[Lesson 5] The religious state

JinhamKlyean wrote: But the belief that people shouldn't believe in things without proof is a worldview, wouldn't you say?

Yes I would say that is a worldview.

JinhamKlyean wrote: You can claim that's not a theological tenet, but the statement "I believe that God does not exist" is both a tenet and theological (i.e., related to religious faith, practice, or experience). Sorry, but claiming invisible unicorns don't exist is still a statement relating to invisible unicorns, and relating de facto to experiences people have had with them.

Here you go off the rails a bit. Atheists do not claim that they believe god does not exist. (although some hard atheists may make this claim its definitely not the norm nor universal.) What atheists do typically is simply reject others claim there is a god. There is a huge difference there. The US justice system is based on the claim that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Does this mean we believe the defendant is innocent? No, it just means we do not believe they are guilty until proven to be guilty by evidence. Same thing for atheists and the claim that god exists. Atheists dont believe no god exists, they only disbelieve the claim that god does exist because of a lack of evidence.

JinhamKlyean wrote: Or, in some churches, let it be known that you don't accept the doctrine but promise not to make waves.

To be fair, I say that because I was in that very position myself once. The pastor of a church I'd attended for years (whom I had, and still have, great respect for) started making a point in his sermons to talk about a particular statement of belief that was "defining" for our church. I spoke to him privately, admitted that I had differences on that point, and asked him if I was really welcome. He told me of his ... grandfather? Father-in-law? I don't remember. A family member of his, who continued attending their church back home for years and was an accepted member of the church community even though his own beliefs had drifted - he just sort of kept it to himself.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Here you go off the rails a bit. Atheists do not claim that they believe god does not exist. (although some hard atheists may make this claim its definitely not the norm nor universal.) What atheists do typically is simply reject others claim there is a god. There is a huge difference there. [...] Atheists dont believe no god exists, they only disbelieve the claim that god does exist because of a lack of evidence.

I agree that those two things are different, and I would definitely consider the latter to be less of a theological or religious statement than the former.

However, at least in my own experience, I've rarely spoken with self-professed atheists who haven't made the leap to "God does not exist." Don't get me wrong, I don't consider that absolute claim to be "militaristic" -- I'm just saying that from what I've seen, the distinction you make, while logical, doesn't occur much in practice. (Among self-described agnostics, ISTM to be a different story.)

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote: Here you go off the rails a bit. Atheists do not claim that they believe god does not exist. (although some hard atheists may make this claim its definitely not the norm nor universal.) What atheists do typically is simply reject others claim there is a god. There is a huge difference there. The US justice system is based on the claim that the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Does this mean we believe the defendant is innocent? No, it just means we do not believe they are guilty until proven to be guilty by evidence. Same thing for atheists and the claim that god exists. Atheists dont believe no god exists, they only disbelieve the claim that god does exist because of a lack of evidence.

You are literally arguing with the dictionary at this point:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/atheist?s=t
atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

There may be something to be said about the state of belief and rejection to belief in the form of process. (Allow me to explain).

Jews and Christians have different beliefs. But in order for them to completely have these differences, there are two steps.

1. To reject the other belief.
2. To put a different belief into the space where they have removed the others' belief in rejection.

In the case of atheism, its assumed that 2 does not take place, only one. In atheism, the space is left blank and nothing is replaced.

Does this allow the constitution for saying that atheism is itself a belief if the process of reject and replace has not been completed? Or is the decision NOT to replace the belief with anything actually the same in nature as if they were? Much of the consensus is that the belief is replaced with science, which many can say does fulfill step 2 and therefore completes the process needed to constitute the same state of affairs that religions hold against each other.

It's an interesting notion to think about.

JinhamKlyean, I don't understand why someone would choose to continue to stay in a spiritual group they no longer identify with? It would equate to identifying as a Sith but continuing to hang out here to train as a Jedi. Why would anyone do that? Seems a huge waste of time.

As to your second point, it seems the experience is subjective to the individual. I am a member of 3 different active atheist groups, both IRL and online and the membership of those groups is overwhelmingly agnostic atheist.

Kasumi wrote: You are literally arguing with the dictionary at this point:.

I would beg to differ, however, even if I am, what is your point?

Proteus wrote: Much of the consensus is that the belief is replaced with science, which many can say does fulfill step 2 and therefore completes the process needed to constitute the same state of affairs that religions hold against each other.

However this is an incorrect consensus. Atheism requires no belief in science in order to full its tenet.

Kyrin Wyldstar wrote:

Proteus wrote: Much of the consensus is that the belief is replaced with science, which many can say does fulfill step 2 and therefore completes the process needed to constitute the same state of affairs that religions hold against each other.

However this is an incorrect consensus. Atheism requires no belief in science in order to full its tenet.

However, it does require the belief that there is no god. As Kasumi supplied the definition below:

Kasumi wrote: atheist: a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

To be fair, a dictionary defines the way words are used, not how they should be used.

JinhamKlyean wrote: To be fair, a dictionary defines the way words are used, not how they should be used.

I've always found it the other way around at least until they update it. For example, ever heard anyone saying they're " literally dyeing! " (usually they're not). The Merriam-Webster dictionary has been updated to include the figurative use for the word literally. They're also considering adding "pupper" to the dictionary