Christ Centered Gamer

Well, let's see how Dictionary.com defines it....

Dictionary.com wrote: 1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects:
the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices:
a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.:
to enter religion.
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience:
to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic. religious rites:
painted priests performing religions deep into the night.

Perhaps it's just my interpretation, but an adamant belief that "there is no god" seems to qualify, to me, to be a statement of faith that concerns "the cause, nature and purpose of the universe." The sixth definition seems to apply as well, especially considering how some atheists are so adamant about their beliefs to the point that they immediately dismiss anything that might contradict it.

A religion doesn't have to be "organized" in order to qualify as a religion. It simply has to be a belief system used to help explain the unexplained.

Bruce_Campbell wrote:But you could say that about football too, and I'm not going to call football a religion.

I wouldn't, either. But judging from the actions from some Seahawks fans around here....

Deepfreeze32 wrote: Maybe you don't see it that way, but that's how I (And I suspect Arch and C$) view it.

Any reasonable person is skeptical without evidence. That's way different from positively asserting something. Just as I can't prove ghosts exist, neither can Arch prove that they don't. Therefore, if we're limiting our scope to scientific approaches only, the best any of us can say is "maybe."

Yes, if a person asserts that ghosts exist the burden of proof is on them, but keep in mind that cuts both ways. If you assert they don't exist, you'll be expected to prove it, otherwise it's just denying it for its own sake. To be fair, it's logically impossible to prove a negative, but that's what makes such an assertion so dangerous.

Sstavix wrote:erhaps it's just my interpretation, but an adamant belief that "there is no god" seems to qualify, to me, to be a statement of faith that concerns "the cause, nature and purpose of the universe."

Most atheists do not subscribe to that, and even still, no.

Sstavix wrote: The sixth definition seems to apply as well, especially considering how some atheists are so adamant about their beliefs to the point that they immediately dismiss anything that might contradict it.

No, we're just pretty sure you're wrong. I'm not going to take a Flat Earth person seriously, but that doesn't mean I'm religious about my belief that the earth is spherical. Although, flat earthers do actually talk with that rhetoric.

Here's the thing, "religion" in the mind of people, has a very specific defining purpose. These involve the supernatural, a set of beliefs, and involve adherence to moral principles and practices, rituals and traditions. If you redefine it to be used more broadly, you lose the ability to communicate your points with others, but on top of that, even if we agreed to use your definition, it'd lose it' defining power. The more it encompasses, the less statement it makes. If you extend the definition to include any explanation that doesn't hasn't been demonstrated, it no longer holds it's meaning. If you want to say something about the power of religion to help people find spiritual balance: gone. Positive influence on people's life? Nope.
If I accept that atheism is a religion because it has a stance on a non-naturalistic claim, what possible thing could assert from that? The definition is just about meaningless. You certainly haven't addressed any atheist objections to religion. You make no statement on faith or spirituality.

And that's the commonly dishonest use of "atheism is a religion." I don't know your guy's points, but just as Bruce has seen, this sort of redefinition comes as a defense to criticisms of religion from atheists, as if somehow this new bizarre definition still works like the old one. I stand by atheism is not a religion not because I don't want to be associated with religion, or just because I'm pedantic, but because as soon as you do that, religion no longer starts to hold water as a definition. Words need to mean something and if a rejection of religious claims is a religion, what does that even mean anymore? Do we need to come up with another word, or will that eventually be redefined.


Also, if this wasn't complex enough, the danger of dictionary-citing for definitions (which, yes, I have done earlier), is that colloquial uses are added in, and those are intentionally broad as to incorporate their symbolic nature, aka "Racing is a religion in our home." Definition 6 is meant to incorporate this, but in a more specific use, is too broad to really mean something.

ArcticFox wrote:That's way different from positively asserting something. Just as I can't prove ghosts exist, neither can Arch prove that they don't. Therefore, if we're limiting our scope to scientific approaches only, the best any of us can say is "maybe."

Technically, yeah, I don't know for sure. You can't prove a negative. Does this mean anything you don't postiviely believe in is just a maybe?
Given that all claims I am aware of are preposterous, and I can give something much stronger than a "maybe." I don't believe they exist. The notion is not plausible. If someone comes with sufficiently compelling evidence, I'll revisit this position.

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Perhaps it's just my interpretation, but an adamant belief that "there is no god" seems to qualify, to me, to be a statement of faith that concerns "the cause, nature and purpose of the universe."

Most atheists do not subscribe to that, and even still, no.

Then, in your opinion as an atheist, what is the cause, purpose and nature of the universe? And, more importantly, why?

ArchAngel wrote: If I accept that atheism is a religion because it has a stance on a non-naturalistic claim, what possible thing could assert from that?

That you have faith that the universe is naturalistic - or, in other words, the universe didn't come about due to supernatural causes. That's good enough for me.

ArchAngel wrote: The definition is just about meaningless. You certainly haven't addressed any atheist objections to religion. You make no statement on faith or spirituality.

Why should I address any atheist objections to religion? They have their beliefs based on their experiences, and I have mine. I'd only object if they get militant about it and try to ban other religions and religious practices. In other words, if they're willing to let me believe what I believe, I'm willing to do the same with them. Sure, we can discuss our own differences and interpretations, but I'm not out to persuade them that they're wrong - just to get a better understanding of what they believe in, and why.

Others may have their own approaches, but that's where I stand, at least.

But getting back to one of my earlier questions, do you believe that there is a rational, scientific explanation for everything, even if we simply don't know it yet?

Before I go on, I just want to make sure you know I'm not looking to pick on your or your position, Broamir. I'm just exploring an aspect of this stuff that doesn't get discussed very often in general.

ArchAngel wrote:Technically, yeah, I don't know for sure. You can't prove a negative. Does this mean anything you don't postiviely believe in is just a maybe?

That would seem to be the most neutral position.

ArchAngel wrote: Given that all claims I am aware of are preposterous, and I can give something much stronger than a "maybe." I don't believe they exist. The notion is not plausible. If someone comes with sufficiently compelling evidence, I'll revisit this position.

Here's the problem when we start using words like "preposterous" to describe a phenomenon like this in the context of a pseudo-scientific discussion. It's entirely subjective; a matter of opinion. There's just no room for that sort of thing. You say it's preposterous. I might say it isn't. Which of us is right? Can't say. It's all opinion.

And that's perfectly fine, as long as we're honest about it being a matter of opinion and not try to cast it as being some kind of reasonable position, arrived at by logic or scientific means.

Now, if we are to engage in a more formal discussion, we need to drop the opinion and start looking at evidence. The evidence that comes up may or may not be credible, but it all has to be approached in a reasonable way.

The reason this is an issue for me personally, is my dad is one of those people who will flat out dismiss something without even discussing it. He pretends to be enlightened and reasoned, and yet makes no effort to really look into an issue and examine it from an objective viewpoint. That resulted in me growing up with a bad taste in my mouth for that sort of thing, which is why I'm pursuing this discussion.

(Not accusing you of being that way, Arch, just giving some background.)

Sstavix wrote:Then, in your opinion as an atheist, what is the cause, purpose and nature of the universe? And, more importantly, why?

The question is bad. Atheism does not give answers to any of those question. It's not a religion.
I have opinions on it, but it's not "as an atheist." It's just my opinion on it.
My opinion is that there is no inherent meaning in the universe, but there are purposes that we can draw up for our own lives.

Sstavix wrote:That you have faith that the universe is naturalistic - or, in other words, the universe didn't come about due to supernatural causes. That's good enough for me.

No, I just seen no convincing explanation for a supernatural originating cause.

Sstavix wrote:do you believe that there is a rational, scientific explanation for everything, even if we simply don't know it yet?

Well, there are certain things that have been shown we'll never know. Maybe that'll change, but it's not out the question certain knowledges can never be. Actually, I'd say probably and plausible that we couldn't know somethings.

ArcticFox wrote:That would seem to be the most neutral position.

Too neutral. We do have information that can lean us one way or another.

ArcticFox wrote:Here's the problem when we start using words like "preposterous" to describe a phenomenon like this in the context of a pseudo-scientific discussion. It's entirely subjective; a matter of opinion...
...Now, if we are to engage in a more formal discussion, we need to drop the opinion and start looking at evidence. The evidence that comes up may or may not be credible, but it all has to be approached in a reasonable way.

I'm not entering this subject from the beginning. I've looked at the evidence before. I don't think any of you are under the impression that these concepts are new to me. I call it preposterous, not as a personal opinion, but as a statement on the implausibility of the claims and shakiness of their support, based on my analysis done prior to this discussion.
It's a strong arm statement, but because all my previous experiences with this has moved me to a position to not take this seriously, unless they happen to bring something very profound to the table.

ArcticFox wrote: Now, if we are to engage in a more formal discussion, we need to drop the opinion and start looking at evidence. The evidence that comes up may or may not be credible, but it all has to be approached in a reasonable way.

The reason this is an issue for me personally, is my dad is one of those people who will flat out dismiss something without even discussing it. He pretends to be enlightened and reasoned, and yet makes no effort to really look into an issue and examine it from an objective viewpoint. That resulted in me growing up with a bad taste in my mouth for that sort of thing, which is why I'm pursuing this discussion.

I actually grew up in a very similar household. My dad is a brilliant computer engineer, but often (Especially with religion, politics, and philosophy) he just can't see past his own biases. It really bugs me, because what I enjoyed the most about college (I went to a liberal arts school. Definitely bucked the stereotype, as I loved the liberal arts part of my education just as much as the computer parts) was constantly evaluating my position based on new evidence or insights. Some of my professors would challenge my views on an issue and successfully change my mind by presenting sides of the issue I hadn't seen before.

However, not all evidence is created equally, and not all claims need necessarily be evaluated in the same way. For instance, I don't hold personal accounts and anecdotal evidence in as high regard as recorded audio/visual evidence, because I know that human memory is a very fickle thing. Very easily influenced.

With claims though, some of them don't need as rigorous an evaluation because they just don't matter that much, or they have insufficient evidence to either effect. While I definitely want to know the veracity of every factual detail about history, in some cases, the evidence either way just isn't there. What was going through Gavrilo Princip's head when he stopped by the sandwich shop in Sarajevo? All we can do is guess, because he died without recording what happened.

With ghosts, it doesn't matter that much to me if they exist or not (though I'm pretty sure they don't, if I see compelling evidence I will change that), so I don't necessarily need to evaluate it. It's kind of a "Does <X> exist? Well it doesn't matter, I've got work to do". I realize that's a cop out, which is why I don't really want to say anything strong either way on the subject. It doesn't make a difference to me.

What that does NOT mean, however, is that I will refuse to consider evidence. I will always consider evidence. But I won't be seeking it out actively.


Anyway, long story short: I come from a similar background, Arctic. I prefer analyzing claims over flat out rejecting them. But as ChickenSoup said, sometimes you just get tired of seeing the same arguments, and seeing the same stuff presented over and over as "new" evidence (I've seen this in geocentrism, ghosts, UFOs, and all manner of "unusual" topics).

@Deep: Well sure, if you've seen evidence before that's been refuted I wouldn't expect it to be reviewed again. That said, it's important to resist the temptation to pigeonhole things and file them under "seen it before" when maybe you haven't.

@Arch: We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this one, but I'm never going to take "that's preposterous" seriously in any discussion of a matter that can be approached scientifically. To do so strikes me as being closed minded.

Look at it another way: You would have every single Christian on this site honestly consider the possibility that there's no God. If we were to say "that's preopsterous" you'd accuse us of being closed minded and biased. (And you sorta have form time to time, albeit diplomatically, which is appreciated.) You want to challenge others' perspectives but want us to nod our head in agreement when you do the same but with another issue? Nawp, my friend.

For the record, I don't have any sort of need for you (or anybody) to hold a particular position on the existence of ghosts or aliens or unicorns. I'm just enjoying the thought experiment.

As for me, just for the record, yes, I do believe in spirits/ghosts (for reasons that are my own). No, I don't think aliens have been to Earth, no I don't believe unicorns exist (although it would be pretty epic if they did.!)

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Then, in your opinion as an atheist, what is the cause, purpose and nature of the universe? And, more importantly, why?

The question is bad. Atheism does not give answers to any of those question. It's not a religion.

Really? I thought the answer would have been evident simply in the definition of atheism (e.g. "It's certainly not God or any other spiritual mumbo-jumbo. You'll have to look elsewhere for your answers.")

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:That you have faith that the universe is naturalistic - or, in other words, the universe didn't come about due to supernatural causes. That's good enough for me.

No, I just seen no convincing explanation for a supernatural originating cause.

Nothing that has personally convinced you, right? Obviously, others have reached their own conclusions, based upon their own experience and interpretation of available evidence.

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:do you believe that there is a rational, scientific explanation for everything, even if we simply don't know it yet?

Well, there are certain things that have been shown we'll never know. Maybe that'll change, but it's not out the question certain knowledges can never be. Actually, I'd say probably and plausible that we couldn't know somethings.

But there is a rational, scientific explanation, even if we don't know it? Or do you believe that there are some things about our universe that cannot and will never be explained by science, no matter how much information we obtain?

ArcticFox wrote: For the record, I don't have any sort of need for you (or anybody) to hold a particular position on the existence of ghosts or aliens or unicorns. I'm just enjoying the thought experiment.

Same here. Perhaps it's just me, but I love philosophical discussions and entertaining "what if...?" scenarios. It's probably the writer in me.

Existence of ghosts is a scientific discussion? Not even remotely.

Could there be a potential scientific discourse about the existence of extra-corporeal consciousness? Possibly. Is there now? No. Right now, it's superstition and fear run amok; proponents of ghosts aren't even offering a scientific discussion.
So, yes. Somethings are preposterous and I don't have to pretend like it's somehow a legitimate talking point.

To take an old conservative adage, it's important to not be so open-minded your brain falls out. The process of gaining knowledge is about closing and opening the right doors.

You honestly think this is me just dismissing something I don't agree with?

Sstavix wrote:Really? I thought the answer would have been evident simply in the definition of atheism (e.g. "It's certainly not God or any other spiritual mumbo-jumbo. You'll have to look elsewhere for your answers.")

Not God isn't anymore an answer than "not pizza" is a contribution when looking for dinner.

Sstavix wrote:Nothing that has personally convinced you, right? Obviously, others have reached their own conclusions, based upon their own experience and interpretation of available evidence.

And they're wrong. People believe a variety of crazy things, and I might have some of my own still, which is why logic and evidence needs to be paramount. Disagreements aren't about clashes of opinion of equal standing, it's about which position is more evidenced.

Sstavix wrote:But there is a rational, scientific explanation, even if we don't know it? Or do you believe that there are some things about our universe that cannot and will never be explained by science, no matter how much information we obtain?

Not sure. It's hard to imagine unobtainable knowledge.

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Really? I thought the answer would have been evident simply in the definition of atheism (e.g. "It's certainly not God or any other spiritual mumbo-jumbo. You'll have to look elsewhere for your answers.")

Not God isn't anymore an answer than "not pizza" is a contribution when looking for dinner.

You sound like my wife.

But it is an answer. Not a very satisfactory answer, but an answer nonetheless....

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Nothing that has personally convinced you, right? Obviously, others have reached their own conclusions, based upon their own experience and interpretation of available evidence.

And they're wrong. People believe a variety of crazy things, and I might have some of my own still, which is why logic and evidence needs to be paramount. Disagreements aren't about clashes of opinion of equal standing, it's about which position is more evidenced.

And other people have presented the evidence that has convinced them about various things. It just hasn't been satisfactory to convince you, by your own standards. I'm not saying that you need to relax your own standards or accept the things they believe - but if they have their own evidence to believe things and are convinced of it, then why bother?

Here's a completely fictional example - I've never been to Bangladesh. I've never met anyone who lived there, or has even visited there. I have never had any personal experience whatsoever with Bangladesh. As a result, why should I believe in Bangladesh? In fact, I could go as far as to say that Bangladesh doesn't actually exist, and that all those people who have claimed to live there are delusional. Those pictures of it? Doctored. Its name on the map? Again, part of some sort of grand delusion to convince people of a place that doesn't actually exist. Should I go there to learn about it myself? Why should I? I've already convinced myself that it doesn't exist, so there wouldn't be anything to go to!

So, is this thought process rational?

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:But there is a rational, scientific explanation, even if we don't know it? Or do you believe that there are some things about our universe that cannot and will never be explained by science, no matter how much information we obtain?

Not sure. It's hard to imagine unobtainable knowledge.

Is it possible to obtain the knowledge through non-scientific means, though? In other words, use a different tool for the answers you seek?

ArchAngel wrote:Existence of ghosts is a scientific discussion? Not even remotely.

I thought you said Science is the only tool that can answer our questions about the universe? If it's not a scientific discussion, then what is it? At the very least, if ghosts don't exist, then we can look at it scientifically and conclude there's simply a lack of evidence to support their existence. And if so, then it is a scientific discussion.

Isn't it?

ArchAngel,

Did you read my rather lengthy post about my experiences with the demonic? Just curious because it was in the thread where we all bared our souls to one another and I never saw you reply to what I wrote.

selderane wrote:ArchAngel,

Did you read my rather lengthy post about my experiences with the demonic? Just curious because it was in the thread where we all bared our souls to one another and I never saw you reply to what I wrote.

Where is that post? I'm interested in seeing it

ArcticFox wrote:

selderane wrote:ArchAngel,

Did you read my rather lengthy post about my experiences with the demonic? Just curious because it was in the thread where we all bared our souls to one another and I never saw you reply to what I wrote.

Where is that post? I'm interested in seeing it

It was right here. And that reminds me, than you for posting that, Selderane. I've been meaning to complement you on that, because I found your personal experiences very interesting. When I talk about "personal experiences with the divine," I'll admit that your own experiences have been much stronger than mine, and very convincing that there is something else out there. Thank you for sharing your testimony, as frightening as it was!