That settles it ... or not.lilithu said:
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Concerning Atheism
- Thread starter barnabus
- Start date
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Well it settles in legally anyway. The Supreme Court has been very consistent on this. Government cannot stipulate requirements on what constitutes a religion. To do so violates freedom of conscience, as it favors one type of religion (that which is recognized by the govt) over another.Jayhawker Soule said:
A legal argument may not persuade everyone, but I personally find it much more persuasive than one definition given from one online dictionary. Especially when I can so easily find counter-examples. The definition given was clearly written with a bias towards Western monotheism.
**ADDENDUM:**
Actually, I got the details a little confused. No Texas court said that UU is not a religion. The state comptrollers office tried to say this and a lower court ruled against them and then the TX supreme court upheld the lower court. Well, good for them. Anyway, the courts have been very consistent on this. Government cannot stipulate requirements on what constitutes a religion.
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/730...itarian_church_not_a_tax-exempt_religion.html
s2a
Heretic and part-time (skinny) Santa impersonator
Hello SoliDeoGloria,
When I said:
"Atheists offer no claims of "absolute truths" (if you could illustrate/reference an atheistic claim of an "absolute truth", I'd appreciate it in order to offer more apt rebuttal). Such claims (of "absolute truth") seem to remain within the realm of adherents to/of religious/mythological/spiritual/supernaturalistic faith-based beliefs "
You replied:
Errr....no?
A question that demands an atheist lend an "absolutely true" reply?
*Shudder*
I'm sooo torn...
;-)
What I tendered was straightforward enough. "Atheists offer no claims of 'absolute truths'". You were invited to present referenced examples of atheistic claims of "absolute truth" as either refutation of my assertion, or in your support of a contrarian contention [beyond rhetorical questioning] that "atheists" do so.
I note that you offered none.
[Addendum caveat - - Anecdotal accountings of: "I know this atheist guy named Joe who says..."; are not credible "par example". Know that atheistic philosophical viewpoints and "beliefs" are opinions (or if you prefer, satisfactory drawn conclusions), not claims of some universal "absolute truth". Contrast this perspective with religious claims of a given deity's "Commandment" from the KJV OT:
Exodus 20:4-5 (God speaking here) -
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."
Obviously, there are numerous passages within OT scripture that claim (attest?) that the God of the Bible is THE (one and only) god. Adherents believe these claims (Commandments) to be statements of "absolute truth" (as in being universally, applicably, factually, absolutely true for everyone - even if strict obedience to those "universal truths" is found wanting amongst adherents themselves)).
FWIW, mature atheists never claim (or attest or assert that) "There is no god or deity". Atheists simply find no compelling evidences, nor conclusive rationale that supports the notion or claims of supernatural entities (or "forces", etc.) or supernaturalistic cause/effect explanations of natural phenomena - as either "most likely" or "most probably true" - beyond a reasonable doubt. I simply don't "believe" such claims have any substantiative merit - you know...what Edison called "bunk". Virtually every monotheistic religion acknowledges in creedal or dogmatic doctrine that "faith" is requisite to acceptance of such claims as being "true", or "absolute truth". ]
So, in answer to your inquiry of "Is that absolutely true [that "Atheists offer no claims of 'absolute truths'"]?....as far as this atheist is concerned...yes.
As an atheist of life-long standing (don't have my atheist ID card with me as proof tho'...;-)), it's accurate to suggest that I could retain my own personalized (existential) "truths" that I hold accountable to/for myself as "absolute" (or more accurately, as being inviolable) - but I do not consider nor claim these distinctly personalized "truths" to be universally applicable nor "absolute" for anyone else (tho' it'd be nice if they could or would be so).
[If you like, here's a reply I offered in another thread regarding a comment that; "atheists have no absolute values". Granted, not the same as "absolute truths", but in a most similar vein. Offered only as further insight into my own personal perspective]
When I said:
"Atheists offer no claims of "absolute truths" (if you could illustrate/reference an atheistic claim of an "absolute truth", I'd appreciate it in order to offer more apt rebuttal). Such claims (of "absolute truth") seem to remain within the realm of adherents to/of religious/mythological/spiritual/supernaturalistic faith-based beliefs "
You replied:
Ummm...yes?
Errr....no?
A question that demands an atheist lend an "absolutely true" reply?
*Shudder*
I'm sooo torn...
;-)
What I tendered was straightforward enough. "Atheists offer no claims of 'absolute truths'". You were invited to present referenced examples of atheistic claims of "absolute truth" as either refutation of my assertion, or in your support of a contrarian contention [beyond rhetorical questioning] that "atheists" do so.
I note that you offered none.
[Addendum caveat - - Anecdotal accountings of: "I know this atheist guy named Joe who says..."; are not credible "par example". Know that atheistic philosophical viewpoints and "beliefs" are opinions (or if you prefer, satisfactory drawn conclusions), not claims of some universal "absolute truth". Contrast this perspective with religious claims of a given deity's "Commandment" from the KJV OT:
Exodus 20:4-5 (God speaking here) -
"Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me..."
Obviously, there are numerous passages within OT scripture that claim (attest?) that the God of the Bible is THE (one and only) god. Adherents believe these claims (Commandments) to be statements of "absolute truth" (as in being universally, applicably, factually, absolutely true for everyone - even if strict obedience to those "universal truths" is found wanting amongst adherents themselves)).
FWIW, mature atheists never claim (or attest or assert that) "There is no god or deity". Atheists simply find no compelling evidences, nor conclusive rationale that supports the notion or claims of supernatural entities (or "forces", etc.) or supernaturalistic cause/effect explanations of natural phenomena - as either "most likely" or "most probably true" - beyond a reasonable doubt. I simply don't "believe" such claims have any substantiative merit - you know...what Edison called "bunk". Virtually every monotheistic religion acknowledges in creedal or dogmatic doctrine that "faith" is requisite to acceptance of such claims as being "true", or "absolute truth". ]
So, in answer to your inquiry of "Is that absolutely true [that "Atheists offer no claims of 'absolute truths'"]?....as far as this atheist is concerned...yes.
I'll let a self-professed agnostic clarify your understanding as to what agnostic philosophical leanings may or may not include.
As an atheist of life-long standing (don't have my atheist ID card with me as proof tho'...;-)), it's accurate to suggest that I could retain my own personalized (existential) "truths" that I hold accountable to/for myself as "absolute" (or more accurately, as being inviolable) - but I do not consider nor claim these distinctly personalized "truths" to be universally applicable nor "absolute" for anyone else (tho' it'd be nice if they could or would be so).
[If you like, here's a reply I offered in another thread regarding a comment that; "atheists have no absolute values". Granted, not the same as "absolute truths", but in a most similar vein. Offered only as further insight into my own personal perspective]
I offer no such thing. I would think it fair to say that atheists and agnostics share many common philosophical perspectives (one of which being a comfort with saying "I don't know" to some questions that others would prefer answer with unequivocal 100% certitude attached)...just as it would be fair to say that there are stated (faith-unrelated) principles within Secular Humanism, Taoism, Paganism, and - *horrors!* - even Christianity; that I would find agreeable or similar to my own personalized perspectives. Even so, I would not claim nor assert any of these similarities as either declaration or assertion of any "absolute truth".
SoliDeoGloria
Active Member
First off, I would like to apologize to the OP for getting off subject here, But I just can't help it!!!:banghead3
What it seems to come down to is whether or not the term "absolute truth" is only associated with speaking of metaphysical issues. If that is the case, then there are a lot of dictionaries that are going to have to change their definitions for the words "absolute" and "truth". On top of that it is just too darn convenient for atheists to claim that. Then they don't have to look like they are contradicting themselves when they make such statements. Oh well, it not the first time definitional changes have been made to english words ti conveniently fit one's philosophy. If it is any consolation, in his book "Christian Apologetics", Norman Geisler calls it a "directly unaffirmable" statement rather than a contradiction. In other words while affirming absolute truth in the syntax of the statement, there is an effort to unaffirm absolute truth. R.C. Sproul states that the word "antinomy"( *** The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 ***
Antinomy \An*tin"o*my\ (?; 277), n.; pl. {Antinomies}. [L.
antinomia, Gr. ?; 'anti` against + ? law.]
1. Opposition of one law or rule to another law or rule.
[1913 Webster] )
can be used here since it is since it is a violation of the Law of noncontradiction.(taken from http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Law_of_noncontradiction )
In logic, the law of noncontradiction judges as false any proposition P asserting that both proposition Q and its denial, proposition not-Q, are true at the same time and "in the same respect". In the words of Aristotle, "One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time."
More tersely, for any proposition P, it is not both the case that P and not-P. Symbolically, this is expressed as neg (P wedge neg P).
But to really put this issue to rest: This was taken from http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Absolute_truth
Absolute truth can be interpreted in different ways based on its usage, just like truth. Some believe that the correct communication cannot be found for describing ideas of absolute truth by entities that possess the metaphysically true state of the ability to lie and have lied before, thus making the following description vulnerable to potential inaccuracy as long as those entities maintain the definition.
Absolute truth is often defined in two ways: state-truth and action-verity form. As a state (truth)
Absolutism contends that in a particular domain of thought, all statements in that domain are either absolutely true or absolutely false: none is true for some cultures or eras while false for other cultures or eras. These statements are called absolute truths. A common reaction by those who newly criticize absolutism is the absolute truth statement: Absolute truths do not exist.
As an action (verity)
In action form, absolute truth most closely represents verity. This form can be likened to the action usage of metaphysical truth, but not its state usage (which represent metaphysical truths in state form). Absolute truth in action form is considered by many to be metaphysical only, and therefore the same as the action usage of metaphysical truth. Some believe the outcome of absolute truth (verity) can be metaphysical truths, physical truths or both, but by definition not any form of a lie. test
Examples
A particularly confusing absolute truth in state form (but good for example) is:
Absolute truth cannot be a lie.
Some interpret this to mean:
The outcome of absolute truth cannot be a lie.
But that refers specifically to the action form of absolute truth. Others interpret it as:
Absolute truth statements cannot be lies.
But that refers specifically to the state form of absolute truth. The original statement can be interpreted as either the state or action form. In the state form the statement is not true, but in the action form it is true. Either way the statement is an absolute truth in state form.
A potential example of absolute truth in action form is:
The words you are reading exist because of absolute truths in action form supporting their ability to exist.Attentive readers will recognize the previous statement as an absolute truth in state form describing absolute truth in action form. Whether or not the statement is true is left as an exercise for the reader.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
SoliDeoGloria
Active Member
I didn't know that I couldn't use your own statements. Being as how you claim to be an "Atheist" in you profile, I figured your own statements were fair game. Being as how your answer to my question was "yes", I'm pretty satisfied. For further discussion of this issue please refer to my previous post above. Please don't take it personal, I just didn't want it to look like I was repeating myself.:bonk:
Uh, ok. That is pretty much what I was getting at.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
SoliDeoGloria
Active Member
As far as the Op goes I would like to add from http://www.religiousforums.com
When you consider that there are forums specifically for Atheism here, it makes an interesting claim.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
When you consider that there are forums specifically for Atheism here, it makes an interesting claim.
Sincerely,
SoliDeoGloria
So, in summary, it settles nothing.lilithu said:
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Well for starters the label that you choose is dependant upon the label that theists choose. Do you honestly believe that you aren't shaped by the ideas that you reject as much as by the ideas that you accept?retrorich said:
Acknowledging that we need each other is not the same thing as not being at peace.retrorich said:I am totally at peace with my atheism.
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
In a way, yes. When you are describing someone to someone else, no one says "He's got hair, and the hair color is brown." You say "He's got brown hair." Or, if the person's bald, you say "He's bald." In that context, they're functionally equivalent. Obviously, in other ways they're not.jamaesi said:Is bald a hair colour?
That's very nice. It is also very irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a religion - and no, baldness is not a hair color.lilithu said:
lilithu
The Devil's Advocate
Going back to the original post to which I was responding, the argument being made was that religion constitutes a belief in a supernatural deity, and therefore atheism is not a religion because it does not posit a belief in a supernatural deity. One of my points against that argument is that our legal system does not require a belief in a supernatural deity in order to be recognized as a religion for tax-exempt purposes. If you do not consider our legal system to be a source of authority on such matters, then I agree that this part of my argument would be unconvincing. However, it is not irrelevant to the post to which I was responding.Jayhawker Soule said:
I said in some contexts it serves as the functional equivalent.Jayhawker Soule said:
