we are not scared by airplanes makes us smarter than Plato if we know Plato's works as well.

And the reason you suspect whatever it was you suspected is because both me and Silence were making arguments towards views we completely disagreed with. It's not like talking about the bible and trying to prove it true or false. It is talking about chairs when we have completely different ideas of what a chair is. I'm not saying it is a bad debate, just an exhausting one. By the way, quoting dictionary or otherwise linguistic definitions is pointless here.



Hi, dude. I'm very glad to see you are still paying attention to me and waiting for the moment I mess up. I probably mess up a lot, I think you just pay closer attention 'cause if you did, you would step in a little earlier otherwise all you do is take the conversation waaaaaaaay back, to where it began in fact.

I sincerely hate the fact that I'm taking the conversation to another side but I really can't fathom how much of an idiot you are. The entire point of the conversation is to prove or disprove that atheism is a belief. You decide to come around and your argument is saying atheism is a belief only with the verb in major case letters. I know I said I had given up on you but it's way to clear to let go.

~

It occured to me that saying not believing in a god is a belief more or less seemed to entail, as Silence put it, that if there was no theism, there would be a philosopher going «Eureka! God doesn't exist». Not believing in god is a belief the same way not doing yoga is yoga the same way not eating is eating. I am really struck by this idea that not doing something implies doing the opposite.

It is not philosophy, it is idiotic pride. Philosophy is reasoning, no more no less.





Why not. But at the present moment/posts, you just show yourself like some puppy trying to step/bark on other to look bigger.




No need. Just read :

And once more, you use rudeness either because I hit a nail or you lack of understanding.




Then don't. Or you're losing face.




I'm affraid you don't understand what is philosophy. You sound more like believing in "philosophy", as I know people believing in "science" too.




Create knowledge, and moreover scientist knowledge, is quite difficult. Far far more than "imitate" those who have created that knowledge, by learning and all. But you're not actor of Research and not even aware of what means and involve the scientist research. It is showed all along your words.

You really lack of understanding and somehow of awareness, poor puppy...




Even so, the FAKKU's rules do not allow insult and/or discrimination toward people, whatever their circumstances and religion :





Then withdraw if you lack either stamina or confidence. It will never be(come) some excuse to be rude.




I don't think so, since you seem to always fight about words definition, meaning, and all that I've forgottend to mention.




Well, seems you lack of understanding as you even come to insults. So the value of your "arguments" drop off at a dangerous rate, particularly each time you show stupid rudeness.

---

Just as reminder (opening post) :

Okay first off, this discussion seems to have devolved into pointless bickering since I was last here.

Secondly...



Technically he hasn't broken the rules. He did not 'insult members based on their religion', he insulted them based on the fact that they were religious.

And yes I know I am now joining in with the pointless bickering. I do what I want.

Even not directed toward one member, it is still insulting -- at least every/any religious member of Fakku. It is (same as) flaming. Acting as troll.

Bah. Maybe the moderation is OK with you saying people believing in god are nothing but shitty moron and what more will you say. The OP may cry over his/her thread if so.

Maybe there, "ignorance is a bliss"...

I know it's insulting people on Fakku, but I was just pointing out that he wasn't actually breaking the rules, because of a technicality in the wording of the rules.



"So is knowledge a friend or a foe,
Cause you don't suffer from what you don't know."

No relevance to the conversation, but I felt like quoting it.

Well english not being my mother language, it might be possible I miss some technical or grammatical "point". Or maybe being rude is still being. Whatever.

As for the citation the intention was somehow sarcastic, and I imagine people may (have) understand... what they're able to :-)

Well, it's a sin to be here from being a Christian but why are you here?

>,>

Sick burn.

Also have you heard about hipster Jesus? He forgave our sins before they were committed.

As I said in response to Fligger, I'm pointing out a technicality in the wording of the rules, which means he has not broken them.

If it said you cannot insult someone based on their theology (or in fact just 'beliefs' would do it), then he would have broken them. But it doesn't, so he didn't.