Religion and Morality

[Emsworth]

A hybrid of option 2 and option 4. My "moral system" is not a set of absolute determinations of rightness and wrongness, but is instead a mixture of the law and my own completely arbitrary principles.

[Emsworth]

'Morality' is nothing more than one's personal preferences.  There is no objective morality.  And of course religious belief is a mental disorder.

I am however one of the most polite persons you'ld ever meet - particularly to the help.

So, as an avowed atheist, you admit to having a mental disorder?

Atheism is a lack of belief really, not a system of belief.

Actually, agnosticism is the lack of belief, atheism is the belief that there is no god of any sort.

Atheism: Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief: Refusal or reluctance to believe.

Even if you don't accept that and still maintain that Atheism is a belief, Opebo said spoke of religious belief.

Religious: Having or showing belief in and reverence for God or a deity.

As atheism is the belief that there is NOT a God or deity, if you still classify it is a belief, it is not a religious belief.

Agnosticism isn't necessarily a lack of belief, it may be a lack of religious belief, but not necessarily a lack of belief as agnostics generally believe you cannot prove/disprove the existence of God.

Just keep in mind you are talking to an agnostic here.

I view atheism as a belief, at least bordering on the religious and definitely being so in some cases, because to say there is no God or gods without having any evidence to support that belief means you believe there is no God(s) entirely on faith.

As for agnostics, it really is the lack of belief - since we believe you cannot prove/disprove a religion, we take the "I don't know" route. Since we don't know what divine beings may or may not be out there, we do not make claims one way or the other.

If I say there is no Loch Ness Monster without any evidence to support it, am I basing that entirely on faith? The burden of proof should lie with those stating the existence of something. If I said there were unicorns at the North Pole, whose request of proof would hold greater merit, yours that I prove my statement or mine that you disprove my statement?

No, because that's in the realm of the observable.

So as long as it is in the realm of the unobservable, I can make whatever claim I wish and it is up to those who doubt to disprove it? I'm a gonna go and have some fun!

I agree with JFK. I could, for example, that these unicorns at the North Pole are invisible, inaudible, etc. Does that suddenly make my claim of their existence valid?

Atheism is nothing more than the absence of theism. It is not a positive belief system in and of itself (although so-called "gnostic atheism" or "strong atheism" is). A lack of belief in a god is perfectly harmonious with reason, and are logically concordant with Occam's razor.

[Emsworth]

The explanation that requires less assumptions for teh origin of the unvierse is that a supreme being created it.

And how do you explain the existence of a supreme being in the first place? That explanation requires even greater assumptions.

[Emsworth]

As far as my views are concerned, there are two classifications of religious systems: theistic and atheistic. Theism is the presence of a positive belief in a divine entity. Atheism is the absence of a positive belief in a divine entity. Such is the meaning of the prefix "a"-- without.

Therefore, if you don't positively believe in a divine entity, then you are an atheist. Agnostics, therefore, constitute a subset of atheists.

[Emsworth]

Not exactly.  I would require just as much proof that God didn't exist.  If a gun was put to my head, I would say that I simply don't know.  Not that there is a god or that there isn't - that I don't know and really cannot say one way or another.  I have a belief that there is one, which is why I'm religious, but I don't attempt to assert my belief to be truth, because I really have no clue what the truth is.

There is a difference between asserting/believing that God does not exist and not asserting/believing that God does exist. The former implies the latter, but not vice versa. It is the latter which defines atheism.

[Emsworth]

Also, I believe you mean that it's the former that defines atheism.  The latter without the former is the definition of agnosticism.

No, I think that the latter defines atheism. The prefix a means without, so atheism would simply mean "without theism."

Agnosticism is an independent quality: one can be, for example, an agnostic theist. ("I believe that God exists, but it cannot be proven." Or, "I believe that God exists, but it is possible that he does not." And so forth.)