https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2023/12/5/2034607/-Atheism-Is-Not-a-Religion?detail=emaildkll&pm_source=DKLL&pm_medium=email&link_id=10&can_id=c9d4df46b8d481ae42811bcb827b9810&email_referrer=email_2137241&email_subject=florida-attorney-general-is-arguing-in-court-for-virtually-unlimited-book-banning-authority

This needed to be said. Thank you Daily Kos.

That was most excellent. Checked every box and left no stone unturned that I can see. I especially loved the "Rituals" one. Really a nice contrast between belief and lack of belief.

7.  Rules and commandments.  

    Atheists don't have any.  
    There are no rules handed
    down from ancient atheists
    to control us.  We use empathy
    and reason to guide our behavior.

You're not seriously going to argue that all atheists use empathy and reason to guide their behavior (behaviour, for you Brits and N.C.C.G), are you?


Another point I'd like to mention, kids are born with aptitudes, talents and with a wide variety of physical and mental traits, but no child is born either a religionist or an atheist.  

In fact, there's a lot of things that humans can be and do that babies would never acquire/achieve without "guidance."  Whether you think it weird or not, masturbation isn't one of those acquistions/achievements...

...but I don't. Mao Zedong was an atheist but he sure didn't have a lot of empathy or sympathy for his fellow humans.

Mao also wrote a holy book, instituted rules and rituals, insisted on conformity, evangelized, claimed a historical mandate, and was worshiped.

In other words, he discovered, like other charismatic tyrants, that politics works best when supported by religious institutions and practices.

  
  

He was outdone by his North Korean contemporary, Kim Il Sung. The tears cried for Dear Leader are real. He is their Joseph Smith. As in any cult, you had better not be a critic.

Kim learned his trade from Mao and Stalin, who also wrote a holy book,instituted rules and rituals, insisted on conformity, evangelized, claimed a historical mandate, and was worshiped. The same was true of Hitler, so too--minus the book--Pol Pot.

All of these men were far worse than JS. The point, which will not shock dagny, is that many if not most humans are sheep looking for a shepherd. There are precious few shepherds, however, mainly just wolves in shepherds' clothing

  
  

ALL children are born Atheist. Theism is learned.

I'm not sure that's correct, Dave. Robert Coles and others have done a lot of work on this and have concluded that belief in the supernatural is the natural state of children until about five, when more rational thought processes begin to form.

It makes a bit of sense, too, insofar as an infant has to trust in a benign universe--think of the unthinking baby that attaches itself to a "mother" of another species--in order to survive.

Go to a hospital maternity ward and ask those newborns about theism.

I did the opposite. I asked babies to run around the block and come back and do three somersaults if they did not believe in God. Not a single one of them said he was an atheist. Just to double check, I then asked them to integrate Einstein's general theory of relativity if they disbelieved in God. Apparently they were all believers.

The question, Dave, is whether a belief in supernatural powers is natural to a child. A lot of research has been done on that question and the answer is that by the ages of four and five they do, irrespective of their parents and their environments. It is apparently a natural stage in an infant's intellectual and moral development.

Like crawling before walking.

Pretty shallow request of followers.

"Followers?" I fear you missed the point.

In terms of promoting freedom from religion, the author sure has a long list of rules.

A lack of a belief does not constitute a belief.

And a lack of color does not constitute a color. Black is not a color. Paint manufacturers are either confused or lying.

ETA: I see I was too subtle. Black is not a color in the technical, physics sense, but in the human culture sense it most certainly IS a color. Same thing with atheism. Not believing in gods has consequences. For example, an atheist would reject praying to a god to solve a problem.

Atheism is a belief that there are no gods.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2023 10:53AM by Brother Of Jerry.

I disagree.

Atheism is not a belief that there are no gods. That goes to the issue of existence.

Rather atheism is no belief in any (claimed) god. It doesn't address the question of existence, just of their own personal belief.

And . . . Not collecting stamps is not a hobby.

That hasn't stopped some types trying to turn it into one, or something like it, e.g. Richard Dawkins or the so called "Humanist movement". (Misnamed since "Humanism" had a completely different meaning for hundreds of years before they appropriated it.)

That was good. I always liked the way someone summed it up in one line though:

"Atheism is a religion like OFF is a channel on television."

From an information theory POV, “off” is part of the information channel that a tv represents, with a very low data rate. All it transmits is a zero, but that is significant information, easily interpreted by the viewer.

So what's your favorite program on OFF?

There is only one program, and it is the most used program on the tv.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . . . [off] is the most used program on the tv.

You clearly don't have teenage children.

To me, atheism is just another way of slapping a label on oneself. It is the yang to religion's yin. Why even discuss one's belief or lack of belief in a god or gods? I just say that I'm not religious.

I always just say I'm not religious as well. Although atheism almost never comes up anywhere I go, and here is about the only place I've ever even talked about it. It's not really that interesting unless some over the top religious person is in your face. But I'm in California and religion just isn't much of a topic ever.

Says a person who has slapped herself with the label of "Summer".

Dave, my point is, if you say you are atheist, you are still defining yourself in relationship to someone else's beliefs.

And this would be an absurd thing to do under a lot of circumstances.

But not when those beliefs you're refusing to accept are more than just predominant, but also driving cultures, from familial to global, along destructive trajectories. Then it can be, and is for many, an important distinction to make about one's self.

I agree with the OP that atheism is not a religion. Some atheist autocrats have used the trappings of religion for the same reason religions use them, but basically, atheism in and of itself is not a religion for the reasons already stated.

But this claiming that atheism is not a belief is just silly. The reason people have to keep arguing for that over and over and over and over is because the vast majority of people don’t buy it.

Remember “one if by land, two if by sea”? American history, Paul Revere and the British are coming. That was not a two signal system. There were three signals. No lantern in the bell tower meant the British were not coming, a very useful bit of information. The lack of a lantern was a signal.

As I post3d above, “off” on a tv transmits a very useful bit of information. The lack of a signal is a signal.

Zero, the lack of a number, is itself a number. That was a pretty radical and esoteric idea for much of human history, and didn’t really get accepted as a number in Europe until 5e early Enlightenment period. There is still some resistance to accepting zero as a number. Europeans treat the ground floor of a building as floor 0. North Americans consider it floor 1, with no floor 0 (or 13, another story)

Black, the absence of color, is a color.

And atheism, the lack of belief in gods, is a belief. Atheists believe there are no gods. You are never going to convince the rest of the world that is not a true statement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2023 12:40PM by Brother Of Jerry.

> Remember “one if by land, two if by sea”?
> American history, Paul Revere and the British are
> coming. That was not a two signal system. There
> were three signals. No lantern in the bell tower
> meant the British were not coming, a very useful
> bit of information. The lack of a lantern was a
> signal.

But to people who were not in on the secret--that a signal of one sort or another was being sent--there was zero information in the lack of a signal.

I think that is the point. Many, if not most, atheists aren't part of the framework you propose.

I'd say some people really do believe that "Less is More".

Doesn’t matter. The lack of a signal was itself a signal. That most people were not aware of any of the signals is irrelevant.

Then you are confusing a system with an information system. The latter requires someone or something to perceive meaning in the signal.

To the vast majority of Americans in 1776, a light or lack of light in a bell tower conveyed no information about the British. That my neighbor's night light burned out at 3:00 AM yesterday morning tells me nothing since 1) I was unaware of it, and 2) there was no agreed framework on the information that the light or lack thereof was supposed to convey.

When you insert the word "information" before "system," you raise the standard from something that produces data to something that produces meaningful data. Without an agreed definition of "meaning," no one is informed.

To get Buddhist for a moment, if a tree falls in the woods but no one is around to hear it, did it fall? Yes, the event occurred. But there was no information conveyed.

The only way that the phrase "the lack of a signal is a signal" can be true is if the meaning of "signal" changes between the subject and the object.

No lantern means that no British are coming. This makes sense because the lantern, or lack of, is a physical "signal" that represents a message "signal" regarding the whereabouts of the british. They're two different signals related to each other by intentional construct.

To extrapolate this to theism and atheism doesn't work. There is no similarly intentional construct. The lack of a lantern might mean something, but it certainly doesn't mean the presence of a lantern. The lack of a radio signal might have meaning, but it doesn't constitute a radio signal. "Not X" cannot equal "X". The lack of belief might mean something but it doesn't, by itself, constitute a belief.

If I'm presented with a large jar of pennies and asked if I believe that there are even pennies in the jar, I'll say no. That doesn't mean I believe there are odd pennies in the jar. I'd answer no to that question, too. I'd have no beliefs related to the parity of the pennies in the jar. I'd be an aparityist. At least until I could count the pennies.

A lack of belief might have meaning as a part of a larger worldview, but it isn't a belief.

Brother Of Jerry Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> And atheism, the lack of belief in gods, is a
> belief. Atheists believe there are no gods. You
> are never going to convince the rest of the world
> that is not a true statement.

I think you're getting it wrong. It is not a belief in and of itself. It is a response to someone else's claim.

Someone can claim that the inside of their brain is polka dotted.

And I can respond I don't believe that.

And the same is true of atheism. To me it is that lack of assertion that is the core of why people get atheism wrong.

>And I can respond I don’t believe that.

Which is the same as saying that you believe the statement that person X has a polka-dot brain is incorrect. That’s a belief.

The lack of a color is a color
The lack of a signal is a signal
The lack of number is a number.
The lack of a belief is a belief.

It’s not that complicated.

> The lack of a color is a color

It depends how you define "color." The absence of photons is an absence of color if you define color as perceived photons, Conversely, the absence of photons is a color if it is defined as such.

> The lack of a signal is a signal

Yes, it is a signal. But it does not convey information unless there is an agreement on what the signal means.

> The lack of a belief is a belief.

Untrue. A stone does not believe in the existence of God, and that lack of belief does not per se constitute a belief. Why? Because the rock is incapable of having any belief at all.

> It’s not that complicated.

And yet you had to redefine your terms to persuade yourself that black is a color. So it is confusing and it depends on an a priori definition of terms.

The question becomes still more complicated when you add the term information, since that requires not just a signal but an agreement between different entities as to what the variable is and what it implies.

Lot's Wife Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > The lack of a color is a color
>
> It depends how you define "color." The absence of
> photons is an absence of color if you define color
> as perceived photons, Conversely, the absence of
> photons is a color if it is defined as such.
>

The vast majority of people use the craft store definition of color. Black is a color. It comes in tubes and bottles. There is not a section of the store for non-color colors.

Black is a color. Tomato is a vegetable. Technicalities be damned.

> > The lack of a signal is a signal
>
> Yes, it is a signal. But it does not convey
> information unless there is an agreement on what
> the signal means.
>

?? All signals only convey information by mutual agreement on what the signals mean.

> > The lack of a belief is a belief.
>
> Untrue. A stone does not believe in the existence
> of God, and that lack of belief does not per se
> constitute a belief. Why? Because the rock is
> incapable of having any belief at all.
>

You have committed a category error. Stones are not capable of believing or disbelieving anything.

> > It’s not that complicated.
>
> And yet you had to redefine your terms to persuade
> yourself that black is a color. So it is
> confusing and it depends on an a priori definition
> of terms.
>
> The question becomes still more complicated when
> you add the term information, since that requires
> not just a signal but an agreement between
> different entities as to what the variable is and
> what it implies.

??? All communication is by mutual agreement of terms.


Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
Atheism is no belief that there are gods.

Except at the most pedantic parsing, those are equivalent statements. It's not that complicated. Really.

Mathematical proofs don't usually interest me, but if there's one showing that = = /=, I'll be super fascinated.

Let "=" be defined as 1. This is justified by noting that equalities represent unity. (Leibniz' Law of Identity)

https://www.bing.com/search?q=leibniz+law+of+identity&form=ANNTH1&refig=ae380ba5a4f74072adced71d2cffbec5&sp=2&lq=0&qs=SC&pq=leibniz%27+law&sk=UT1&sc=10-12&cvid=ae380ba5a4f74072adced71d2cffbec5

Therefore =/= equals 1, and (=/=) = (=)

This may be debatable. However, Brother of Jerry's comments above are not. Atheism is a substantive mental state, or 'propositional attitude' not merely the lack of a belief in God. Like the belief state, the non-belief state is formed after consideration of the truth value of some proposition, like "God exists." Beliefs, whether positive or negative, are mental states that are represented by some complex state of the brain. As such, one's corresponding mental state denying some proposition it itself substantive.

Think again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Let "=" be defined as 1. This is justified by
> noting that equalities represent unity. (Leibniz'
> Law of Identity)
>
> https://www.bing.com/search?q=leibniz+law+of+ident
> ity&form=ANNTH1&refig=ae380ba5a4f74072adced71d2cff
> bec5&sp=2&lq=0&qs=SC&pq=leibniz%27+law&sk=UT1&sc=1
> 0-12&cvid=ae380ba5a4f74072adced71d2cffbec5
>
> Therefore =/= equals 1, and (=/=) = (=)
>
> This may be debatable.

You didn't even end up with the statement I proposed.

But that may be my fault. I used a lazy syntax by typing /= for "not equal". So, to clarify...= = ≠. It's a nonsensical statement meant solely as a cheeky inference that the laws of identity, non-contradiction, excluded middle are violated by stating "lack of belief is a belief."

However, Brother of
> Jerry's comments above are not.

Yet here we are.

Atheism is a
> substantive mental state, or 'propositional
> attitude' not merely the lack of a belief in God.

Philosophical constructs are always debatable. I don't agree that lack of belief is a propositional attitude. See LW's stone example above.


> Like the belief state, the non-belief state is
> formed after consideration of the truth value of
> some proposition, like "God exists." Beliefs,
> whether positive or negative, are mental states
> that are represented by some complex state of the
> brain.

Even if lack of belief is a "mental state", whatever that might mean, that doesn't make it a belief. The absence of A can't be A.

As such, one's corresponding mental state
> denying some proposition it itself substantive.

Denying a proposition isn't the same thing as not accepting a proposition. Not accepting the claim that there are an even number of pennies in a jar, prior to them being counted, is not the same thing as denying that there are an even number.

Here is an argument in logical form that demonstrably refutes the claim that atheism is not of itself a belief, but only the lack of belief.

Premise 1: A “belief” by definition is a mental state (or psychological state) such that the ‘believer’ has a *mental disposition* to *affirm* some proposition, e.g. the proposition “God exists.” Thus, from Wiki: “A belief is a subjective attitude that a proposition is true or a state of affairs is the case. A subjective attitude is a mental state of having some stance, take, or opinion about something.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief

Premise 2: A theist has a mental state (or mental disposition) to affirm the proposition ‘God exists’ and therefore a theist has a belief that God exists.

Premise 3: An atheist has a mental state (or mental disposition) to affirm the proposition ‘God does not exist’ and therefore an atheist has a belief that God does not exist.

Conclusion: Both theists and atheists have substantive beliefs (mental states) representing contrary mental dispositions to affirm or deny a proposition about the existence of God. As such, it is false to claim that atheism is simply the lack of a belief in God. In short, ‘beliefs’ (including beliefs about God) are by definition about psychology! They are not simply about the logical nuances of language, such that in psychological or social contexts 'a-theism' can be identified as just the absence of theism.

Let us not forget the good ol not having a symtom is a symtom. :)

And. If you are going to believe in Gods, skip today's boring lot from that Bible. Aim a little higher. Heavenly Father is no Zeus. That's for sure.


The Greeks. They knew how to God. Nobody has gotten it right since, although, the Romans gave it a good shot.

Yes, the Greek, Roman, and Norse gods are a far more interesting lot. Tell me again why we went with the boring, mentally unbalanced Abrahamic god?

What's the correct response upon being meeting someone who says, "I'm a lapsed nihilist..."?

"Did you find studying rivers in Egypt to be worthwhile?"

In order for a god to exist magic must be real. Is magic real ?

No magic no god. Period !



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/09/2023 04:58PM by Dave the Atheist.

Say there is a religion consisting of people who don't believe in Zeus.

If you believe in Jehovah but not Zeus, which religion would you actually belong to?

I think maybe certain types of people purposely want to make atheism more complicated than it is.

dagny Wrote:
--------------------------------
>
> I think maybe certain types of
> people purposely want to make
> atheism more complicated than
> it is.


I sincerely believe that the orthodoxy of your above statement depends on what degree or grade of Atheism one has obtained and to which of the various schisms one belongs to.

...Unless you're one of those Snowflake Atheists: no two are exactly the same...

dagny Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think maybe certain types of people purposely
> want to make atheism more complicated than it is.

Plot twist: It's often the atheists themselves who are doing so.

re·li·gion /rəˈlij(ə)n/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"


a·the·ism
/ˈāTHēˌiz(ə)m/
noun
disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Draw your own conclusion...

HH =)

Without pigeon-holing religion into necessary (or sufficient) conditions for its existence, let's just concede that atheism is not a religion. What is to be gained for atheism by such a concession?

After all, atheism in some of its various instantiations may well encompass if not a religion, an expansive ideology or at the very least an expansive worldview. Thus, although an atheist may simply believe that there is no supernatural god(s) and leave it at that, he or she may feel the further need to incorporate their belief into an ideology they need to market; or a worldview broadly embracing a materialist metaphysical commitment. Such further ideologies and worldviews often claim that science is the arbitrator of all truth, and that religion is per se irrational. Then you have books and more books, ala Dennett, Dawkins, and Hitchens, et. al., and thereafter their atheist disciples. And then you find atheist evangelicals, like Ron Reagan, appearing in TV ads.

It is here where the atheist-religion discussion becomes more interesting.