Humanist Hope said 7 years, 1 month ago:

(@rainhelpstheflowersgrow)

The discussion of whether or not morality precedes religion (a claim supported by deceased atheist debater and famous contrarian Christopher Hitchens) is honestly an “a priori” argument, meaning that it is an argument based on the ability to reason to a conclusion as opposed to using evidence to come to a conclusion which is positively indicated.

That being said, it is true that religion falls neatly hand-in-hand with the very oldest forms of written language and culture. Current arguments include the notion that religion could be responsible for the advent of agriculture, since people could potentially have come together in mutual reverence of animals they revered as being greater than themselves. (Animalism is regarded as the oldest form of worship, and is indicated at the oldest human place of worship, known as Gobekli Tepe, which dates to 9,500 BCE) However, the argument also exists that morality must have preceded even proto-religion, because it can be reasoned that people had to develop morals in order to find people with similar morals with whom they could form communities based on ideology.

They are compelling arguments in either direction. I am inclined to believe the latter, but I am open to evidence to the contrary.

Deleted User said 7 years, 1 month ago:

@blackholehead

Part of your definition for atheism seems to coincide with that of agnosticism. A quick Google search (and just the knowledge I’ve been raised with) shows me that atheism (Greek root meaning ‘without god’) is the lack of belief in gods. Agnosticism (Greek root meaning ‘without knowledge’ or ‘unknown’) is moreso the unwillingness to concede to God (or no God) without evidence.

I wouldn’t say that we know nothing at all because clearly we are familiar with the world around us. The issue being that the world may be much more insignificant than we realize. In regards to solipsism, I also don’t see how anyone can truly claim that nothing around them exists. Of course it exists, it’s (at least in some shape or form) something. Even if it’s just an idea. What can you truly think of that doesn’t exist? Dragons, fairies, leprachauns, they all exist, just not in definitively biological forms (to our knowledge).

Humanist Hope said 7 years, 1 month ago:

(@silent-radiance)

Concerning your statement about randomness, randomness is difficult for our brains to process because frankly speaking we are just not wired that efficiently to understand randomness, it just kind of goes over our heads.

In so far as your comment about flipping a coin is concerned, a coin flips’ actual result isn’t determined the moment it is flipped, it can be acted upon by different forces while the coin is still in the air and even after the coin hits the ground and continues to spin until its momentum inevitably stops.

When it comes to thinking rationally and scientific thinking, indeed when it comes to being honest, the true difficulty lies in learning to adopt the ability to simply state “I don’t know”.

About my definition of atheism crossing over with the definition of agnosticism, you are correct that there is some overlap but it is partially because agnostics are atheists, given that even in their state of uncertainty, they still lack that belief; they are still “without a theism”.

Humanist Hope said 7 years, 1 month ago:

(@silent-radiance)

An agnostic does not necessarily “believe” both options by being undecided. Atheism is not the positive rejection of gods, it is not the belief that no gods exist, though there are atheists who hold that stance, it is not definitive criteria.

Atheist-agnostic is not equal to theist-agnostic, though they are similar.

Humanist Hope said 7 years, 1 month ago:

@silent-radiance

You are correct in your definition of atheism but it is your interpretation of the same that differs.

As I said before, there are atheists who make the positive assertion that no gods exist, however it is not the default position of the atheist that gods do not exist, but rather the lack of a belief in said gods. While an atheist is free to make the leap to the assumption that gods do not exist, meaning that there can be an agnostic atheist, this is not the sole, defining criteria of atheism. For example, a gnostic atheist is one who makes the positive assertion that no gods exist and that they know it, where as the agnostic atheist simply says they do not know if gods exist, however both of them are still without a positive belief in a god, therefore they are both atheists.

If a person does not believe in a god, then they are an atheist.

Humanist Hope said 7 years, 1 month ago:

(@silent-radiance)

You’re very welcome.

If you should ever have anymore questions, feel free to ask. While I do not claim to be the most educated atheist walking about, I do make the willful effort to educate myself about matters on both sides of church and state, and to put a finer point on it, I make the similar effort to do so in as unbiased a manner as I am able, and I always appreciate when someone lends a critical ear and lets me know if I have not been unbiased.