Julia Gillard is an atheist!

[EvangelionZeta]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

This line of reasoning leads to two problems.

1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged.  Conversions, anyone?

2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"?  Think about it for a second.

1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs?  You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.

2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense.  Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"?  If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral?  Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.

Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals.  Why are the texts important?  You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that?  How can you prove that?  Why would you even think that?  Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.

[QuantumJG]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

This line of reasoning leads to two problems.

1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged.  Conversions, anyone?

2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"?  Think about it for a second.

1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs?  You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.

2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense.  Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"?  If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral?  Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.

Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals.  Why are the texts important?  You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that?  How can you prove that?  Why would you even think that?  Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.

Welcome to the world of athiesm/agnostism!

I as an athiest I question how a higher order being chose someone to be the person to spread the word that this is how things should be done.

The fact is that being religious requires you to accept this, whereas 'us' tend to not be sold on the idea.

[Mao]

On a completely unrelated note, atheism makes the same leap of faith theism makes, that being 'there is no God'. We don't have enough proof for whether there are any, we don't have enough proof for whether there aren't any. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Now, as you were, gentlemen.

[/0]

I don't think atheism makes the same leap of faith. The proposition, 'God exists' is vastly different to the proposition 'God does not exist', because the former can be proven while the latter cannot. Atheists do not need to disprove god's existence, the burden of proof is on the believer.

With agnosticism, the possible existence of an infinite number of other entities such as Zeus, the Flying Mi Goreng, or the Great Green Arkleseizure must be considered. It essentially says nothing about everything.

On the other hand, atheism is step zero. It is the state from which all existence proofs begin. If all existence proofs have failed to convince you then I think it is reasonable to say that you therefore lack belief.

[lynt.br]

On a completely unrelated note, atheism makes the same leap of faith theism makes, that being 'there is no God'. We don't have enough proof for whether there are any, we don't have enough proof for whether there aren't any. Just because you can't prove it doesn't mean it does not exist.

Now, as you were, gentlemen.

I discussed this point with a friend of mine who is very outspoken about atheism etc. I will post his opinion shortly, pending his approval.

In the meantime, here is an article which discusses the point. See what you think:
http://www.godless.biz/2010/07/02/what-is-atheism/


EDIT: here is his reply:

First off, atheism is defined as "lack of a belief that a God/deity exists". This is different to "a belief that a God/deity does not exist" (although it is similar, and is, confusingly, still atheism). The latter is a claim for non-existence, and therefore has a burden of proof associated with it, while the former is a rejection of arguments that attempt to satisfy the burden of proof of the claim that a God/deity does exist.

There are naming issues with differentiating the two beliefs, because both are forms of atheism, but the most common is weak/strong atheism, with weak atheism being the "lack of a belief that a God/deity exists" and strong atheism being "a belief that a God/deity does not exist". Thus, strong atheism has a burden of proof, and weak atheism doesn't.

Agnosticism and atheism are not incompatible, as agnosticism states that it is impossible to know if a God/deity exists, while atheism states that you do not believe that a God/deity exists - absolute knowledge is different to belief. Agnosticism also applies differently to the different definitions of God, which means that you can have separate positions on each definition of God that you come across, ie. from each of the major religions, which all define God differently. Adding gnostic/agnostic to your position about a certain God mostly comes down to how that God is defined and how much you personally know about that definition of God. You can't be gnostic with regards to a God you know nothing or little about.

As such, speaking about my own position, I'm a gnostic strong atheist when it comes to biblically-defined versions of the Christian God, due to the logical contradictions that rule them out from possibly existing, meaning that I can know that they do not exist, and I believe that they do not.

But when it comes to other deities that I've never really thought about, such as Allah or the various Hindu gods, I'm an agnostic weak atheist, because I can't form a certain (gnostic) position about their existence due to the fact that I don't know enough about them, and that I simply do not hold the belief that they exist, much like I don't hold the belief that aliens are in orbit around the Earth, invisible and undetectable due to their advanced cloaking technology.

So, to actually directly answer your first question, "atheism" only makes a leap of faith when you are a strong atheist without fulfilling the burden of proof that such a position demands, as weak atheism has no burden of proof, so it's impossible to make a leap of faith.

To answer the second question, disbelief is not the same as saying that it does not exist - disbelief is the weak atheistic position, while saying that it does not exist is the strong atheistic position (and it would also stray into gnostic territory if you're professing knowledge, rather than just your own belief).

So the point made is both incorrect and correct - atheism isn't just saying "there is no God" (most atheists would be weak atheists), but there is a faith-like element in the strong atheistic position IF IT'S UNJUSTIFIED. Note that it's impossible to make a blanket, justified position about all Gods, so a leap of faith is involved if someone says "There are definitely no Gods", but if someone says "This specific definition of God does not exist, and here's why" then it's perfectly reasonable.

In short, you can be a weak atheist with regard to all possible Gods without a leap of faith, and you'd probably find, if you investigated, that most people that define themselves as atheists would fall under the weak atheist label. Simplistically saying that all atheists make the same leap of faith that (probably?) most theists do is a bit irresponsible in my book.

[Cthulhu]

I like this quote:
"We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. ” —Richard Dawkins

[Yitzi_K]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

This line of reasoning leads to two problems.

1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged.  Conversions, anyone?

2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"?  Think about it for a second.

1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs?  You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.

2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense.  Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"?  If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral?  Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.

Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals.  Why are the texts important?  You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that?  How can you prove that?  Why would you even think that?  Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.

The 'king of the world' does not to get to dictate what is right/wrong. When I said 'higher authority' I wasn't talking about a true authority, ie G-d. Since He is the creator of the world, the creator of humanity, and the creator of morals, He gets to tell us what is right and what is not, and His definition of right and wrong is correct and unchallengable.

As for your point about the divinity of the Bible, that's a discussion for another topic.

[enwiabe]

I suppose so, but to me that would constitute a religious belief of sorts, for there is no reason to believe in an unchallengable moral code unless it is mandated by a higher authority.

This line of reasoning leads to two problems.

1. Surely you can have your faith in a higher authority shaken in the same way people can have their intellectual beliefs challenged.  Conversions, anyone?

2. Why does something being mandated by a higher authority make it "moral"?  Think about it for a second.

1. True, but I've said all along that I'm talking about someone whose religiousness is fixed. Obviously if he religious beliefs of the person are not fixed, the morals won't be either.

2. The Free Online Dictionary defines a moral person as one who is 'Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous'. Given that the higher authority is the one who defines what is 'right and just behaviour' then what He mandates as the correct way to act is therefore moral behaviour.

1. How can a person's religious beliefs be commonly fixed more than a person's philosophical beliefs?  You've given no proper justification - faith is just as (if not moreso) corruptable than one's intellectual beliefs, in my opinion.

2. Using the dictionary definition, your argument makes no sense.  Why does the higher authority define what is "right and just behaviour"?  If the King of the World told you killing is good, does that make it automatically moral?  Appeal to an authority doesn't make up for something lacking in any justification.

Also, another question - you say you use religious texts as a reference for religious morals.  Why are the texts important?  You say the Bible is the word of God - how do you know that?  How can you prove that?  Why would you even think that?  Your arguments rest on some sort of faith which seems unjustifiable.

The 'king of the world' does not to get to dictate what is right/wrong. When I said 'higher authority' I wasn't talking about a true authority, ie G-d. Since He is the creator of the world, the creator of humanity, and the creator of morals, He gets to tell us what is right and what is not, and His definition of right and wrong is correct and unchallengable.

As for your point about the divinity of the Bible, that's a discussion for another topic.

But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.

Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".

Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-

[Yitzi_K]

But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.

Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".

Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-

Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under atheism too. Need I mention Stalin?

[fady_22]

But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.

Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".

Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-

Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under atheism too. Need I mention Stalin?

Yes, but not in the name of atheism. The difference is that people have used (and in some cases still use) religion as an excuse to kill etc.

The problem with religion is that it is way too corruptible to be used as a basis for a government. Religion, on an individual level, I believe is a powerful thing, allowing one to live the best life that they can, where it encourages good-will and charity. Take any truly islamic state (for example, Iran). Not such a great place to live-- because Islam has been corrupted. Catholicism also had its fair share of human rights abuse because the core message of the religion has been corrupted (with the Crusades but one example of this).

I would rather a secular society than an overly-religious one, despite being religious myself.

[QuantumJG]

Looking at the above quote, I would probably be classified as a weak athiest. I personally find some athiest proofs that god can't exist a bit weird. I would say I'm definately irreligious or atleast skeptical because I just don't like the fact that everything is concrete and you can't investigate things for yourself (I someday will be a scientist and my profession will be this), I also see religion being abused.

But I don't know if I could make the leap of faith to say 'GOD DOES NOT EXIST'. Simply because the origin of our universe can't be explained (I.e. When t=0 - even though we know what happened at t=10^-43s) yet (or ever?), more precisely they can't be explained with empirical proof.

One thing that forces me to question why people believe god created the Earth and us is that simply we occupy such a small portion of our universe and to say we are it makes me believe the quote by the girl's father in contact 'it would be such a waste of space' (I don't think that is word for word).

[wildareal]

But as you cannot prove this, then your argument falls down completely. You just assume that words writtten down in a book => god exists => god created the world etc.

Show us proof. Oh wait, it's "I BELIEVE!!! (read: I've been forced/brainwashed into believing by the expectations of my family + community)".

Doesn't cut the mustard anymore. Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under religion. "I believe" is no longer an argument. Let's see some proof. Oh shi-

Ridiculous, absurd, UNCONSCIONABLE human rights abuses have occurred under atheism too. Need I mention Stalin?

Yes, but not in the name of atheism. The difference is that people have used (and in some cases still use) religion as an excuse to kill etc.

The problem with religion is that it is way too corruptible to be used as a basis for a government. Religion, on an individual level, I believe is a powerful thing, allowing one to live the best life that they can, where it encourages good-will and charity. Take any truly islamic state (for example, Iran). Not such a great place to live-- because Islam has been corrupted. Catholicism also had its fair share of human rights abuse because the core message of the religion has been corrupted (with the Crusades but one example of this).

I would rather a secular society than an overly-religious one, despite being religious myself.

Couldn't have put it better myself, Fady_22. Simple Answer: Religion and Politics don't mix.

[-]

I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero

[wildareal]

I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero

You respect people who believe in not believing, which in itself is a belief.

[-]

I can't take anyone seriously if they're not agnostic (and follow some variation of deism).
0 respect to anyone else.
zero

You respect people who believe in not believing, which in itself is a belief.

Believe means accept as true.

In addition, a quick Google search for a definition of what agnostic means (you'll get a better definition than I could give you) will mean even you can be satirical next time without making a fool of yourself!

Good try though!