The Constants

[Deck Knight]

What does a disbelief in evolution, or the belief that a supreme diety created the universe with a wave of his hand have to do with morality?

Your statement makes no sense.

Your understanding of religion's primary purpose is lacking.

It makes perfect sense to people who believe religion is about moral precepts and not solely the existence or nonexistence of a deity.

Atheism is the non-belief in a deity. Deities are not required in order to have a religion. See again Buddhism, Jainism.

Eventually you come to this idea the further you go back:

The Universe either had a beginning or has always existed as a given.

The Big Bang itself is ludicrous, not so much as it is a bad theory but that there is no way to get to it without assuming an uncaused cause. The Universe simply IS, in other words. There is no superior logical reason for the universe to have begun as an infinitely dense spec of matter than a previously existing assembly of matter. In either case you have the uncaused cause of matter existing.

 

[Altmer]

Buddhism doesn't have a deity, nor does Jainism iirc. Religion is primarily based around moral precepts, deities are common but not obligatory.

no but buddhism is an entirely differently focused religion than Abrahamic religions and I am far more interested in Buddhism than I am in, say, Judaism. In any case it's nitpicking, because it's irrelevant; we were talking about theistic religion where God does exist. Buddhism is nice but it has nothing to do in a discussion on the existence of God. Please stop sidetracking the discussion and actually respond to my points, will you?

Religion is supposed to provide a functional moral truth that informs and complements a scientific functional physical proof. Science and religion are only at loggerheads with people who don't like moral limits placed on their research, experimentation, or goals.

errr what since when does religion have to be my source of morality. I am quite frankly capable of setting moral laws without God butting his head 'round the corner, thanks very much. you are assuming that religion and scientific domains do not overlap by definition. but the problem is that they do. the only reason you have for assuming this is that it is basically an assumption. it comes totally out of nowhere with zero grounding, just because it makes your life arguing so much easier if you can put science in a corner and say AH! MY GOD SAYS YOU HAVE TO DO THIS. please don't plead ignorance just because you can't be bothered to put forward an actual argument for religion instead of spouting the same old regurgitated bile again and again.

Eventually you come to this idea the further you go back:

The Universe either had a beginning or has always existed as a given.

The Big Bang itself is ludicrous, not so much as it is a bad theory but that there is no way to get to it without assuming an uncaused cause. The Universe simply IS, in other words. There is no superior logical reason for the universe to have begun as an infinitely dense spec of matter than a previously existing assembly of matter. In either case you have the uncaused cause of matter existing.

This idea self-collapses when you realise that for God to create the universe, something must have created God. Because if God exists, he has to be made out of some form of matter (and is therefore bound to physical laws). If he doesn't exist in a material form, then there are two options: either he exists in a form we haven't discovered yet (but in that case he will eventually be subject to the first premise, as soon as we discover he is), or he doesn't exist materially, in which case we can just assume he doesn't exist at all. Now let's say God exists in a material form. Problem: What created God? Because God can create the universe, but something must have created God as well if he is material. Then you have to postulate that something else created God. But what could have created God? Only a more powerful God, I assume. So we run along a probability axis, until we find that the chances of God existing materially are infinitely improbable to the point where we can discard its existence entirely. Whatever you do, you are ensuring that the universe is always created out of something more improbable than itself.

It therefore does not do to postulate God as the cause of the existence of the universe.

Now let me turn to the immaterial God: if God exists, but is immaterial, we have no physical way of determining that he exists. In other words, this God is not definable in any way so that we can prove its existence. In other words, any "immaterial" God that is not bound to any physical laws is rendered irrelevant by the fact its existence cannot be rendered falsifiable in any way, which brings the matter of his existence down to faith. Apart from the fact it doesn't have to be God, it may as well have been the Invisible Pink Unicorn for all we know.

Of course the only other alternative is that God does not exist... which is... well voila.

However, natural laws forming the universe are probable enough that they can explain the existence of the universe. Also, physical laws are falsifiable.

 

[Tangerine]

no but buddhism is an entirely differently focused religion than Abrahamic religions and I am far more interested in Buddhism than I am in, say, Judaism. In any case it's nitpicking, because it's irrelevant; we were talking about theistic religion where God does exist. Buddhism is nice but it has nothing to do in a discussion on the existence of God. Please stop sidetracking the discussion and actually respond to my points, will you?

Confucianism, Buddhism, etc, are religions whether you like it or not. I'm not sure why you're limiting the definition of "religion" to whatever you feel like so you can claim that Atheism is not a religion.

 

[Altmer]

How is atheism a religion? Atheism doesn't mean anything other than "I lack a belief in God."

 

[Tangerine]

How is atheism a religion? Atheism doesn't mean anything other than "I lack a belief in God."

And therefore?

I personally believe that everything is a "religion" and everything has a "god". You have theories on how the world works and how you should live your life by, that is your religion and that is your god. That is all what religion is in the end, a worldview, and you happen to have one like everyone else. Sure, it's not "organized" by any means - but all that means is that it's not an organized religion.

The only way you can justify it if you want to define religion so that it must involve the supernatural, then sure, we can go with your call. But in terms of effects of such beliefs, then it's no different from any other religion teaches, with different euphemisms.

 

[Hipmonlee]

Why not use the word worldview. I personally wouldnt understand the word religion to include atheism.

Atheism is kinda like cold and evil, it doesnt exist! It is just the lack of a religion. In that way to say that atheism teaches anything is a backwards way of looking at anything. I dont act the way I do because I am an atheist, I just dont act in the manner taught by any given religion, because I am not part of that religion.

You can argue the semantics of it, but I think you will find that generally people understand the word religion to not encompass atheism.

Have a nice day.

 

[Tangerine]

Why not use the word worldview. I personally wouldnt understand the word religion to include atheism.

Atheism is kinda like cold and evil, it doesnt exist! It is just the lack of a religion. In that way to say that atheism teaches anything is a backwards way of looking at anything. I dont act the way I do because I am an atheist, I just dont act in the manner taught by any given religion, because I am not part of that religion.

You can argue the semantics of it, but I think you will find that generally people understand the word religion to not encompass atheism.

Have a nice day.

The point is - it should. Religion is nothing more than a worldview, gods are nothing more than what you center your worldview around. The old testament becomes a lot more insightful if you read it in such a manner.

There is no difference between a religion and a worldview, other than the fact that people have bastardized the definition of religion... it doesnt have to involve the supernatural.

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. 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.

the only hints at the supernatural is the first definition, and it just tells us what it is generally used for.

 

[Hipmonlee]

The thing here is that regardless of what it should mean, religion doesnt mean the same thing as worldview.

None of those definitions apply to atheism. Aside from I guess a set of beliefs about the nature of the universe, but that is a very poor definition for anything. All beliefs are beliefs about the nature of the universe. Nobody uses the term religion to define the belief that the main ingredient of lasagne is beef. I dont think anyone would agree that all cookbooks could accurately be described as religious text.

And furthermore, why should it mean worldview? There is a perfectly good word for worldview already..

Honestly I dont really have any idea what point you are trying to make. I was trying to point out that what you are arguing seems like pointless semantics. You dont seem to be saying anything about religion itself, just the words used to describe it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Altmer]

And therefore?

It's not a religion? It doesn't mean anything because atheism doesn't define any set of beliefs about the universe other than a lack of belief in God. Atheism doesn't tell you any morals per se. Atheists look to secular humanism, rationalism, skepticism, whatever to form morality but atheism in itself does not entail any defined set of morals. I can be both a humanist and an atheist. What you are presumably talking about is a form of organised atheism, like say if Dawkins made a group and people followed him. But that doesn't really exist in the same way as a religion either. Besides the point of atheism is to realise that no truth can exist absolutely. You would be correct that I held a religion that I adhered to strictly if I had infallible absolute moral principles, but I don't. Mine can shift based on evidence. That is the difference.

I personally believe that everything is a "religion" and everything has a "god". You have theories on how the world works and how you should live your life by, that is your religion and that is your god. That is all what religion is in the end, a worldview, and you happen to have one like everyone else. Sure, it's not "organized" by any means - but all that means is that it's not an organized religion.

I have a worldview, but I have no God by definition because atheism implies a lack of God BY DEFINITION. Besides, I cannot pin this worldview on atheism; I'd rather say it's a combination of various other stuff melded into one. My worldview isn't described by "atheism", because the only thing that implies is that I don't believe in God, but it doesn't give me a self-consistent set of morals either.

The only way you can justify it if you want to define religion so that it must involve the supernatural, then sure, we can go with your call. But in terms of effects of such beliefs, then it's no different from any other religion teaches, with different euphemisms.

No, because atheism doesn't teach a set of rules. Atheism is a lack of belief. That is the whole point. I don't believe. I don't have faith. I do not hold anything to be true unquestionably.

 

[Thomas 777]

atheism implies a lack of God BY DEFINITION.

Don't you mean a lack of a supreme power/deity.

 

[Altmer]

As long as it falls under theism.

 

[Tangerine]

It's not a religion? It doesn't mean anything because atheism doesn't define any set of beliefs about the universe other than a lack of belief in God. Atheism doesn't tell you any morals per se. Atheists look to secular humanism, rationalism, skepticism, whatever to form morality but atheism in itself does not entail any defined set of morals. I can be both a humanist and an atheist. What you are presumably talking about is a form of organised atheism, like say if Dawkins made a group and people followed him. But that doesn't really exist in the same way as a religion either. Besides the point of atheism is to realise that no truth can exist absolutely. You would be correct that I held a religion that I adhered to strictly if I had infallible absolute moral principles, but I don't. Mine can shift based on evidence. That is the difference.



I have a worldview, but I have no God by definition because atheism implies a lack of God BY DEFINITION. Besides, I cannot pin this worldview on atheism; I'd rather say it's a combination of various other stuff melded into one. My worldview isn't described by "atheism", because the only thing that implies is that I don't believe in God, but it doesn't give me a self-consistent set of morals either.



No, because atheism doesn't teach a set of rules. Atheism is a lack of belief. That is the whole point. I don't believe. I don't have faith. I do not hold anything to be true unquestionably.

A lack of belief is a belief itself, that's the point. You can't have a nullset of beliefs - it requires a belief to hold that belief. Your belief that "it requires this much evidence to convince me" is a belief itself. It's not a stable belief, but a belief nontheless.

I don't hold anything to be true unquestionably either. That doesn't mean I'm not Christian. I reinterpret everything everytime I see evidence. That doesn't make me any less religious. You still hold beliefs based on "evidence", and what not.

 

[Altmer]

It's a belief that could constitute a worldview but not a religion.

 

[Burn Jack]

A lack of belief is a belief itself, that's the point.

No it's not. A tree lacks belief in god; it doesn't believe there is no god.

 

[Tangerine]

It's a belief that could constitute a worldview but not a religion.

What's the difference? Again, is it because "there is no god"? How do you define god anyway?

No it's not. A tree lacks belief in god; it doesn't believe there is no god.

Touche, but we're not going to talk about things who can't have beliefs in things because they can't think.

 

[Brain]

The point is - it should. Religion is nothing more than a worldview, gods are nothing more than what you center your worldview around. The old testament becomes a lot more insightful if you read it in such a manner.

There is no difference between a religion and a worldview, other than the fact that people have bastardized the definition of religion... it doesnt have to involve the supernatural.

The purpose of words is to communicate. To claim that people have "bastardized" a definition is ridiculous, because they can't. If a word is widely used to mean something, then that's what it means. No word "should" have a particular meaning. All you are achieving by conflating religion with worldview is vocabulary impoverishment (two words for the same concept! yay!) and confusion among those of us who think religion is only a particular subset of worldviews. It is completely counter-productive.

Furthermore, if you consider the etymology of the word "religion":

The English word religion has been in use since the 13th century, loaned from Anglo-French religiun (11th century), ultimately from the Latin religio, "reverence for God or the gods, careful pondering of divine things, piety, the res divinae".[5]

The ultimate origins of Latin religiō are obscure. It is usually accepted to derive from ligare "bind, connect"; probably from a prefixed re-ligare, i.e. re (again) + ligare or "to reconnect." This interpretation is favoured by modern scholars such as Tom Harpur and Joseph Campbell, but was made prominent by St. Augustine, following the interpretation of Lactantius. Another possibility is derivation from a reduplicated *le-ligare. A historical interpretation due to Cicero on the other hand connects lego "read", i.e. re (again) + lego in the sense of "choose", "go over again" or "consider carefully".[6]

It sure looks like you are the one who's been bastardizing the word. Clearly, religion refers to a particular kind of worldview: that with a God (though I know you've been bastardizing the word God as well). Upon time and discovery of other cultures, the meaning of the word has evolved, but nowhere to the point of meaning "worldview". For the love of worldviews, stop fucking with semantics when you have no ground to stand on, whether they be actual or historical.

the only hints at the supernatural is the first definition, and it just tells us what it is generally used for.

Only the first two definitions are pertinent. Both refer to practices in addition to beliefs. What's up with that?

A lack of belief is a belief itself, that's the point.

No it's not.

You can't have a nullset of beliefs - it requires a belief to hold that belief.

What belief? You don't need a belief to lack beliefs. That's nonsensical. A rock has a nullset of belief. Humans don't, but nobody said they did.

Your belief that "it requires this much evidence to convince me" is a belief itself.

Yes, but it is yet another belief that one can lack. Atheism does not entail any belief about how much evidence it would take to convince them. Imagine a man who has never, ever heard of any concept of God. That man would lack a belief in God and hence would be an atheist. But he would not have any beliefs about how much evidence it would take for him to believe in God, since the concept would be alien to him. It is also possible for someone to simply have no idea of how much evidence it would take to convince him or her, and to say "just try to convince me and I'll tell you if it works".

Furthermore, the belief you allude to has nothing to do with worldviews - it is an introspective (as well as optional) belief about what it would take for one to change their worldview.

 

[Altmer]

What's the difference? Again, is it because "there is no god"? How do you define god anyway?

I don't, because there is no definition of God that is logically coherent. I lack a belief in God, therefore. Hence why I am an atheist.

I don't hold anything to be true unquestionably either. That doesn't mean I'm not Christian. I reinterpret everything everytime I see evidence. That doesn't make me any less religious. You still hold beliefs based on "evidence", and what not.

Incorrect. You hold the existence of God to be infallibly true, else you're not a Christian.

 

[Tangerine]

It sure looks like you are the one who's been bastardizing the word. Clearly, religion refers to a particular kind of worldview: that with a God (though I know you've been bastardizing the word God as well). Upon time and discovery of other cultures, the meaning of the word has evolved, but nowhere to the point of meaning "worldview". For the love of worldviews, stop fucking with semantics when you have no ground to stand on, whether they be actual or historical.

Really?

1. The overall perspective from which one sees and interprets the world.
2. A collection of beliefs about life and the universe held by an individual or a group.

Sounds identical to what Religion is, except religion mentions the "especially with supernatural" bit. You can say religion can be a "subset" of worldview and whatnot, but in the end, they're the same damn thing anyway, only that in the end, you can throw in some arbitrary difference that has no real significance on what the words attempt to mean. I used the word bastardized because apparently people enjoy putting in differences to separate themselves from what they dislike or disdain. That is exactly the case with "worldview" and "religion"

Only the first two definitions are pertinent. Both refer to practices in addition to beliefs. What's up with that?

gasp, what good are beliefs if you don't act on it? Do you act on the fact that you have no absolute belief in a deity? I'm sure you do.

No it's not.
What belief? You don't need a belief to lack beliefs.

You need to believe that your methodology of discerning evidence is absolutely and certainly correct. You simply do not accept it, but that's to believe that you are capable of doing so with a reasonable accuracy. You are believing yourself, and your own judgement, based on "logic"

Yes, but it is yet another belief that one can lack. Atheism does not entail any belief about how much evidence it would take to convince them. Imagine a man who has never, ever heard of any concept of God. That man would lack a belief in God and hence would be an atheist. But he would not have any beliefs about how much evidence it would take for him to believe in God, since the concept would be alien to him. It is also possible for someone to simply have no idea of how much evidence it would take to convince him or her, and to say "just try to convince me and I'll tell you if it works".

The case with the man, he is not atheist. Atheist is someone who have rejected the concept of a supernatural god. (whatever that may be).

I believe we have a word for people who mention in the end - i believe they're called agnostics.

Furthermore, the belief you allude to has nothing to do with worldviews - it is an introspective (as well as optional) belief about what it would take for one to change their worldview.

Which has to be a part of someone's worldview... why does everything have to be so static?

EDIT:

Incorrect. You hold the existence of God to be infallibly true, else you're not a Christian.

I hold the existence of God to be infallibly true, but I hold my definition of who God is to be changeable based on evidence/reinterpretation. The point is this - people's definitions of the God they experience is "limited", and in the end, is undefined. If you want to call such changing definitions "infallible" then sure, whatever.

 

[Alpha/Omega]

Imagine a man who has never, ever heard of any concept of God. That man would lack a belief in God and hence would be an atheist.

No he wouldn't. Atheists reject religion as a conscious informed decision. The man is just what you said, "a man who has never, ever heard of any concept of God."

 

[ferron]

[sarcasm]how about this, if a single shared concept denotes a religion, then i shall now found a new one; pizza-ism. it is the belief that pizza is the greatest food in the world. tangerine, won't you become a pizza-ist with me?[/sarcasm]

also, A/O is right, ignorance does not an atheist make, since they lack the actual ability to refuse something they have not heard of.

 

[Brain]

Sounds identical to what Religion is, except religion mentions the "especially with supernatural" bit.

Well that's a pretty big difference. "Especially with supernatural" means, implicitly, that the concept of religion is widely associated with the supernatural while being flexible enough to accomodate certain sets of beliefs that might not be supernatural but fit other criteria. It certainly is not a license to equate it to worldview and it remains that to conflate religion with worldview is terribly misleading.

You can say religion can be a "subset" of worldview and whatnot, but in the end, they're the same damn thing anyway, only that in the end, you can throw in some arbitrary difference that has no real significance on what the words attempt to mean. I used the word bastardized because apparently people enjoy putting in differences to separate themselves from what they dislike or disdain. That is exactly the case with "worldview" and "religion"

People also enjoy removing differences in an attempt to negate their opponent's arguments. For example: "atheism is a religion too! we're all in the same boat here!". I am not saying this is necessarily what you are doing, but the process certainly goes both ways. In any case, nobody's "putting" differences between worldview and religion. These differences exist and they are clear for everyone. I really don't care whether you think the difference between religion and worldview is arbitrary because it exists.

gasp, what good are beliefs if you don't act on it? Do you act on the fact that you have no belief? I'm sure you do.

No, I don't, not any more than I act on the fact that I don't believe that the magical subworld described by the Harry Potter books exists. In any case, the extent to which my lack of belief in God has an influence on my actions (religious discussions) is nowhere as great as the extent to which religious people act on their belief in God (religious discussions, prayer, church, etc.) It pretty much only exists when prompted - or as a mean of bonding with other atheists. The dictionary definition pretty clearly means something stronger than that.

You need to believe that your methodology of discerning evidence is absolutely and certainly correct. You simply do not accept it, but that's to believe that you are capable of doing so with a reasonable accuracy. You are believing yourself, and your own judgement, based on "logic"

It is foolish for anyone to have such strong beliefs about their methodology - one should merely believe that their methodology is the one that is the most useful among those that they have at their disposal, and such a belief needs not to be explicit either, especially if you know no other ways to do things. My methodology is probably exactly the same as yours, minus suspension of disbelief. It has nothing to do with atheism. Theism is typically the basis of one's worldview (where it is relevant), whereas atheism is no such thing - it's more like a natural consequence of not handling deity as a special belief. Most theistic beliefs imply special pleading.

In any case, your statement that to lack a belief is a belief itself is misleading. What you mean to say is that everyone has a belief in the trustworthiness of a certain methodology of discerning evidence, which they apply to all beliefs.

In a nutshell, your argument is this: everybody has core beliefs leading to a worldview, all core beliefs are "equal" since there are no more basic beliefs to evaluate them and thus there is no meaningful difference between religion and worldview. What I am saying is that religions are a defined subset of core beliefs one can have, regardless of anything else. That's the semantics and we have to go by them if we want to communicate properly.

The case with the man, he is not atheist. Atheist is someone who have rejected the concept of a supernatural god. (whatever that may be).

I guess. There's always a small ambiguity as to whether "atheist" means "disbelief in God" or "a lack of belief in God". Agnostic doesn't mean either thing (an agnostic simply believes that it is impossible to know). I guess we could say that the man is a weak atheist. Regardless, the point still stands.

I believe we have a word for people who mention in the end - i believe they're called agnostics.

Not really, no.

Which has to be a part of someone's worldview... why does everything have to be so static?

Why does everything have to be part of one's worldview? Why do all worldviews have to be religions? What's wrong with categorizing things for the sake of clarity?

I hold the existence of God to be infallibly true, but I hold my definition of who God is to be changeable based on evidence/reinterpretation. The point is this - people's definitions of the God they experience is "limited", and in the end, is undefined. If you want to call such changing definitions "infallible" then sure, whatever.

"Who" God is? Could he be a "what"? What if the universe just always was? Who or what would God be in that context?

No he wouldn't. Atheists reject religion as a conscious informed decision. The man is just what you said, "a man who has never, ever heard of any concept of God."

Atheism can be either the rejection of theism,[1] or the position that deities do not exist.[2] In the broadest sense, it is the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[3]

I use it in the broadest sense there. You may or may not agree with that definition, but at least that's cleared up. Or, according to this and this, he would be an implicit weak atheist.

 

[Altmer]

I hold the existence of God to be infallibly true, but I hold my definition of who God is to be changeable based on evidence/reinterpretation. The point is this - people's definitions of the God they experience is "limited", and in the end, is undefined. If you want to call such changing definitions "infallible" then sure, whatever.

That's like saying God exists but his mask changes. Still means you believe in something that is always true. The fact you don't know which form he takes is irrelevant because your worldview is still based on a religion which is absolute. Therein lies the issue: I have no such anchor. Atheism is the lack of that very anchor.

 

[Tangerine]

That's like saying God exists but his mask changes. Still means you believe in something that is always true. The fact you don't know which form he takes is irrelevant because your worldview is still based on a religion which is absolute. Therein lies the issue: I have no such anchor. Atheism is the lack of that very anchor.

No, "his mask" doesn't change. What we think of him as, however, may change. I could be completely wrong about my belief in God - which would amount to believing in something wrong. This isn't how I think. I think calling it an "anchor" would be overkill to what I actually think.

The only difference between you and I is that you start with things that are "statistically significant" as your starting point, and I start with another set of beliefs. If this is what you want to say is the difference between Atheism and other religions, then sure.

Well that's a pretty big difference. "Especially with supernatural" means, implicitly, that the concept of religion is widely associated with the supernatural while being flexible enough to accomodate certain sets of beliefs that might not be supernatural but fit other criteria. It certainly is not a license to equate it to worldview and it remains that to conflate religion with worldview is terribly misleading.

It would be misleading if there was a significant difference between the two. There isn't - the only difference is that some religion supposes the supernatural in the worldview (which can be interpreted in a lot of different ways).

No, I don't, not any more than I act on the fact that I don't believe that the magical subworld described by the Harry Potter books exists. In any case, the extent to which my lack of belief in God has an influence on my actions (religious discussions) is nowhere as great as the extent to which religious people act on their belief in God (religious discussions, prayer, church, etc.) It pretty much only exists when prompted - or as a mean of bonding with other atheists. The dictionary definition pretty clearly means something stronger than that.

I guess this is an issue of perspective. From the Christian viewpoint, such actions definitely look like "you live as if you don't believe God exists" since we do live our lives as God exists. Fair enough.

Theism is typically the basis of one's worldview (where it is relevant), whereas atheism is no such thing - it's more like a natural consequence of not handling deity as a special belief. Most theistic beliefs imply special pleading.

That's the difference between Theism and Atheism. Theism isn't the only kind of religion, amusingly. Is it still religion if a "religion" teaches you how you should live to promote social harmony and of the "good of society as a whole"?

In any case, your statement that to lack a belief is a belief itself is misleading. What you mean to say is that everyone has a belief in the trustworthiness of a certain methodology of discerning evidence, which they apply to all beliefs.

Yes, that's the initial part of it. But to extend it, - it is impossible to live without a belief, essentially because people find meaning in the world, whether or not people believe such meaning is that "it doesnt exist". They live for a certain goal. Every human clutches onto some idea to center their world around within the course of their lives. I don't believe that people can live without resorting to this concept.

In a nutshell, your argument is this: everybody has core beliefs leading to a worldview, all core beliefs are "equal" since there are no more basic beliefs to evaluate them and thus there is no meaningful difference between religion and worldview. What I am saying is that religions are a defined subset of core beliefs one can have, regardless of anything else. That's the semantics and we have to go by them if we want to communicate properly.

Define the subset.

I guess. There's always a small ambiguity as to whether "atheist" means "disbelief in God" or "a lack of belief in God". Agnostic doesn't mean either thing (an agnostic simply believes that it is impossible to know). I guess we could say that the man is a weak atheist. Regardless, the point still stands.

The point doesn't stand. "Weak atheist" is irrelevant to the discussion.

Why does everything have to be part of one's worldview? Why do all worldviews have to be religions? What's wrong with categorizing things for the sake of clarity?

See: Above. In the end, it's all the same thing. People resort to certain ideas, such as "God" or "money" or "pleasure" and whatnot.

"Who" God is? Could he be a "what"? What if the universe just always was? Who or what would God be in that context?

Sure, it can be a what. If the universe was just always was, then in the broadsense, "god" is what keeps everything together and keeps things going, while to our senses, it'll be whatever we believe that holds our world together.

 

[Altmer]

No, "his mask" doesn't change. What we think of him as, however, may change. I could be completely wrong about my belief in God - which would amount to believing in something wrong. This isn't how I think. I think calling it an "anchor" would be overkill to what I actually think.

The only difference between you and I is that you start with things that are "statistically significant" as your starting point, and I start with another set of beliefs. If this is what you want to say is the difference between Atheism and other religions, then sure.

So if someone showed you evidence that God does not exist (hypothetically speaking) you would abandon your belief in God? Because that's the key difference I'm trying to get at.

Besides that, why do you hang on to something that you claim to be irrational? What function does this serve?

 

[Brain]

I guess this is an issue of perspective. From the Christian viewpoint, such actions definitely look like "you live as if you don't believe God exists" since we do live our lives as God exists. Fair enough.

They also look like "you live as if you don't believe Hogwarts exists". Since my atheism doesn't make me act any differently than I would if I was not aware at all of the concept of God, it's not fair to peg any of my actions or behavior on my atheism, regardless of perspective. As far as I'm concerned, it's a non-factor.

Yes, that's the initial part of it. But to extend it, - it is impossible to live without a belief, essentially because people find meaning in the world, whether or not people believe such meaning is that "it doesnt exist". They live for a certain goal. Every human clutches onto some idea to center their world around within the course of their lives. I don't believe that people can live without resorting to this concept.

That is true. However, religions are often one of the things that people center their world around. On the other hand, nobody centers their world around their atheism. Furthermore, the basic principles that are accepted by atheists are more or less the exact same that theists have, with the only difference being that they apply these principles uniformly to all concepts including God.

The point doesn't stand. "Weak atheist" is irrelevant to the discussion.

A thread of the discussion was about the "lack of belief" in God. Which is exacly what "weak atheist" means. It might be irrelevant to the discussion for all I care, but it certainly was discussed previously.

Sure, it can be a what. If the universe was just always was, then in the broadsense, "god" is what keeps everything together and keeps things going, while to our senses, it'll be whatever we believe that holds our world together.

Don't you think you are pushing it a little by making God's existence trivially true? According to your definition, God doesn't need to be conscious, omniscient, omnipotent or scient or potent to any extent, he doesn't need to be either good or evil, he doesn't even need to do anything at all, he doesn't need to be a distinct concept from the laws of physics. I mean, can't you use something like "universal principle" instead of "God"? It would be clearer.