Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 3 - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion?


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DeltaNu1142
12-10-2010, 04:25
a donkey is a mammal, just as much as atheism is a religion.
:rofl:

You have yourself convinced, and seem completely content with that... excellent! We like content folks.

Atheism is a religion just as much as my favorite color is green... if one statement is factual, does that make the other factual--because I said so? :faint:

DeltaNu1142
12-10-2010, 04:27
P.S. - my favorite color is blue. :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
12-10-2010, 05:38
Facts are facts. Metaphors are what the are too, less than perfect tools to explain things.

The definition if atheist, according to Merriam Webster, is not passive.

If one believes they know that no deity exists, then at least in American English, they have a religious belief, and that belief likely has some impact on how they perceive the world, and relate to others.

It's a question of the proper use of words, and only a minor quirk that being described as religious seems to upset people that call themselves atheist. Which brings me back to the original question, why is it so hard to admit.

DeltaNu1142
12-10-2010, 06:50
Maybe others can be baited by the fact that you perceive your opinions as potentially "upsetting"... but as it's your opinion, and useless as a basis for rational argument, I'll say you're 100% right.

Why is it so hard to admit my dog's a donkey? Phrasing doesn't give a statement more validity... or else I'd walk around all day saying, "Why is it so hard to admit that women find me irresistible?"

Japle
12-10-2010, 07:02
Posted by Cavalry Doc:
If one believes they know that no deity exists, then at least in American English, they have a religious belief,
No, that means they have a belief about religion. There's a critical difference.

and that belief likely has some impact on how they perceive the world, and relate to others.
No argument there.

Careby
12-10-2010, 07:11
The complexity within single celled lifeforms is complex. The complexity of organs, and their structure and dependency on other organs within the same complex life form is monumentally complex. The interdependency of markedly different life forms, with independently complex metabolisms and genetics is unimaginably complex. The fact that all of this occurs in an environment that is highly unlikely and relatively unique, and that at least one life form has gown to accomplish all that man has accomplished, in science, art, and emotion, is difficult to comprehend as random chance.

Given enough time, it is still possible that all of us occurred because of a lucky set of billions of interdependent occurrences.

But if you are honest, the truth of the matter is, neither of us knows for sure.
I agree 100% with all the above.
Just like all other religions, some seem more sure about things than others.
I've no idea what that was intended to mean.

The question of the origin of complex life on Earth is a difficult one, and I long for a satisfying answer. It may have been created by a supreme being. If it was, the difficulty then becomes the question of the origin of the supreme being. My point is that accepting complexity as evidence of creation does not make logical sense, since at some point the complexity of the creating entity, which cannot have created itself, must be explained.

Or to be more clear, I can't reconcile these two statements:

1. Unimaginable complexity requires intelligent design.
2. Intelligent designers are unimaginably complex.

ksg0245
12-10-2010, 14:23
The passive statement is simply a less than assertive way to say the same thing.

You either believe they exist, believe that they do not exist, or admit you don't know.

Theist, Atheist, Agnostic.

It's really rather simple.

It's simple, but not like that. What you keep trying to describe as "passive" and "less than assertive" is merely admitting lack of knowledge; it's called "honesty." It has NOTHING to do with "passivity" or "lack of assertiveness." One either knows deities exist, or one doesn't know. One can believe without knowing, or disbelieve without knowing. Knowledge/lack of knowledge is not equivalent to belief/disbelief.

So, apart from the question of knowledge, do you personally believe, or do you not believe?

ksg0245
12-10-2010, 14:26
Facts are facts. Metaphors are what the are too, less than perfect tools to explain things.

The definition if atheist, according to Merriam Webster, is not passive.

If one believes they know that no deity exists, then at least in American English, they have a religious belief, and that belief likely has some impact on how they perceive the world, and relate to others.

It's a question of the proper use of words, and only a minor quirk that being described as religious seems to upset people that call themselves atheist. Which brings me back to the original question, why is it so hard to admit.

Why is it so hard to admit that you're wrong?

void *
12-10-2010, 14:43
It's my opinion based of an observation of a behavior pattern.

Which is fine, since nothing obligates you to think I'm manly or assertive - you can have whatever opinion you'd like, and fundamentally, it neither affects me, nor do I care - but since whether or not it's an assertive enough statement for you has nothing to do with whether or not making the distinction is philosophically valid, it's still an ad-hom.

Cavalry Doc
12-11-2010, 07:54
It's simple, but not like that. What you keep trying to describe as "passive" and "less than assertive" is merely admitting lack of knowledge; it's called "honesty." It has NOTHING to do with "passivity" or "lack of assertiveness." One either knows deities exist, or one doesn't know. One can believe without knowing, or disbelieve without knowing. Knowledge/lack of knowledge is not equivalent to belief/disbelief.

So, apart from the question of knowledge, do you personally believe, or do you not believe?

Belief without knowledge is faith.

I think a lot of agnostics call themselves atheist by mistake.

Cavalry Doc
12-11-2010, 07:59
Which is fine, since nothing obligates you to think I'm manly or assertive - you can have whatever opinion you'd like, and fundamentally, it neither affects me, nor do I care - but since whether or not it's an assertive enough statement for you has nothing to do with whether or not making the distinction is philosophically valid, it's still an ad-hom.

I did not mean to criticize you personally, sorry if it came across that way. Just pointing out that it's more of a difference of passive and active statements that lead to the same place, a set of beliefs and understanding that there are no deities.

It's fundamental to how one views the world. If there are no deities, there is no judgement. Knowing that, I greatly respect honest and polite Atheists, as they do not act out of fear of supreme judgement.

void *
12-11-2010, 09:53
I did not mean to criticize you personally, sorry if it came across that way. Just pointing out that it's more of a difference of passive and active statements that lead to the same place, a set of beliefs and understanding that there are no deities.

It's not a statement about whether it's passive or active, though, and whether it's passive or active doesn't change whether or not the statement is true.

Do you agree with the following, or not?

The burden of proof initially lies with the person making an affirmative statement, and not believing an affirmative statement does not require active religious belief in the negation of the claimed affirmative statement.

Japle
12-11-2010, 12:14
Posted by Cavalry Doc:
If there are no deities, there is no judgement.

Sure there is. I’m judged by my society and its laws, my community, my family and myself.

I used to be judged by my employers, but now that I’m retired, all my former employers can bite me. :tongueout:

ksg0245
12-13-2010, 16:27
Belief without knowledge is faith.

I agree; I lack belief in deities, and that lack isn't based on faith.

I think a lot of agnostics call themselves atheist by mistake.

There is nothing in the definitions of the terms 'theist,' 'atheist,' or 'agnostic' that excludes being both atheist (or theist) and agnostic.

Why do you refuse to state your belief regarding deities?

Ersatz
12-13-2010, 18:56
It's not a statement about whether it's passive or active, though, and whether it's passive or active doesn't change whether or not the statement is true.

Do you agree with the following, or not?

The burden of proof initially lies with the person making an affirmative statement, and not believing an affirmative statement does not require active religious belief in the negation of the claimed affirmative statement.

I'm amazed this thread is still going. If this doesn't make it clear to him, I don't know what will.

Cavalry Doc
12-14-2010, 18:55
I agree; I lack belief in deities, and that lack isn't based on faith.



There is nothing in the definitions of the terms 'theist,' 'atheist,' or 'agnostic' that excludes being both atheist (or theist) and agnostic.

Why do you refuse to state your belief regarding deities?

You have not taken the time to read the thread. I have very clearly stated my beliefs.


I don't know if there is or is not a deity or deities. I believe none of us know for sure. Whether we will eventually know, depends on an awful lot.

Cavalry Doc
12-14-2010, 20:09
It's not a statement about whether it's passive or active, though, and whether it's passive or active doesn't change whether or not the statement is true.

Do you agree with the following, or not?

The burden of proof initially lies with the person making an affirmative statement, and not believing an affirmative statement does not require active religious belief in the negation of the claimed affirmative statement.



I do agree, a little. Assigning the burden of proof depends on what you consider fair, and that is dependent on a copious amount of personal opinions and beliefs.


I think it is equally as fair to ask the athiest or the theist to prove they are correct. passive or active or who was there first doesn't much matter.

You have a belief, so prove it. Negatives can be proven, they just take a bit more work to do so.

The question is: Did or does, a deity or deities exist?

You either have an answer, or admit you don't

Theists answer yes.
Atheists answer no.
Agnostics answer something to the effect of "I don't know".

At least two of the three are religious belief systems. If you are sure, it's a matter of faith, because there is no sure proof one way or the other.



It's just real hard to admit.......... Why?

Cavalry Doc
12-14-2010, 20:22
I'm amazed this thread is still going. If this doesn't make it clear to him, I don't know what will.

It's very clear to me. It makes perfect sense. We just disagree on the truth, that's all.

Just look at the definition of atheist. It's an english word. It means what it means.


athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1292379484)


Most of the arguments I have seen here are excuses. The maximum range of an excuse is zero meters in all directions.


You believe what you believe, and if you are an atheist, you have a religious belief that there are no deities. It's just hard to admit that the particular belief, qualifies as a religious belief.


Nothing has changed, except that some here have learned that they are included in the definition of a word that they have a peculiar aversion to.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

RC-RAMIE
12-14-2010, 21:13
Deity or no Deity thats the only choice?

Atheist is easy to prove. We don't know how we got here but there is no evidence for a Deity so I don't buy that story. Bring evidence to the table and I will change my stance till that time no Deity.

void *
12-14-2010, 22:03
I think it is equally as fair to ask the athiest or the theist to prove they are correct. passive or active or who was there first doesn't much matter.

You think it's reasonable to ask to prove a negative? It is impossible to prove that no gods exist, as theistic positions can back off to the point that there's no way to prove that a particular god does *not* exist.

Since theists claim a positive - "Some particular god exists" - and many of the claims made are in fact things that *should* be testable (e.g. prayer working, etc) it is not unreasonable to expect evidence of those claim before believing them.

void *
12-14-2010, 22:16
You either have an answer, or admit you don't


Now who is being digital, eh?


Theists answer yes.
Atheists answer no.
Agnostics answer something to the effect of "I don't know".


What, precisely, is the problem with "I can't prove it either way, but it sure doesn't look like it - but I might change my mind tomorrow if I come across some evidence"?

DeltaNu1142
12-15-2010, 04:22
Now who is being digital, eh?
There's some grey area between 0 and 1... :supergrin:

Cavalry Doc
12-15-2010, 06:31
Now who is being digital, eh?



What, precisely, is the problem with "I can't prove it either way, but it sure doesn't look like it - but I might change my mind tomorrow if I come across some evidence"?

Digital thinking is sometimes difficult to avoid... But I gave a range of choices, not just two. Atheist, Agnostic, and Theist. You described your belief, so you had an answer.

There is nothing wrong with your statement, It's a pretty good description of agnosticism. It's a religious belief system once you decide on whether a deity exists or not, and which one does if they do. Undecided is still an option, and I don't have a problem with that being described as a religious belief system either.

void *
12-15-2010, 07:08
There is nothing wrong with your statement, It's a pretty good description of agnosticism. It's a religious belief system once you decide on whether a deity exists or not

There is not one thing in the statement "I can't prove it either way, but it sure doesn't look like it - but I might change my mind tomorrow if I come across some evidence" that is based on faith. It is *impossible* for it to be based on faith because it *explicitly* notes both what is unprovable and that my mind might change if new data comes in. So why do you insist on calling it religion?

Basically, there is a fundamental difference between the faith I had when I was a believer and the disbelief I have now. I know that from direct experience, because I know how I believed then - with faith, not based on evidence - and I know why I disbelieve now - because I now expect evidence before I will believe. Expecting evidence to accept an affirmative posit is not faith, and therefore, my atheism is not religion.

Edit: The statement is not a description of agnosticism under your terms, because you refuse to even take a position on "it sure doesn't look like it". A conditional "it sure doesn't look like it" falls into the "atheist" bucket if you're going to model it as a three state "theist", "agnostic", "atheist" question. In other words, throughout the thread you won't say whether it looks like it or not to you - you say things along the lines of not knowing and believing you don't know.

ksg0245
12-15-2010, 08:50
You have not taken the time to read the thread. I have very clearly stated my beliefs.


I don't know if there is or is not a deity or deities. I believe none of us know for sure. Whether we will eventually know, depends on an awful lot.

I've read you clearly stating several times that you admit you don't know and that you believe nobody can know, with which I agree; I don't think it's possible to know. I think I've made it as clear as possible that I'm not asking about what you think is possible to know; I'm asking if, completely apart from what is possible to know, you believe they exist. THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW; IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Do you understand there's difference between belief and knowledge?

You have yet to clearly state whether or not you believe deities exist. I strongly suspect you're deliberately avoiding the question.

ksg0245
12-15-2010, 09:12
It's very clear to me. It makes perfect sense. We just disagree on the truth, that's all.

Just look at the definition of atheist. It's an english word. It means what it means.





Most of the arguments I have seen here are excuses. The maximum range of an excuse is zero meters in all directions.


You believe what you believe, and if you are an atheist, you have a religious belief that there are no deities. It's just hard to admit that the particular belief, qualifies as a religious belief.


Nothing has changed, except that some here have learned that they are included in the definition of a word that they have a peculiar aversion to.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc-3.gif

You equivocate on the definitions of 'atheist' and 'religious' in an attempt to force atheists into a position the majority does not hold, and even though that equivocation has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to insist your definition is the only correct one. What "some here have learned" is that you refuse to admit your claim atheism is a religious belief belief is incorrect.

sugarcreek
12-15-2010, 09:17
One would be tortured to read this whole thread. Is A and R? No.

Japle
12-15-2010, 16:12
Posted by Cavalry Doc:
You believe what you believe, and if you are an atheist, you have a religious belief that there are no deities. It's just hard to admit that the particular belief, qualifies as a religious belief.
Sounds like Sarah Brady saying, “It’s just hard to admit that guns cause crime”.

Guns don’t cause crime.

An absence of religious belief doesn’t equal religious belief.

When the subject of religion comes up in conversation and someone asks me what my religion is, this is my standard answer:

“No matter how long you live or how many people you talk to, you will never meet anyone who’s less religious than me.”

I’m not religious.
I reject all religions.
I’m convinced that all religions are based on mythology and have no validity.

If you still think someone with that viewpoint can be said to be religious, you’re delusional.

Cavalry Doc
12-15-2010, 19:13
I've read you clearly stating several times that you admit you don't know and that you believe nobody can know, with which I agree; I don't think it's possible to know. I think I've made it as clear as possible that I'm not asking about what you think is possible to know; I'm asking if, completely apart from what is possible to know, you believe they exist. THE QUESTION IS NOT ABOUT WHAT YOU KNOW; IT'S ABOUT WHAT YOU BELIEVE. Do you understand there's difference between belief and knowledge?

You have yet to clearly state whether or not you believe deities exist. I strongly suspect you're deliberately avoiding the question.

Very clearly, I will state that I believe it is possible that a deity exists, and that it is possible that no deity exists.

Considering the myriad of different beliefs out there, I would suspect that more than 50% of the people in the world are likely wrong about one thing or another. It's also possible that at least one person is right.

Cavalry Doc
12-15-2010, 19:19
Sounds like Sarah Brady saying, “It’s just hard to admit that guns cause crime”.

Guns don’t cause crime.

An absence of religious belief doesn’t equal religious belief.

When the subject of religion comes up in conversation and someone asks me what my religion is, this is my standard answer:

“No matter how long you live or how many people you talk to, you will never meet anyone who’s less religious than me.”

I’m not religious.
I reject all religions.
I’m convinced that all religions are based on mythology and have no validity.

If you still think someone with that viewpoint can be said to be religious, you’re delusional.

Well, I can go on record that I believe the Brady Campaign is wrong on a vast majority of their ideas. I think that training is important, but that's about the limit of my views on gun control.

Your metaphor fails badly. Sorry. :wavey:

If you are sure, it is a religious belief. Why is that so hard to admit??


You have a belief system that is basic to how you understand the universe. Get over it.



The English language is a bit quirky, but the the words fit.

Cavalry Doc
12-15-2010, 19:33
You equivocate on the definitions of 'atheist' and 'religious' in an attempt to force atheists into a position the majority does not hold, and even though that equivocation has been repeatedly pointed out to you, you continue to insist your definition is the only correct one. What "some here have learned" is that you refuse to admit your claim atheism is a religious belief belief is incorrect.

If atheism is not a religion, it's not me that's wrong, It's Merriam Webster.

Atheist.
Faith.
Religion.


Look up the definitions.

ksg0245
12-16-2010, 09:01
Very clearly, I will state that I believe it is possible that a deity exists, and that it is possible that no deity exists.

Considering the myriad of different beliefs out there, I would suspect that more than 50% of the people in the world are likely wrong about one thing or another. It's also possible that at least one person is right.

And once again, you've clearly avoided stating if you believe deities do or do not exist.

ksg0245
12-16-2010, 09:40
If atheism is not a religion, it's not me that's wrong, It's Merriam Webster.

Atheist.
Faith.
Religion.


Look up the definitions.

Is Merriam Webster the sole arbiter of what defines religion or atheism?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
2a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
(note that several, if not all, of the atheists here have repeatedly told you that if objective, verifiable evidence is presented for deities, they'd believe.)
3: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
(I think I asked you earlier what you thought the atheist system of religious beliefs were. As far as I can tell, the only system of beliefs atheists have is that claims of deities haven't been supported with objective evidence. Void * has also pointed out that rejecting unsupported assertions isn't a matter of faith.)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
(certainly atheism is a personal thing, but there isn't anything to practice, or even believe, and it sure isn't institutionalized)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious
1: relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity <a religious person> <religious attitudes>
2: of, relating to, or devoted to religious beliefs or observances <joined a religious order>

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
one who believes that there is no deity
(note that the definition given here for atheist contradicts the definition given for atheism, unless you want to argue that "disbelief" is the equivalent of "belief")

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
Atheism, in a broad sense, is the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=atheist
1. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587466
unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities

http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/atheist
someone who believes that God does not exist

People equivocate all the time. They say stuff like "he follows sports religiously," but do you seriously believe that makes football a religion? Or is it just a metaphor?

Cavalry Doc
12-16-2010, 17:24
Is Merriam Webster the sole arbiter of what defines religion or atheism?


People equivocate all the time. They say stuff like "he follows sports religiously," but do you seriously believe that makes football a religion? Or is it just a metaphor?

Football does not involve the basis of our existence. Belief or disbelief in a deity or deities is a foundation on which many very important beliefs are based. It is a basis of understanding of reality that effects almost everything.

So football is a game, a belief about the true origins of our existence is a bit deeper than that, and is a religious belief.

Religious beliefs effect the morals, ethics and behavior of a person more than football, for most people at least.

Sarge1400
12-16-2010, 18:08
Religious beliefs effect the morals, ethics and behavior of a person more than football, for most people at least.

Then, in your opinion, does a lack of religious beliefs equate to a lack of morals and ethics?

Cavalry Doc
12-16-2010, 20:12
Then, in your opinion, does a lack of religious beliefs equate to a lack of morals and ethics?

No.

A religious belief is a belief and understanding that one adheres to that explains the origins of our existence. I don't know whether a deity or deities exist(s). But I consider myself a moral person. I always strive to do the right thing. Even if for no other reason than I want to. I really enjoy helping people, and enjoy relieving the suffering of others. I strive to leave things better than I find them. Even if it is all for naught, I have no compelling reason to do otherwise.

Morals are different for everyone. I have no problem with letting the air out of bad guys. Some might consider that immoral, or amoral, but I think, that in certain circumstances, that is the best course of action.

I don't know if I will be judged by a superior being when I die, But I will judge myself at the time of my last breath if I am able, and I want to be able to smile, and think: "I did my best to do the right thing." Even if I will be slipping off into oblivion, I'm gonna do things right to the best of my ability. If I run into someone right after this life ends, I'll chat with him, and see what happens next.

Cavalry Doc
12-29-2010, 22:14
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/262/0/2/BUMP_by_angelratdesigns.gif
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2010/156/6/d/chest_bump_by_TRIPLE_ASSASINATER.gif
http://fc06.deviantart.net/images3/i/2004/090/b/c/BUMP.gif
http://fc01.deviantart.net/images2/i/2003/51/1/6/Bump.gif

steveksux
01-01-2011, 16:02
Because atheists even without a God to tell them so, believe its a sin to lie? :tongueout:

The difference is supernatural. No supernatural involved, its not a religion. Its not just belief that defines religion, its what you believe.

Atheists freely admit that lack of evidence of God could still mean they are wrong regardless of what they believe. Is there any religion that embraces such doubt in their belief system? None that I'm aware of.

Religions rely on faith in the unseen. Atheists rely on faith in the seen. Fundamental difference.

IMO, the supernatural component is a crucial and glaring difference, a very large elephant in the room some wish to ignore.

Its like claiming numerology is a branch of mathematics, or alchemy is a branch of chemistry, there are HUGE philosophical differences that make them unrelated except on a superficial level.

The interesting question for me is why is it so hard for the religious to admit Atheism is NOT a religion? If atheism is so wrong, and it seems sometimes almost more disdain is directed towards atheists than opposing religions, why the desire to put it on equal footing with religion? Seems odd to me. Is it only an offshoot of trying to peddle creationism as scientific theory so it can be taught in classrooms?

Randy

weemsf50
01-01-2011, 23:37
Because atheists even without a God to tell them so, believe its a sin to lie? :tongueout:

The difference is supernatural. No supernatural involved, its not a religion. Its not just belief that defines religion, its what you believe.

Atheists freely admit that lack of evidence of God could still mean they are wrong regardless of what they believe. Is there any religion that embraces such doubt in their belief system? None that I'm aware of.

Religions rely on faith in the unseen. Atheists rely on faith in the seen. Fundamental difference.

IMO, the supernatural component is a crucial and glaring difference, a very large elephant in the room some wish to ignore.

Its like claiming numerology is a branch of mathematics, or alchemy is a branch of chemistry, there are HUGE philosophical differences that make them unrelated except on a superficial level.

The interesting question for me is why is it so hard for the religious to admit Atheism is NOT a religion? If atheism is so wrong, and it seems sometimes almost more disdain is directed towards atheists than opposing religions, why the desire to put it on equal footing with religion? Seems odd to me. Is it only an offshoot of trying to peddle creationism as scientific theory so it can be taught in classrooms?

Randy

If you will check into what is called The Emergent Church you will find that they are not sure of much at all. They quite openly admit to their doubts and uncertainites. Of course, I consider them heretics, but that is beside the point.

steveksux
01-02-2011, 00:39
If you will check into what is called The Emergent Church you will find that they are not sure of much at all. They quite openly admit to their doubts and uncertainites. Of course, I consider them heretics, but that is beside the point.Sounds like you're not the only one, seems a lot of folks consider them heretics... hadn't heard of them before.

They seem to be pretty flexible on the details of worship, approach, doctrine. But not open to abandoning God as the Supreme Being as the basis of their beliefs if you come up with convincing evidence. That's strictly an Atheist thing, being motivated by evidence vs interpretations of scripture.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-02-2011, 08:37
Because atheists even without a God to tell them so, believe its a sin to lie? :tongueout:

The difference is supernatural. No supernatural involved, its not a religion. Its not just belief that defines religion, its what you believe.

Atheists freely admit that lack of evidence of God could still mean they are wrong regardless of what they believe. Is there any religion that embraces such doubt in their belief system? None that I'm aware of.

Religions rely on faith in the unseen. Atheists rely on faith in the seen. Fundamental difference.

IMO, the supernatural component is a crucial and glaring difference, a very large elephant in the room some wish to ignore.

Its like claiming numerology is a branch of mathematics, or alchemy is a branch of chemistry, there are HUGE philosophical differences that make them unrelated except on a superficial level.

The interesting question for me is why is it so hard for the religious to admit Atheism is NOT a religion? If atheism is so wrong, and it seems sometimes almost more disdain is directed towards atheists than opposing religions, why the desire to put it on equal footing with religion? Seems odd to me. Is it only an offshoot of trying to peddle creationism as scientific theory so it can be taught in classrooms?

Randy


Nowhere in the dictionary definition of "religion", does it state that a belief in the supernatural is required. It may just be a quirk of the English language, but Atheists are religious in their own way.

steveksux
01-02-2011, 09:13
Nowhere in the dictionary definition of "religion", does it state that a belief in the supernatural is required. Nowhere? That flies in the face of common sense, its like saying someone who is not allergic to anything has an allergy. Besides being directly contradicted a few posts ago #533. And from merriam-webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religionb (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural That's just the first one I happened to look for. If you can find ANY dictionary that omits supernatural beings from the definition of religion I'd appreciate a link, cause it sounds awfully odd to me.

All religions have always had one or more unseen supreme supernatural beings in the background that the followers worship. Its the cornerstone of a religion. My true God is more powerful than your false god is pretty prevalent too. Worship your particular God, and he'll make you victorious in your endeavors. That's been the case throughout history.

Who do atheists worship? What unseen supreme being do they believe in?

It may just be a quirk of the English language, but Atheists are religious in their own way.Only potentially in the context of a figure of speech as in Canadians are religious about their hockey. That doesn't make it a religion.

Generally they don't believe in God because there's no concrete evidence to support it. Kind of implies given solid evidence they'll change their mind. Obviously not going to accept scriptural references as proof of the very religion the scriptures are part of, as that's a classic circular argument.

The religious are faith, not evidence based, and there is no such willingness to discard the core beliefs based on evidence. As science has discredited religious doctrine (6000 year old earth, earth at center of universe, fixed firmament, etc), the doctrine shifts to encompass the new facts (or not, as some with evolution), but the core belief in the supernatural being remains intact.

Randy

DeltaNu1142
01-02-2011, 10:13
If it makes you happy to say that atheism is a religion--while even the word's etymology indicates you're wrong--by all means, continue to do so. People say all sorts of things, and the right to say such things fortunately doesn't stipulate that these things have to be true, or even reasonable.

I'd submit that almost almost everyone is atheistic; I just believe in one less supreme being than the majority of this country's population. When you can explain to me why you don't believe in the gods of other religions, you'll potentially understand why I don't believe in yours.

Cavalry Doc
01-03-2011, 19:51
Nowhere? That flies in the face of common sense, its like saying someone who is not allergic to anything has an allergy. Besides being directly contradicted a few posts ago #533. And from merriam-webster: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion That's just the first one I happened to look for. If you can find ANY dictionary that omits supernatural beings from the definition of religion I'd appreciate a link, cause it sounds awfully odd to me.

All religions have always had one or more unseen supreme supernatural beings in the background that the followers worship. Its the cornerstone of a religion. My true God is more powerful than your false god is pretty prevalent too. Worship your particular God, and he'll make you victorious in your endeavors. That's been the case throughout history.

Who do atheists worship? What unseen supreme being do they believe in?

Only potentially in the context of a figure of speech as in Canadians are religious about their hockey. That doesn't make it a religion.

Generally they don't believe in God because there's no concrete evidence to support it. Kind of implies given solid evidence they'll change their mind. Obviously not going to accept scriptural references as proof of the very religion the scriptures are part of, as that's a classic circular argument.

The religious are faith, not evidence based, and there is no such willingness to discard the core beliefs based on evidence. As science has discredited religious doctrine (6000 year old earth, earth at center of universe, fixed firmament, etc), the doctrine shifts to encompass the new facts (or not, as some with evolution), but the core belief in the supernatural being remains intact.

Randy

Not all definitions have to apply, in order for one to apply.


4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)




Atheists believe that there is no god (also according to websters) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist) , they have no proof (faith) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith), but still strongly believe they are right to the point to be willing to argue their point (ardor) (http://dictionary.weather.net/dictionary/ardor).



Even if it a quirk of the English language. Atheists are religious.

Cavalry Doc
01-03-2011, 19:56
If it makes you happy to say that atheism is a religion--while even the word's etymology indicates you're wrong--by all means, continue to do so. People say all sorts of things, and the right to say such things fortunately doesn't stipulate that these things have to be true, or even reasonable.

I'd submit that almost almost everyone is atheistic; I just believe in one less supreme being than the majority of this country's population. When you can explain to me why you don't believe in the gods of other religions, you'll potentially understand why I don't believe in yours.

Yer shooting at the wrong target. I don't know if a god, or gods exist. If one or more exist, I have no clue which ones do, or which ones don't. Or whether any have existed in time, and are now gone.


So I'm not sure, in the absence of proof, I have reserved judgement. Atheists know, or at least think they do. That is a religious belief.

It is probably just a quirk of the English language, but it sure is hard for athiests to admit the words fit.

steveksux
01-03-2011, 20:23
Not all definitions have to apply, in order for one to apply.


4. a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion)That's an alternate meaning of the word, refers to a figure of speech as in Hockey is a religion in Canada... that's a different meaning of the same word. If that's the context you are referring to, that's fine, but its not the same as an organized religion.
Even if it a quirk of the English language. Atheists are religious.The fact that its a quirk of the English language does not make Atheism equivalent to an organized religion, they are two very different things..

Unless you're claiming that hockey is a religion too... :tongueout:

A chick is a baby bird.

A chick is a blonde female human.

This does not mean a blonde female human is a form of baby bird... obviiously not, if you put her brain in the bird it'd fly backwards... :supergrin:

I watch football religiously, but would not be appropriate for me to post a "The Lions are going to win the Super Bowl next year thread" here. Unless they actually WON the Super Bowl, in which case being a miracle, it would fit quite nicely along with the other "Signs of the Apocalypse" threads... :supergrin:

Randy

Jayhawkai
01-04-2011, 00:47
Atheists know, or at least think they do. That is a religious belief.

You're an idiot. Even Dawkins says he's not positive that there is not god.

fun834
01-04-2011, 08:56
Atheists will change their position given hard evidence. Believers (in any religion) do not change their view in spite of evidence or lack of evidence against their previously held belief.:wavey:

weemsf50
01-04-2011, 09:03
You're an idiot. Even Dawkins says he's not positive that there is not god.

Atheist= There is no God. The word is formed from a Greek noun and a negative prefix.

Agnostic= I don't know if there is a God or not. Fromed from a Greek verb (gnosko) and a negative prefix.

weemsf50
01-04-2011, 09:05
Atheists will change their position given hard evidence. Believers (in any religion) do not change their view in spite of evidence or lack of evidence against their previously held belief.:wavey:

There are fundamental, underlying foundational truths that are not open to debate, but don't think that we are so closed-minded that we are ignorant and unlearned, and unable to learn.

ksg0245
01-04-2011, 09:53
Atheist= There is no God. The word is formed from a Greek noun and a negative prefix.

Agnostic= I don't know if there is a God or not. Fromed from a Greek verb (gnosko) and a negative prefix.

Impressively wrong.

weemsf50
01-04-2011, 10:01
Impressively wrong.

Please feel free to correct my Greek if it is in error.

yeov theos, theh'-os Greek word for God

ginwskw ginosko, ghin-oce'-ko Greek word for know

Put an "a" in front to make negative. The Latin equivalent for agnostic is ignoramus, no offense meant or intended. These are the meanings of the words, as I understand them.

ksg0245
01-04-2011, 10:02
Yer shooting at the wrong target. I don't know if a god, or gods exist. If one or more exist, I have no clue which ones do, or which ones don't. Or whether any have existed in time, and are now gone.


So I'm not sure, in the absence of proof, I have reserved judgement. Atheists know, or at least think they do. That is a religious belief.

It is probably just a quirk of the English language, but it sure is hard for athiests to admit the words fit.

It's cool how you keep claiming to know what atheists know, or at least think they do, and keep getting it wrong after being informed you're wrong.

It's also cool how you keep insisting how hard for atheists to admit the words fit, while being unable to admit that you're wrong.

Probably the coolest thing, though, is how you have yet to state your own belief regarding the existence of deities, preferring to dodge the question with the red herring of your lack of "knowledge."

ksg0245
01-04-2011, 10:13
Please feel free to correct my Greek if it is in error.

yeov theos, theh'-os Greek word for God

ginwskw ginosko, ghin-oce'-ko Greek word for know

Put an "a" in front to make negative. The Latin equivalent for agnostic is ignoramus, no offense meant or intended. These are the meanings of the words, as I understand them.

http://wordinfo.info/unit/2838
a-, an- +
(Greek: a prefix meaning: no, absence of, without, lack of, not)

A=without. Theos=deity. Without deity. An atheist is not "there is no god," but rather "I have no deity."

A=without. Gnosis=knowledge. Without knowledge.

Similar to apolitical=without politics, amoral=without morals, asexual=without sexuality. Those don't mean there are no politics, morals, or sexuality, but that the person or subject lacks those attributes.

weemsf50
01-04-2011, 10:36
http://wordinfo.info/unit/2838
a-, an- +
(Greek: a prefix meaning: no, absence of, without, lack of, not)

A=without. Theos=deity. Without deity. An atheist is not "there is no god," but rather "I have no deity."

A=without. Gnosis=knowledge. Without knowledge.

Similar to apolitical=without politics, amoral=without morals, asexual=without sexuality. Those don't mean there are no politics, morals, or sexuality, but that the person or subject lacks those attributes.

Are you saying that the definition of "atheist" means that the individual who is an atheist is without deity?

ksg0245
01-04-2011, 15:15
Are you saying that the definition of "atheist" means that the individual who is an atheist is without deity?

Essentially, although I think it's more accurate to say "lacks belief in deities."

Jayhawkai
01-04-2011, 19:16
Impressively wrong.

Especially for one who claims to be a pastor. Like a mathematician not knowing what zero is.

weemsf50
01-05-2011, 10:56
Especially for one who claims to be a pastor. Like a mathematician not knowing what zero is.

Psalm 53: The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.


Along with moral relativism, shifting definitions of fixed words does not change the correct definition of the term. If your usage is that "lacks belief in deities" that is fine, but it is not the historical use of the term.

There are over 31 differnt kinds of Baptists, not worht it to got through the list, but I would assume that there are various degrees of atheism as well. Perhaps we have now learned of the "lack of belief in deities" group and the "there ain't no God" bunch. If both want the label of "atheist," I'm good with that.

Careby
01-05-2011, 11:53
...There are over 31 differnt kinds of Baptists, not worht it to got through the list, but I would assume that there are various degrees of atheism as well...
I was raised a Southern Baptist. I still enjoy total immersion in water, but no longer consider it a religious experience.

weemsf50
01-05-2011, 13:09
I was raised a Southern Baptist. I still enjoy total immersion in water, but no longer consider it a religious experience.

That was a good one!:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 17:57
That's an alternate meaning of the word, refers to a figure of speech as in Hockey is a religion in Canada... that's a different meaning of the same word. If that's the context you are referring to, that's fine, but its not the same as an organized religion.The fact that its a quirk of the English language does not make Atheism equivalent to an organized religion, they are two very different things..

Unless you're claiming that hockey is a religion too... :tongueout:

A chick is a baby bird.

A chick is a blonde female human.

This does not mean a blonde female human is a form of baby bird... obviiously not, if you put her brain in the bird it'd fly backwards... :supergrin:

I watch football religiously, but would not be appropriate for me to post a "The Lions are going to win the Super Bowl next year thread" here. Unless they actually WON the Super Bowl, in which case being a miracle, it would fit quite nicely along with the other "Signs of the Apocalypse" threads... :supergrin:

Randy

Most of what you said is true. And Atheism is a religion. True. Organization is not necessary.

It's a core belief. One that a person bases everything else on. Your view of reality, and how it became to be, has a large influence on who you are. Sports fanatics don't come close to that.

Fact.

It's a different form of religion than Catholicism, but a religion it is.

The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 18:14
You're an idiot. Even Dawkins says he's not positive that there is not god.


Name calling?? That's not called for. Learn to converse with adults, or post elsewhere.


If what you say is true, then Dawkins is an agnostic, not an athiest. he may even be an atheistic agnostic, but according to the English language, I'm right.


athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1294272764)


Don't shoot the messenger. It may be a surprise, but correct word usage is a skill, and the definition fits, or it doesn't. And it does.


Now, why is it so hard to admit?

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 18:17
Atheists will change their position given hard evidence. Believers (in any religion) do not change their view in spite of evidence or lack of evidence against their previously held belief.:wavey:

I'd disagree. Given hard evidence, most people would believe the evidence.

But there isn't any real hard evidence to support the believe that a deity exists, or does not exist. There are pieces of fact that people propose to be hard evidence, but none exists. No surprise there, we don't have all the answers. So people CHOOSE to believe what they believe. It's a matter of faith.

Sarge1400
01-05-2011, 18:19
The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?

No, the real question is, why are you so *******ing narcissistic that you require everyone to agree with you? The thread had died, for f**'s sakes, and you bumped it back to the top.
Let it go, and accept the fact that atheism CAN be a religion, but DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 18:21
It's cool how you keep claiming to know what atheists know, or at least think they do, and keep getting it wrong after being informed you're wrong.

It's also cool how you keep insisting how hard for atheists to admit the words fit, while being unable to admit that you're wrong.

Probably the coolest thing, though, is how you have yet to state your own belief regarding the existence of deities, preferring to dodge the question with the red herring of your lack of "knowledge."

I only claim to know what the definition of atheist is. It is entirely possible, and I've proposed the possibility many times in this thread that many people that believe they are atheists, are actually agnostic. The definition of the word atheist is quite clear. "one who believes that there is no deity" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1294272764).

If you believe that I have not clearly stated my own belief, you have not read the entire thread. That's a homework assignment now. Please, do not base an ad hom attack on your failure to read the thread, it's rude.

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 18:23
No, the real question is, why are you so *******ing narcissistic that you require everyone to agree with you? The thread had died, for f**'s sakes, and you bumped it back to the top.
Let it go, and accept the fact that atheism CAN be a religion, but DOESN'T HAVE TO BE.

At Ease sarge.

I'm just pointing out that many "so called" atheists have a word usage malfunction.

Don't shoot the messenger.

(edited to add, I work for a living, and have other hobbies, so don't check all threads all the time. When I got around to it, I got around to it.)

steveksux
01-05-2011, 19:06
Most of what you said is true. And Atheism is a religion. True.Unfortunately, false... :supergrin: Organization is not necessary.

It's a core belief. One that a person bases everything else on. Your view of reality, and how it became to be, has a large influence on who you are. Sports fanatics don't come close to that. False. I would say the atheism is merely a byproduct of a skeptical nature, someone not prone to believing things that cannot be proven. Your worldview doesn't revolve around it, its not a core belief. Religious people obsess over religion, stakes are high, got to satisfy the Creators expectations to get the eternal reward. Atheists don't come close to that, they've got nothing to worry about. They don't agonize over Santa Clause and the Easter either.

It's a different form of religion than Catholicism, but a religion it is. A different form? It has nobody to worship, there are no holy writings, there are no priests/holy men teaching it, there are no infidels to kill who believe differently, there is no dogma, they don't have any place to damn you to if you don't believe as they do, there are no rituals, there is no holy day, there's no need for atheists to get together and sing hyms and share their faith... You can go on and on, but the bottom line is its substantially and fundamentally different, and would be absolutely unique among all the other religions, if it were in fact, a religion.

The real question, is why is it so hard to admit?Why is it so hard to admit the Earth is flat? The real question is why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong? :tongueout: You can't just make a baseless assumption declared by fiat as a priori truth, then ask why is it so hard to admit. It wouldn't be hard to admit if it were true. What difference would it make? No reason NOT to admit it... unless it were not true. Your base assumptions are wrong, leading you to ask a question that doesn't make sense.

Every religion in the world is based on a supernatural stuff, ritual, the whole gamut I mentioned above. Except Atheism? That tells me "one of these things is not like the other". The only similarity between religion and atheism is people believe both. That's not enough to make it a religion. People believe all sorts of things, doesn't make all of those things "a religion".

You sort of remind me of a cat that has adopted a stray puppy along with its kittens. That cat may well ask .... "Why is it so hard to admit that one barking kitten is a kitten?" :supergrin:

Answer me this? Why is it so hard to admit Jesus was a woman?

Answer that question, and you'll have the answer to your question.

Randy

Careby
01-05-2011, 19:17
What dictionary do you believe in?

From the Oxford English Dictionary (on Kindle):

atheist: n. a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

agnostic: n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

religion: n. 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
2. a particular system of faith and worship
3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 20:24
Unfortunately, false... :supergrin:False. I would say the atheism is merely a byproduct of a skeptical nature, someone not prone to believing things that cannot be proven. Your worldview doesn't revolve around it, its not a core belief. Religious people obsess over religion, stakes are high, got to satisfy the Creators expectations to get the eternal reward. Atheists don't come close to that, they've got nothing to worry about. They don't agonize over Santa Clause and the Easter either.

A different form? It has nobody to worship, there are no holy writings, there are no priests/holy men teaching it, there are no infidels to kill who believe differently, there is no dogma, they don't have any place to damn you to if you don't believe as they do, there are no rituals, there is no holy day, there's no need for atheists to get together and sing hyms and share their faith... You can go on and on, but the bottom line is its substantially and fundamentally different, and would be absolutely unique among all the other religions, if it were in fact, a religion.

Why is it so hard to admit the Earth is flat? The real question is why is it so hard for you to admit you're wrong? :tongueout: You can't just make a baseless assumption declared by fiat as a priori truth, then ask why is it so hard to admit. It wouldn't be hard to admit if it were true. What difference would it make? No reason NOT to admit it... unless it were not true. Your base assumptions are wrong, leading you to ask a question that doesn't make sense.

Every religion in the world is based on a supernatural stuff, ritual, the whole gamut I mentioned above. Except Atheism? That tells me "one of these things is not like the other". The only similarity between religion and atheism is people believe both. That's not enough to make it a religion. People believe all sorts of things, doesn't make all of those things "a religion".

You sort of remind me of a cat that has adopted a stray puppy along with its kittens. That cat may well ask .... "Why is it so hard to admit that one barking kitten is a kitten?" :supergrin:

Answer me this? Why is it so hard to admit Jesus was a woman?

Answer that question, and you'll have the answer to your question.

Randy

Randy,

You've missed the point. It's not about cats and dogs, and the part of your post above highlighted in red would be better attributed to an agnostic, than an atheist.


Agnostics don't have proof, so choose to reserve judgment. Some lean toward atheism, some lean toward theism. I'm pretty sure I'm smack dab in middle. There may be, or there may not be. There is some pretty good evidence both ways, but there is also the problem of which deity is the right deity....

So, I don't know. I freely admit it.


By definition, atheists know there is no deity.

I respect polite theists, as well as polite atheists. I, personally, don't like either group pushing their religious beliefs onto me.


It is a religion. Some ill mannered atheists find pleasure in pointing out the inconsistencies within religious texts and beliefs.

I'm just intrigued by the fact that many self identified atheists, cannot admit that atheism is just as much a religious belief as believing that Buddha was right about his model of reality.

If you know the truth of the origins of the universe, prove it. If you can convince me, I might convert.....


Personally, I am convinced that none of us know for sure. If the way you believe, makes you a better neighbor, then I applaud you, and your belief system. Otherwise, you're just another ant in the ant hill.

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 20:29
What dictionary do you believe in?

From the Oxford English Dictionary (on Kindle):

atheist: n. a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

agnostic: n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

religion: n. 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
2. a particular system of faith and worship
3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion


The bold stuff is pretty clear.

The ones that know for sure there is no deity, are pretty devoted to that belief.


I tend t lead toward Merriam-Websters, at least for American English.

Most of our posters are American, and they should learn the language.

steveksux
01-05-2011, 21:48
Randy,

You've missed the point. I think you have... and here it is...
It is a religion. No, it'st not, by the very definition you point to. That's the point you're missing. Its not true simply because you comingle two different meanings of a word and believe that means synonyms or examples of either of the independent definitions are therefore synonyms of each other.

Even you don't really believe that, because the example provided for the definition you use to claim atheism is a religion refers to hockey being a religion to Canadians, and you've already said that hockey's not a religion.

Its an example of a religion, taken directly from your posted definition of "religion", so therefore it must be a religion, just like atheism It doesn't have to match all definitions, only one. Your words. Your logic. You can't claim Atheism is a religion and exclude hockey. Its in the dictionary.

So why can't you admit Jesus was a woman?

Randy

steveksux
01-05-2011, 21:55
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bus

From Miriam-Webster:

1a : a large motor vehicle designed to carry passengers usually along a fixed route according to a schedule
b : automobile
2: a small hand truck
4: a spacecraft or missile that carries one or more detachable devices (as warheads)

Therefore if atheism is a religion, kids can get a ride to school on the freeway on a small hand truck. Or a submarine launched missile can be used to take kids to school. If there isn't a hand truck available. Hand trucks don't go through snow like missiles. :)

Why is it so hard to admit that America's nuclear deterrent in the Cold war depended on school buses able to deliver a crushing nuclear deterrent to the Russian heartland?

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-05-2011, 22:16
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bus

From Miriam-Webster:

1a : a large motor vehicle designed to carry passengers usually along a fixed route according to a schedule
b : automobile
2: a small hand truck
4: a spacecraft or missile that carries one or more detachable devices (as warheads)

Therefore if atheism is a religion, kids can get a ride to school on the freeway on a small hand truck. Or a submarine launched missile can be used to take kids to school. If there isn't a hand truck available. Hand trucks don't go through snow like missiles. :)

Why is it so hard to admit that America's nuclear deterrent in the Cold war depended on school buses able to deliver a crushing nuclear deterrent to the Russian heartland?

Randy

Poor diversion.


The belief that there is no deity, is a fundamental belief that leads to an understanding of the universe, and shapes how one believes they should or could interact with others.

It's fundamental. It's a foundation.


Try to get it. I know it's hard, but try.

steveksux
01-05-2011, 23:52
Poor diversion.Its structurally the same as your argument from the definitions of religion. So you're right, its a poor diversion, as poor as yours claiming atheism is a religion. That's what I've been trying to tell you... ;)


The belief that there is no deity, is a fundamental belief that leads to an understanding of the universe, and shapes how one believes they should or could interact with others.

It's fundamental. It's a foundation.


Try to get it. I know it's hard, but try.I even disagree with that.

Believing in God making the universe IS fundamental to understanding the universe, obviously, God was the one that did it, the Bible describes it (or whatever creation myth any particular religion espouses). And as far as how people should act with others, since God's watching and doesn't like you treating people bad, God will have consequences in store for you. That's fundamental, that's a foundation. Ties history, the universe, morality, all into a nice neat package based on God.

Other religions are the same way. That doesn't mean the converse is fundamental also.

Because if you believe there's no God, that tells you absolutely nothing about the universe and how it was created. You need to turn to something else to fill that void. Science, cosmology. Not sure what that tells you about how to interact with people. You can treat people nice because you think the Golden Rule is a good idea, and you believe in fairness, or you can treat them like crap cause there's no Hell to worry about. You're wide open on that front.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-06-2011, 05:03
Most religions believe in free choice. There are many evil people that believe in god. It's not like everyone that believes there is a god is without sin. Wouldn't that make religious people just as free spirited as the Atheists? The religious services in prison are pretty well attended.

Atheists are potentially constrained by fear of the consequences of their actions in this life. The only difference is whether it ends at death or not.


There are good AND bad people within most groups.

ksg0245
01-06-2011, 12:59
Poor diversion.


The belief that there is no deity, is a fundamental belief that leads to an understanding of the universe, and shapes how one believes they should or could interact with others.

It's fundamental. It's a foundation.


Try to get it. I know it's hard, but try.

Science leads to understanding the universe. Science isn't atheism.

Atheism is not the belief there is no deity. It is the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deity.

Try to understand the differences.

ksg0245
01-06-2011, 13:18
The bold stuff is pretty clear.

The ones that know for sure there is no deity, are pretty devoted to that belief.


I tend t lead toward Merriam-Websters, at least for American English.

Most of our posters are American, and they should learn the language.

Ironic advice. Atheists must also be wicked, since that's included in Merriam-Websters.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
Definition of ATHEISM
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

No part of that definition claims certain knowledge. Why do you keep insisting otherwise? Why do you keep ignoring "a disbelief in the existence of deity"?

From the Oxford English Dictionary (on Kindle):

atheist: n. a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods

agnostic: n. a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God

religion: n. 1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods
2. a particular system of faith and worship
3. a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion

Is "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods" claiming to know whether deities exist?

How is atheism "a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion"? It's merely a term to describe people who don't believe in deities. You earlier derided my reference to football as "religion," (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16471548&postcount=534) and yet here are highlighting that definition (since you bolded that part of the definition which would include football as a "religion"). Can you explain how that isn't equivocating?

ksg0245
01-06-2011, 13:29
I only claim to know what the definition of atheist is. It is entirely possible, and I've proposed the possibility many times in this thread that many people that believe they are atheists, are actually agnostic. The definition of the word atheist is quite clear. "one who believes that there is no deity" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist?show=0&t=1294272764).

It's been pointed out to you several times by several people that that is not the only or even primary definition of the term. Why do you keep insisting it is, when even the definitions you yourself have presented don't support your claim? Why do you insist that the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive when that isn't the case, since one concerns belief and the other concerns knowledge?

If you believe that I have not clearly stated my own belief, you have not read the entire thread. That's a homework assignment now. Please, do not base an ad hom attack on your failure to read the thread, it's rude.

I know for a fact you haven't clearly stated your belief, and have clearly stated why several times. It is not an ad hom to point out you've consistently dodge the question of whether or not you believe deities exist. You keep claiming you've stated your belief, when in fact all you've stated is that you believe it's possible deities may or may not exist, not whether or not you believe they do. The question isn't about what you think is possible; it's whether you believe deities exist. Given your refusal to answer thus far, I suspect your dodging is deliberate.

ksg0245
01-06-2011, 13:31
Randy,

You've missed the point. It's not about cats and dogs, and the part of your post above highlighted in red would be better attributed to an agnostic, than an atheist.


Agnostics don't have proof, so choose to reserve judgment. Some lean toward atheism, some lean toward theism. I'm pretty sure I'm smack dab in middle. There may be, or there may not be. There is some pretty good evidence both ways, but there is also the problem of which deity is the right deity....

So, I don't know. I freely admit it.


By definition, atheists know there is no deity.

Then please post a link to the definition that clearly states "atheists know there is no deity."

I respect polite theists, as well as polite atheists. I, personally, don't like either group pushing their religious beliefs onto me.


It is a religion. Some ill mannered atheists find pleasure in pointing out the inconsistencies within religious texts and beliefs.

I'm just intrigued by the fact that many self identified atheists, cannot admit that atheism is just as much a religious belief as believing that Buddha was right about his model of reality.

If you know the truth of the origins of the universe, prove it. If you can convince me, I might convert.....


Personally, I am convinced that none of us know for sure. If the way you believe, makes you a better neighbor, then I applaud you, and your belief system. Otherwise, you're just another ant in the ant hill.

Cavalry Doc
01-06-2011, 18:31
Science leads to understanding the universe. Science isn't atheism.

Atheism is not the belief there is no deity. It is the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deity.

Try to understand the differences.

Atheists believe that there is no deity. Look up the Merriam Websters Definition of ATHEIST (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist). Science is a a process that humans developed to discover the truth.

http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/investigate/images/asci_pro.jpg

There is no scientific proof that a deity does not exist. There is no scientific proof that a deity exists. We learn about our environment, enough to manipulate it even. But we really don't know whether things just are, or were they made.


Science is a good thing. I get to use scientific discoveries every day that help people.

The difference is whether or not you have reserved judgment, or decided. If you have decided, without proof, it is a matter of faith. A religious belief.



I can't help it if you have not been using the correct definition of the word "atheist".


Not my fault at all. I'm just the messenger.

Cavalry Doc
01-06-2011, 18:33
Then please post a link to the definition that clearly states "atheists know there is no deity."

Read the thread next time. I have posted it many times.

Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist)

Cavalry Doc
01-06-2011, 18:37
It's been pointed out to you several times by several people that that is not the only or even primary definition of the term. Why do you keep insisting it is, when even the definitions you yourself have presented don't support your claim? Why do you insist that the terms 'atheist' and 'agnostic' are mutually exclusive when that isn't the case, since one concerns belief and the other concerns knowledge?



I know for a fact you haven't clearly stated your belief, and have clearly stated why several times. It is not an ad hom to point out you've consistently dodge the question of whether or not you believe deities exist. You keep claiming you've stated your belief, when in fact all you've stated is that you believe it's possible deities may or may not exist, not whether or not you believe they do. The question isn't about what you think is possible; it's whether you believe deities exist. Given your refusal to answer thus far, I suspect your dodging is deliberate.

If you know for a fact that I have not clearly stated my beliefs, maybe you could tell me which series of posts exist where I dodged the question?

I'll then post the post numbers of where I did state my beliefs clearly.


I could personally save a lot of time if you would read each post in the thread.

:wavey:

steveksux
01-06-2011, 20:59
Most religions believe in free choice. There are many evil people that believe in god. It's not like everyone that believes there is a god is without sin. Wouldn't that make religious people just as free spirited as the Atheists? The religious services in prison are pretty well attended.But atheism doesn't have any ethical guidelines attached, religions do. People may not follow them, but there's nothing to follow if you're an Atheist.

Atheists are potentially constrained by fear of the consequences of their actions in this life. The only difference is whether it ends at death or not.Good point, religions do generally specify some sort of afterlife which contains rewards for good followers, another thing that distinguishes atheists from theists..

There are good AND bad people within most groups.Very true, no argument from me here...

Randy

FL2NV
01-06-2011, 21:35
But atheism doesn't have any ethical guidelines attached, religions do. People may not follow them, but there's nothing to follow if you're an Atheist.

And that's probably why most people who are atheists, are atheists. They want to do what they want without having to answer to anyone...but they will..

steveksux
01-06-2011, 21:39
There is no scientific proof that a deity does not exist. There is no scientific proof that a deity exists. We learn about our environment, enough to manipulate it even. But we really don't know whether things just are, or were they made. Every single physical thing that was at one time attributed to divine influence or described based on scriptural interpretations that has been figured out by scientists, has been found to have a physical cause, laws that describe and control the process. None have had a supernatural component. Not one single one. This track record has held true for hundreds of years, all sorts of phenomenon. Belief in atheism doesn't require faith, there's a pretty extensive track record behind its assertions. That is faith based on a preponderance of available evidence.

Certainly if God exists He's capable of hiding from scientists, it would be easy if He can create the universe and make it work, He who creates the rules can break them. But that's not something someone that requires evidence to believe in would believe. That's something someone with blind faith would believe. If you already believe in something super powerful without verifiable proof, its easy enough to add another layer of powers that preclude your experiments from detecting Him.

Atheists believe in no Deity because of no evidence of deity. They don't make up more unprovable stuff as a fallback when there are setbacks discovered in what they believe in.

Because atheism isn't based on blind faith, religion is. Doesn't make one right and the other wrong, it does however make them entirely different animals.


The difference is whether or not you have reserved judgment, or decided. If you have decided, without proof, it is a matter of faith. A religious belief. Except without the religious part. There's plenty of evidence that the natural world is natural, without needing a supernatural being. All sorts of things about the structure, shape, history of the Earth, the universe, the sun, chemistry, the list goes on and on. All these things have been shown to be natural phenomenon. After all this, believing there is no Deity behind it is simply recognizing an unwavering pattern that's held true for hundreds of years, since the first primitive scientists started figuring out how things work.

This is a far different type of faith than the blind faith that religions are based on, with no repeatable, detectable experiments to confirm their assertions.

It is a faith born of reason, not a blind faith.

Having said all that, maybe God is a watchmaker that doesn't want to wind watches, and made the world such that it runs on its own without needing His input to keep the wheels spinning. God doesn't want us to catch Him winding His watch, so he made a self winder... That's a perfectly good explanation for why we haven't been able to detect the hand of God. But again, faith in that is a blind faith suitable for a religion, the only thing going for it is that it buttresses your existing faith.

An Atheist, wanting evidence of a deity before he'll consider it a possibility, won't be swayed by another "just so" story that explains why God has made Himself undetectable based on nothing but speculation that's itself totally unsupported by any evidence.

I can't help it if you have not been using the correct definition of the word "atheist".I think part of the problem is you have not been using a consistent definition of "faith".

Randy

Jayhawkai
01-06-2011, 22:06
And that's probably why most people who are atheists, are atheists. They want to do what they want without having to answer to anyone...but they will..

Except that crime stats show that atheists in general are the least likely to "do what they want without having to answer to everyone."

Perhaps it's the total lack of evidence of a god that fails to persuade them.

ksg0245
01-07-2011, 08:53
And that's probably why most people who are atheists, are atheists. They want to do what they want without having to answer to anyone...but they will..

No, they want evidence before accepting unsupported claims. It has nothing at all to do with "without having to answer to anyone."

ksg0245
01-07-2011, 09:54
If you know for a fact that I have not clearly stated my beliefs, maybe you could tell me which series of posts exist where I dodged the question?

I'll then post the post numbers of where I did state my beliefs clearly.


I could personally save a lot of time if you would read each post in the thread.

:wavey:

It's ironic you keep complaining I haven't read the thread, when almost every one of your answers to the atheists in this thread indicates you aren't reading the questions put to you by atheists.

The question has always been about what you believe. You change the question to what you "believe" you know, thinking (apparently) that addresses whether you believe; it doesn't.

In post 5, (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16262697) you failed to answer either of mikeflys1's questions, which I read as pointing out the absurdity of defining a lack of something as the thing lacked. An interesting foreshadowing of responses to come.

In post 6 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=16262714), you dodged void's question about your belief in the existence of Vishnu; "I don't know" isn't a statement about your belief, but about your knowledge, or lack therefor, as has been repeated pointed out to you. You have yet to answer the actual question.

In post 14 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16262976&postcount=14), you dodged void's question again using the exact same tactic.

In post 19 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16263479&postcount=19), you dodged void's question again using the same tactic.

In post 22 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16263587&postcount=22), you dodged void's question again. You literally changed the question to fit your answer "You are asking if Vishnu exists or not, and I have answered that I am uncertain," which of course wasn't the question at all, but sure made it easy to dodge the one asked.

In post 25 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16263616&postcount=23]post 23[/url], you told mikeflys1 "You profess to know, without proof" when he had done no such thing; what he'd done is point out that "atheism" and "agnosticism" aren't mutually exclusive terms. You then went on to dodge his question regarding whether you believe deities exist as if it were a question of knowledge.

In post 83, you again offered the argument from design, with a little argument from ignorance thrown in.

In [url="http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16265613&postcount=87), you tried to make the question about possibilities, rather than belief.

That's out of the first 100 or so posts in this thread; I don't really feel it's necessary to cite every instance, since I think the point is made, but I'm game. Now, if you're going to post numbers to more statements like "I don't know" and "I believe it's possible" as refutation, don't bother; they will remain dodges.

ksg0245
01-07-2011, 09:58
Read the thread next time. I have posted it many times.

Here's my request again: "Then please post a link to the definition that clearly states 'atheists know there is no deity.'"

Your response: "Definition of ATHEIST: one who believes that there is no deity"

In your dictionary, are "know" and "believe" synonyms?

ksg0245
01-07-2011, 10:08
Atheists believe that there is no deity. Look up the Merriam Websters Definition of ATHEIST (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist). Science is a a process that humans developed to discover the truth.

http://www.curriculumsupport.education.nsw.gov.au/investigate/images/asci_pro.jpg

There is no scientific proof that a deity does not exist. There is no scientific proof that a deity exists. We learn about our environment, enough to manipulate it even. But we really don't know whether things just are, or were they made.


Science is a good thing. I get to use scientific discoveries every day that help people.

The difference is whether or not you have reserved judgment, or decided. If you have decided, without proof, it is a matter of faith. A religious belief.

Ah, back to equivocation on terms like "faith" and "religion."

I can't help it if you have not been using the correct definition of the word "atheist".

So all the cited definitions you've been given that don't fit your agenda are incorrect? That must make life easy.

Not my fault at all. I'm just the messenger.

A messenger apparently unwilling to look at any evidence indicating he's wrong.

ksg0245
01-07-2011, 10:12
Name calling?? That's not called for. Learn to converse with adults, or post elsewhere.


If what you say is true, then Dawkins is an agnostic, not an athiest. he may even be an atheistic agnostic, but according to the English language, I'm right.

athe·ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

Don't shoot the messenger. It may be a surprise, but correct word usage is a skill, and the definition fits, or it doesn't. And it does.

Does the definition you provided use the term "know" or "knowledge"?

Now, why is it so hard to admit?

As you've already been informed, because it's wrong.

Cavalry Doc
01-08-2011, 06:42
Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1
a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real <ideals we believe in> <believes in ghosts>
2
: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something <believe in exercise>
3
: to hold an opinion : think <I believe so> (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe)





:dunno:

Careby
01-08-2011, 08:32
Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb...

You posted the definition of believe when used as an intransitive verb. Since this thread seems to be entirely about semantics, little details like this are important. There is a difference between "I believe" and "I believe something".

Definition of BELIEVE
transitive verb (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe?show=0&t=1294495304)
1 a : to consider to be true or honest (believe the reports) (you wouldn't believe how long it took)
b : to accept the word or evidence of (I believe you) (couldn't believe my ears)
2: to hold as an opinion : suppose (I believe it will rain soon) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe?show=0&t=1294495304)
The definition for atheist you posted previously (one who believes that there is no deity) uses believe as a transitive verb, therefore the definition of believe as an intransitive verb is not relevant to the discussion.

Merriam-Webster's definition of atheist (one who believes that there is no deity) differs from The Oxford English Dictionary definition (a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods). So Merriam's use of the word believe, and their definition for it, becomes important. Is believing something a religious act? Based on Meriam-Webster's definition for believe as a transitive verb, I conclude that according to them, no, it is not. If I am correct in my conclusion, then the two dictionaries are not at odds with each other on exactly what an atheist is.

void *
01-08-2011, 09:06
And that's probably why most people who are atheists, are atheists. They want to do what they want without having to answer to anyone...but they will..

Is a supernatural deity the *only* entity that humans answer to? I can go out and do whatever I want as long as I don't believe in any gods, and when the cops come after me, I can pull out my atheist card and they'll shrug their shoulders and say 'Oh, he's one of those, we can't touch him!"?

I don't think so. The argument that atheists don't believe because they want to do whatever they want without answering to anyone is complete and utter bollocks.

steveksux
01-08-2011, 14:30
Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1
a : to have a firm religious faith b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real
2
: to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something
3
: to hold an opinion : think

:dunno:Just checking if you consider "thinking" or "holding an opnion" to be a firm religious belief, that's exactly the same "quirk of the english language" that you use to claim atheism is a religion... :tongueout:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-08-2011, 14:46
Just checking if you consider "thinking" or "holding an opnion" to be a firm religious belief, that's exactly the same "quirk of the english language" that you use to claim atheism is a religion... :tongueout:

Randy

Guess I didn't highlight enough of the definition before doing the cut and paste. Wasn't trying to conceal anything, hence the link.


I think the definition fits quite nicely, one way or the other.

ksg0245
01-08-2011, 19:47
:dunno:

To be clear, then, in your opinion Merriam Webster's definition 1a of 'believe' is the only one appropriate regarding atheists' position on deities?

Is "are 'know' and 'believe' synonyms?" another question you won't be answering?

steveksux
01-09-2011, 10:53
On a related note, I have, thanks to another quirk in the English language, taught my cat to speak. When he wants to go outside, he quite clearly says "Me out"... :tongueout:

Bet you can't teach a French cat to say that!

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-09-2011, 11:03
To be clear, then, in your opinion Merriam Webster's definition 1a of 'believe' is the only one appropriate regarding atheists' position on deities?

Is "are 'know' and 'believe' synonyms?" another question you won't be answering?

There are several pages of explanation. Have you read them all?

Edited to add: Exact synonyms? No, but similar meanings, to the point of being synonyms of other words concurrently, yes.


Main Entry: deem
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: regard, consider
Synonyms: account, allow, appraise, assume, be afraid, believe , calculate, conceive, conjecture, credit, daresay, divine, esteem, estimate, expect, feel, guess, hold, imagine, judge, know, presume, reckon, sense, set store by, suppose, surmise, suspect, think, understand, view



Main Entry: apprehend
Part of Speech: verb
Definition: understand
Synonyms: absorb, accept, appreciate, believe, catch, comprehend, conceive, digest, fathom, get, get the picture, grasp, have, imagine, know, perceive, read, realize, recognize, sense, think
Antonyms: misunderstand

ksg0245
01-09-2011, 18:47
There are several pages of explanation. Have you read them all?

I apologize for the ambiguity of my previous response; yes, I've read the entire thread, more than once, actually, since I've gone back to see if I've missed something. That's how I know (to perceive directly : have direct cognition of; to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of) you've been dodging.

Edited to add: Exact synonyms? No, but similar meanings, to the point of being synonyms of other words concurrently, yes.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/know
Definition of KNOW
transitive verb
1 a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern
b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2 a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of
b : to have a practical understanding of {knows how to write}
3 archaic : to have sexual intercourse with
...
Related to KNOW
Synonyms: comprehend, grasp, understand
Antonyms: miss

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/believe?show=0&t=1294618256
Definition of BELIEVE
intransitive verb
1 a : to have a firm religious faith
b : to accept something as true, genuine, or real {ideals we believe in} {believes in ghosts}
2 : to have a firm conviction as to the goodness, efficacy, or ability of something {believe in exercise}
3 : to hold an opinion : think {I believe so}
...
Related to BELIEVE
Synonyms: accept, buy, credit, swallow, take, trust, set store by (or on)
Antonyms: disbelieve, discredit, reject

So, in light of all that, is it your opinion Merriam Webster's definition 1a of 'believe' is the only one appropriate regarding atheists' position on deities? Your unwavering insistence that atheism is a religion certainly makes it appear so.

Can you provide a cite for the definition of the term 'atheist' that specifies knowledge of the nonexistence of deities?

As an aside, I would draw your attention to the antonyms (a word of opposite meaning) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/antonym?show=0&t=1294619442) for believe, and how they relate to

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity

and

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
: one who believes that there is no deity

Despite their own definitions, Merriam Webster seems to think 'believe' and 'disbelieve' have the same meaning, rather than opposite meanings.

Cavalry Doc
01-09-2011, 19:23
I'd accept any of the definitions of "believe". One may apply, even in the absence of others.

I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.

steveksux
01-09-2011, 19:41
I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.If that means religion in a fashion unlike all the other theistic religions, more akin to the "hockey is a religion in Canada" definition of religion, then no particular objection.

If you mean the same meaning of religion as in theistic religions, at least if you mean believe in the sense of believing in spite of a lack of evidence to support that conclusion, then I can't argue with it as a statement of faith, not of fact...

Randy

Ron3
01-11-2011, 22:56
I believe this is a good debate. (Oh, does that make it a religion? ;))

As an atheist I know there are no "supreme beings". It's not faith it's what I know.

Atheism is not a religion. It's the rejection of religion. No faith, no prayers, no mantra, no gods, no afterlife, no miracles, no sacred objects, no special days, no guidelines, no rules.

Atheism is not a complete value system. It's only a peice.

Theism is also not a complete value system.

If you ask a christian what their religion is they will not answer, "theist".

Being agnostic is also not a religion.

Religious "faith" and religious "belief" are only displayed when one questions or has any doubt in their religion. Having "faith" and "believing" is not a religion. If you know your religion is certain you are not making a "leap of faith". You know and there is no question requiring faith or belief. Two apples plus two apples IS four apples. No faith or belief neccessary. BUT even if you weren't sure about how many apples it was and had faith and belief of a total number that still is not a religion.

Some of you are chasing word definitions like Buddhists though!!

weemsf50
01-11-2011, 22:59
I believe this is a good debate. (Oh, does that make it a religion? ;))

As an atheist I know there are no "supreme beings". It's not faith it's what I know.

Atheism is not a religion. It's the rejection of religion. No faith, no prayers, no mantra, no gods, no afterlife, no miracles, no sacred objects, no special days, no guidelines, no rules.

Atheism is not a complete value system. It's only a peice.

Theism is also not a complete value system.

If you ask a christian what their religion is they will not answer, "theist".

Being agnostic is also not a religion.

Religious "faith" and religious "belief" are only displayed when one questions or has any doubt in their religion. Having "faith" and "believing" is not a religion. If you know your religion is certain you are not making a "leap of faith". You know and there is no question requiring faith or belief. Two apples plus two apples IS four apples. No faith or belief neccessary. BUT even if you weren't sure about how many apples it was and had faith and belief of a total number that still is not a religion.

Some of you are chasing word definitions like Buddhists though!!

I support non-theists right to define themselves as they please. It is apparent though that all people have some systme of principles that they believe but cannot prove pass a simple, "It is what I believe."

Kingarthurhk
01-15-2011, 05:06
And because its a pet peeve:

The terms atheist and agnostic are not mutually exclusive. You can be an agnostic atheist, an agnostic theist, a gnostic thiest, etc etc.

http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutagnosticism/a/atheism.htm

I am not follwing your point. An Agnostic is simply someone who is not sure what metaphysical model they believe in. An Athiest has made a metaphysical presuposition. The basis of all religion ia a metaphysical assumption or presuposition. There a three different models in which all religious matrixes are encapsulated. There is a Personal god, a Non-Personal god, and a Non-Existant god. All require an equal ammount of faith, because none are provable to anyone who does not or chooses not to believe in that fashion. Examples of a Personal god are the Judeau Christian Godhead, Allah, and various other deities that human kind has come to accept and worship.

A Non-Personal god concept is Panintheism and follows the concept of a an engery force that permiates all things and follows and Easter Religion concept.

A Non-Existant god is the Athiest model.

All of these three sets of unprovable pressupositions make a faith claim, because it takes an equal ammount of faith to asert either one of the three. These presupositions come with necessary coralaries and a matrix with which reality is viewed and interaction with others is conducted, thus forming the basis of a religion.

So, Athiesm is a religious viewpoint. Agnosticism is not, as it has not made a deicision amongst the three Metaphysical Presupositions.

Cavalry Doc
01-15-2011, 09:20
If that means religion in a fashion unlike all the other theistic religions, more akin to the "hockey is a religion in Canada" definition of religion, then no particular objection.

If you mean the same meaning of religion as in theistic religions, at least if you mean believe in the sense of believing in spite of a lack of evidence to support that conclusion, then I can't argue with it as a statement of faith, not of fact...

Randy

Religion, as in a system of beliefs about the origins of the universe and the meaning of life.


It's a profound thing.

Cavalry Doc
01-15-2011, 09:25
I believe this is a good debate. (Oh, does that make it a religion? ;))

As an atheist I know there are no "supreme beings". It's not faith it's what I know.

Atheism is not a religion. It's the rejection of religion. No faith, no prayers, no mantra, no gods, no afterlife, no miracles, no sacred objects, no special days, no guidelines, no rules.

Atheism is not a complete value system. It's only a peice.

Theism is also not a complete value system.

If you ask a christian what their religion is they will not answer, "theist".

Being agnostic is also not a religion.

Religious "faith" and religious "belief" are only displayed when one questions or has any doubt in their religion. Having "faith" and "believing" is not a religion. If you know your religion is certain you are not making a "leap of faith". You know and there is no question requiring faith or belief. Two apples plus two apples IS four apples. No faith or belief neccessary. BUT even if you weren't sure about how many apples it was and had faith and belief of a total number that still is not a religion.

Some of you are chasing word definitions like Buddhists though!!

Firm belief in the absence of proof IS faith.

Atheism is a religion that rejects the involvement or existence of a DEITY.

It is a foundation on which many other beliefs are based. It's the fact that it is so basic, and so fundamental that makes is a religion.

steveksux
01-15-2011, 22:35
Religion, as in a system of beliefs about the origins of the universe and the meaning of life.


It's a profound thing.Funny, atheism tells you nothing about either of those things. So by your own definition, it is clearly not a religion.

See, that was easy!

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-15-2011, 23:46
Funny, atheism tells you nothing about either of those things. So by your own definition, it is clearly not a religion.

See, that was easy!

Randy

Not so easy. An Athiest has made a metaphysical presuposition. The basis of all religion ia a metaphysical assumption or presuposition. There a three different models in which all religious matrixes are encapsulated. There is a Personal god, a Non-Personal god, and a Non-Existant god. All require an equal ammount of faith, because none are provable to anyone who does not or chooses not to believe in that fashion. Examples of a Personal god are the Judeau Christian Godhead, Allah, and various other deities that human kind has come to accept and worship.

A Non-Personal god concept is Panintheism and follows the concept of a an engery force that permiates all things and follows and Easter Religion concept.

A Non-Existant god is the Athiest model.

All of these three sets of unprovable pressupositions make a faith claim, because it takes an equal ammount of faith to asert either one of the three. These presupositions come with necessary coralaries and a matrix with which reality is viewed and interaction with others is conducted, thus forming the basis of a religion.

So, Athiesm is a religious viewpoint. <!-- / message -->

Ersatz
01-16-2011, 00:09
Not so easy. An Athiest has made a metaphysical presuposition. The basis of all religion ia a metaphysical assumption or presuposition. There a three different models in which all religious matrixes are encapsulated. There is a Personal god, a Non-Personal god, and a Non-Existant god. All require an equal ammount of faith, because none are provable to anyone who does not or chooses not to believe in that fashion. Examples of a Personal god are the Judeau Christian Godhead, Allah, and various other deities that human kind has come to accept and worship.

A Non-Personal god concept is Panintheism and follows the concept of a an engery force that permiates all things and follows and Easter Religion concept.

A Non-Existant god is the Athiest model.

All of these three sets of unprovable pressupositions make a faith claim, because it takes an equal ammount of faith to asert either one of the three. These presupositions come with necessary coralaries and a matrix with which reality is viewed and interaction with others is conducted, thus forming the basis of a religion.

So, Athiesm is a religious viewpoint. <!-- / message -->

... oh look, another one...

You effectively just claimed that vacuum is made up of toadstools.

Also, did you just quantify faith?

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 00:32
... oh look, another one...

You effectively just claimed that vacuum is made up of toadstools.

Also, did you just quantify faith?

The joys of philosophy. My point is, no matter of the three metaphysical choices you make, they all require an equal amount of faith. You cannot prove there is no god, that is a faith statement, or pressuposition on your part. That would come with necessary corolaries and the matrix in which you view reality. This is the basis of all religion, ergo Atheism is a religious viewpoint.

steveksux
01-16-2011, 01:15
Not so easy. An Athiest has made a metaphysical presuposition. The basis of all religion ia a metaphysical assumption or presuposition. There a three different models in which all religious matrixes are encapsulated. There is a Personal god, a Non-Personal god, and a Non-Existant god. All require an equal ammount of faith, because none are provable to anyone who does not or chooses not to believe in that fashion. Examples of a Personal god are the Judeau Christian Godhead, Allah, and various other deities that human kind has come to accept and worship.

A Non-Personal god concept is Panintheism and follows the concept of a an engery force that permiates all things and follows and Easter Religion concept.
So far so good.
A Non-Existant god is the Athiest model.Which is why its NOT a religion. Nobody to worship. Nobody created everything. Nobody to reward you in the afterlife, which also doesn't exist. Gee what's missing from the atheist "religion" that all the other religions have.... its not just belief, its belief in supernatural stuff.

All of these three sets of unprovable pressupositions make a faith claim, because it takes an equal ammount of faith to asert either one of the three. These presupositions come with necessary coralaries and a matrix with which reality is viewed and interaction with others is conducted, thus forming the basis of a religion.It takes a lot more faith to believe in stuff that has no proof than to believe only in things you can prove. Even if atheism requires faith, it takes more than faith to have a religion. I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. That doesn't create a religion based on that faith.
So, Athiesm is a religious viewpoint. <!-- / message -->Atheism is non-religious viewpoint. Based on lack of religion. See how that works? A vacuum is not a type of atmosphere. Dry is not a kind of wetness.

Randy

steveksux
01-16-2011, 01:21
The joys of philosophy. My point is, no matter of the three metaphysical choices you make, they all require an equal amount of faith. You cannot prove there is no god, that is a faith statement, or pressuposition on your part. That would come with necessary corolaries and the matrix in which you view reality. This is the basis of all religion, ergo Atheism is a religious viewpoint.:rofl::rofl::rofl: Except for the whole supernatural being being behind everything being the basis for all religions, which atheism lacks... along with nothing to worship... If that's true, then this is an automobile. http://www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedImages/articles/issues/2007-08-01/Tire.jpg

I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. Can I claim I'm a religion and stop paying my taxes now?

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 12:31
So far so good.Which is why its NOT a religion. Nobody to worship. Nobody created everything. Nobody to reward you in the afterlife, which also doesn't exist. Gee what's missing from the atheist "religion" that all the other religions have.... its not just belief, its belief in supernatural stuff.

It takes a lot more faith to believe in stuff that has no proof than to believe only in things you can prove. Even if atheism requires faith, it takes more than faith to have a religion. I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. That doesn't create a religion based on that faith.
Atheism is non-religious viewpoint. Based on lack of religion. See how that works? A vacuum is not a type of atmosphere. Dry is not a kind of wetness.

Randy

Again, my point is it requires just as much faith to say that there isn't a personal God/gods, and there is a God/gods, or there is a non-personal god. None of the above can be proven to anyone, it comes down to belief. Belief is not based on a scientific method, tberefore it must be based upon faith. This of course brings us to the Wager Theory, or Pascal's Wager which has the following concept, "
The philosophy uses the following logic (excerpts from Pensées (http://www.glocktalk.com/wiki/Pens%C3%A9es), part III, note 233):

"God is, or He is not"
A Game is being played... where heads or tails will turn up.
According to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.
You must wager. It is not optional.
Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing.
Wager, then, without hesitation that He is. (...) There is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite. And so our proposition is of infinite force, when there is the finite to stake in a game where there are equal risks of gain and of loss, and the infinite to gain."
Even without needing to contemplate it from a Wager Theory, by disclosure I will admit that I have put my faith in the Personal God as represented in the Judeau Christian religion. Based upon that belief there is a corolary that there is a Revelation (or inspired codified knowledge that the God has determined to reveal about himself, because He is a Personal God. This Reveltion contains in it expectations or a moral code, which provides meaning/purpose to life, forming a matrix to in which all reality is viewed.

Now, for the Non-Existant god, there is no communication/revelation, thus no moral code, which provides no meaning/purpose to life, and forms a matrix for which all reality is viewed. Both forma a religious viewpoint, because both make unprovable assertions about the Metaphysical.

So, based upon the Wager Theory and the models of choice, I would rather go with the first example rather than the latter. I would rather look forward to a positive future than having a model that has none at all.

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 12:38
:rofl::rofl::rofl: Except for the whole supernatural being being behind everything being the basis for all religions, which atheism lacks... along with nothing to worship... If that's true, then this is an automobile. http://www.motherearthnews.com/uploadedImages/articles/issues/2007-08-01/Tire.jpg

I have faith the sun will come up tomorrow. Can I claim I'm a religion and stop paying my taxes now?

Randy


Religions are not tax exempt. Some religious organizations are. But I seriously doubt that you are going to hold the IRS up as the arbitrator of truth, are you?

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 12:43
Funny, atheism tells you nothing about either of those things. So by your own definition, it is clearly not a religion.

See, that was easy!

Randy

It tells you that there was no intelligence involved in our being. That things just.....are.

That is a very basic belief, one that is a foundation for many others.

I'm not using my definition of religion, I'm using merriam-websters.

Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Atheism is a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. It fits. Not my fault, really. But it fits within the dictionary definition, as well as the spirit, a system of beliefs about the ultimate truth of the origins of our being.

steveksux
01-16-2011, 14:42
I am not follwing your point. An Agnostic is simply someone who is not sure what metaphysical model they believe in. An Athiest has made a metaphysical presuposition. The basis of all religion ia a metaphysical assumption or presuposition. There a three different models in which all religious matrixes are encapsulated. There is a Personal god, a Non-Personal god, and a Non-Existant god. All require an equal ammount of faith, because none are provable to anyone who does not or chooses not to believe in that fashion. Examples of a Personal god are the Judeau Christian Godhead, Allah, and various other deities that human kind has come to accept and worship.

A Non-Personal god concept is Panintheism and follows the concept of a an engery force that permiates all things and follows and Easter Religion concept.

A Non-Existant god is the Athiest model.

All of these three sets of unprovable pressupositions make a faith claim, because it takes an equal ammount of faith to asert either one of the three. These presupositions come with necessary coralaries and a matrix with which reality is viewed and interaction with others is conducted, thus forming the basis of a religion.

So, Athiesm is a religious viewpoint. Agnosticism is not, as it has not made a deicision amongst the three Metaphysical Presupositions.Faith is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to make something a religion. With nothing to worship, nothing supernatural, no rituals, it simply is not a religion.

Can't put it any simpler than that. Its not a religion in the sense of the word that describes every other religion in the known world. It's significant that you ignore the definition that does match all the actual religions in order to pick the one that doesn't match any other religions as well to attempt to make the point that they are similar. That very act of choosing so carefully makes the point rather eloquently that they are not the same, not even similar, really.

If you're trying to make the point they are in fact similar, you've failed spectactularly. If you're trying to make a useless semantic argument that makes no sense when looked at closely, bravo.
Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 16:03
Faith is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to make something a religion. With nothing to worship, nothing supernatural, no rituals, it simply is not a religion.

Can't put it any simpler than that. Its not a religion in the sense of the word that describes every other religion in the known world. It's significant that you ignore the definition that does match all the actual religions in order to pick the one that doesn't match any other religions as well to attempt to make the point that they are similar. That very act of choosing so carefully makes the point rather eloquently that they are not the same, not even similar, really.

If you're trying to make the point they are in fact similar, you've failed spectactularly. If you're trying to make a useless semantic argument that makes no sense when looked at closely, bravo.
Randy

Faith is the basis of all religion. Without faith there is no religion. You have put your faith in the concept there is no God. I have put mine in the opposite. But, to break down Pascal to more simplistic terms: If you are right and I am wrong-what have I lost? But, if I am right and you are wrong-what have you lost? Do you carry insurance, and if so-why? That would indicate that you have a need to insure your health and financial well being. But, if there is that urge of self-preservation, why choose the system that contains no future?

Having weighed the options, if I were in a similar position I would seek out the possibility of continued existance. Now, I understand often with religious choices there is often a lot of emotional baggage associated with it. My grandmother had such an anger toward anything other than Athiesm that any discussion of anything else would send her into an angry outburst. She also died, loosing her mind, because of that choice; because from her perspective once she died there was nothing more forever. That was it.

From her perspective there were no revelation, no meaning, no purpose to existance. When she died, this concept overwhelmed her to the point it overwhelmed her sanity. She had a horrible lingering death.

So, I would rather take the sure thing offered freely to have eternal life, than to obstinately push it aside and die as she did. So, beyond the aspect of faith is our ability to reason, we were given minds and a desire to fill some sort of metaphysical aspect in our lives.

I posit, that for the Athiest there is an object of worship-intellectualism and probably a bit of hedonism as there is no standard moral code. The things we devote ourselves the most could arguably be considered and object of worship.

Japle
01-16-2011, 16:28
Cavalry Doc, Here’s the exact quote from the Miriam-Webster online dictionary:

Definition of RELIGION
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

#1 - Obviously doesn’t apply to an Atheist.
#2 – An Atheist has no religious practices. Since the definition requites a “system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices” (all three) this one doesn’t apply, either.
#3 – “Scrupulous conformity” as in “He washes his car religiously every Saturday”, doesn’t apply.
#4 – “Ardor” I can agree with. Faith isn’t required. Faith and belief get in the way of learning.

steveksux
01-16-2011, 17:16
Faith is the basis of all religion. Without faith there is no religion. That's what I just said. Its is a necessary condition for religion. Faith by itself is not sufficient to make something a religion. Necessary, but not sufficient. I can have absolute faith that the sun will come up in the morning, that doesn't mean its a religious belief.

You have put your faith in the concept there is no God. I have put mine in the opposite. But, to break down Pascal to more simplistic terms: If you are right and I am wrong-what have I lost? But, if I am right and you are wrong-what have you lost? Do you carry insurance, and if so-why? That would indicate that you have a need to insure your health and financial well being. But, if there is that urge of self-preservation, why choose the system that contains no future?

Having weighed the options, if I were in a similar position I would seek out the possibility of continued existance. Now, I understand often with religious choices there is often a lot of emotional baggage associated with it. My grandmother had such an anger toward anything other than Athiesm that any discussion of anything else would send her into an angry outburst. She also died, loosing her mind, because of that choice; because from her perspective once she died there was nothing more forever. That was it.

From her perspective there were no revelation, no meaning, no purpose to existance. When she died, this concept overwhelmed her to the point it overwhelmed her sanity. She had a horrible lingering death.

So, I would rather take the sure thing offered freely to have eternal life, than to obstinately push it aside and die as she did. So, beyond the aspect of faith is our ability to reason, we were given minds and a desire to fill some sort of metaphysical aspect in our lives.Sorry she went through all that. However, all that is totally irrelevant to whether atheism is a religion.

I posit, that for the Athiest there is an object of worship-intellectualism and probably a bit of hedonism as there is no standard moral code. The things we devote ourselves the most could arguably be considered and object of worship.Your posit is a massive fail. If you wish to twist the meaning of worship that defines a religion into something totally unrecognizable to attempt to include atheism, you're not different than Cavalry Doc for playing word games with the definition of "religion" to attempt to include atheism as a religion.

Religions worship something that will intercede on their behalf in the bad times, thank them for the good times, a supernatural being. The sort of thing you posit here regarding atheists is not similar to that in the least.

You guys are both taking words that apply to actual religions and using alternate definitions that are not referring to actual religions to attempt to claim that atheism is a religion. Its semantic sleight of hand, and obviously nonsense to anyone without an overwhelming desire to believe it true at all costs. I could as well claim football players practice tackling on bridge hands because both of those things can be found in definitions of dummy by Webster.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 17:31
That's what I just said. Its is a necessary condition for religion. Faith by itself is not sufficient to make something a religion. Necessary, but not sufficient. I can have absolute faith that the sun will come up in the morning, that doesn't mean its a religious belief.

Sorry she went through all that. However, all that is totally irrelevant to whether atheism is a religion.

Your posit is a massive fail. If you wish to twist the meaning of worship that defines a religion into something totally unrecognizable to attempt to include atheism, you're not different than Cavalry Doc for playing word games with the definition of "religion" to attempt to include atheism as a religion.

Religions worship something that will intercede on their behalf in the bad times, thank them for the good times, a supernatural being. The sort of thing you posit here regarding atheists is not similar to that in the least.

You guys are both taking words that apply to actual religions and using alternate definitions that are not referring to actual religions to attempt to claim that atheism is a religion. Its semantic sleight of hand, and obviously nonsense to anyone without an overwhelming desire to believe it true at all costs. I could as well claim football players practice tackling on bridge hands because both of those things can be found in definitions of dummy by Webster.

Randy

The sun rising each day does not require faith. It is an observable, repeatable, and testable phenoma which falls into the scientific method. Even the blind know the sun rises everyday, because they can feel it on their skin.

However, you cannot prove to anyone that there is no God. It is neither observable, repeatable, or testable. Thus, that requires a faith statement. A faith statement is the cornerstone of religion. A religion defines the matrix in which we view all of reality. Does a Taoist or Confucionist go to a church to worship. No, they typically do not. They both asert a panintheism, or non-personal god faith. They are religions. Athiesm defines the matrix in which reality is viewed, ergo a religion.

steveksux
01-16-2011, 17:34
The sun rising each day does not require faith. It is an observable, repeatable, and testable phenoma which falls into the scientific method. Even the blind know the sun rises everyday, because they can feel it on their skin.

However, you cannot prove to anyone that there is no God. It is neither observable, repeatable, or testable. Thus, that requires a faith statement. A faith statement is the cornerstone of religion. A religion defines the matrix in which we view all of reality. Does a Taoist or Confucionist go to a church to worship. No, they typically do not. They both asert a panintheism, or non-personal god faith. They are religions. Athiesm defines the matrix in which reality is viewed, ergo a religion.I can't put my finger on it, but one of these things is not like the other, no matter how you attempt to twist the definitions. But if I had to guess, religions all have faith in some sort of GOD. A bicycle is not an automobile because they both have wheels. Are you saying that God is irrelevant to the definition of religion? :rofl: Still no worship either.

And for the record, no faith statement is required. If someone chooses to only believe in the observable, repeatable, testable, that requires no faith to believe in anything. In that matrix, belief requires evidence. Not faith. It is impossible to prove a negative after all.

But by all means, if you guys' point is that if you carefully strip away most of the defining characteristics of religion that make religion different from atheism, except for the remaining one that doesn't really fit atheism either unless you turn its definition on its head, and believe that proves atheism is therefore a religion, I guess theres' nothing anybody can do to reason you out of a position you clearly have not reasoned your way into.

Randy

Careby
01-16-2011, 19:48
I've carefully read and tried to understand the arguments here for atheism being a religion and I personally don't buy it. They strike me as strained at best, and in some cases gibberish. This is my personal opinion and conclusion, and I don't expect it to be shared. While I don't think it is productive to attempt to change anyone's mind, let me propose one hypothetical scenario.

Suppose there is an individual who has never been exposed to any religion and has never heard of any God or gods. This individual has not chosen to believe or disbelieve in any supernatural being because he is not familiar with the concept. He has not formed any opinion about whether or not it is possible to know whether or not god exists, because he does not even know what the word "god" means. Clearly he does not "believe in god," and not because he believes there is any proof god does not exist. He does not have "faith" there is no god, because he does not know what that means. I believe such an individual fits the normally accepted definition of atheist, and I believe that his atheism is in no way religious. I would say that he has a complete lack of religion. Now some real atheists are very fervent in their belief that there is no God, and very willing to argue the point with ardor, and may even seem to make a religion out of it. But there are many for whom God is just like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - a concept they see no reason to believe or be concerned with. The fact that some people who do believe in God can't fathom this lack of belief or concern does not mean it does not exist.

NMG26
01-16-2011, 20:07
missplaced...........deleted

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 20:38
I've carefully read and tried to understand the arguments here for atheism being a religion and I personally don't buy it. They strike me as strained at best, and in some cases gibberish. This is my personal opinion and conclusion, and I don't expect it to be shared. While I don't think it is productive to attempt to change anyone's mind, let me propose one hypothetical scenario.

Suppose there is an individual who has never been exposed to any religion and has never heard of any God or gods. This individual has not chosen to believe or disbelieve in any supernatural being because he is not familiar with the concept. He has not formed any opinion about whether or not it is possible to know whether or not god exists, because he does not even know what the word "god" means. Clearly he does not "believe in god," and not because he believes there is any proof god does not exist. He does not have "faith" there is no god, because he does not know what that means. I believe such an individual fits the normally accepted definition of atheist, and I believe that his atheism is in no way religious. I would say that he has a complete lack of religion. Now some real atheists are very fervent in their belief that there is no God, and very willing to argue the point with ardor, and may even seem to make a religion out of it. But there are many for whom God is just like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - a concept they see no reason to believe or be concerned with. The fact that some people who do believe in God can't fathom this lack of belief or concern does not mean it does not exist.

So ask the fellow, do you think there is a deity or deities (after you teach the fellow English of course).

He either has an answer or admits he doesn't know.

Theist, Atheist or Agnostic. He'll still land in one of those places.


I think the closest to not having any religion are the agnostics, but it wouldn't hurt my feelings a bit if someone stated my agnostic beliefs were religious in nature.

Atheists seem to have a large amount of heartburn realizing their belief system could accurately be described as a religion. You'd almost think I had committed blasphemy for even suggesting it.

Why is that?

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 20:39
I can't put my finger on it, but one of these things is not like the other, no matter how you attempt to twist the definitions. But if I had to guess, religions all have faith in some sort of GOD. A bicycle is not an automobile because they both have wheels. Are you saying that God is irrelevant to the definition of religion? :rofl: Still no worship either.

And for the record, no faith statement is required. If someone chooses to only believe in the observable, repeatable, testable, that requires no faith to believe in anything. In that matrix, belief requires evidence. Not faith. It is impossible to prove a negative after all.

But by all means, if you guys' point is that if you carefully strip away most of the defining characteristics of religion that make religion different from atheism, except for the remaining one that doesn't really fit atheism either unless you turn its definition on its head, and believe that proves atheism is therefore a religion, I guess theres' nothing anybody can do to reason you out of a position you clearly have not reasoned your way into.

Randy

OK, please list the requirements of a "religion" per the standard American English definitions of the word. Disqualifying the truth based on some unnamed technicality is not gonna cut it.

Sarge1400
01-16-2011, 21:01
Atheists seem to have a large amount of heartburn realizing their belief system could accurately be described as a religion. You'd almost think I had committed blasphemy for even suggesting it.

Why is that?

Here's the thing, Major: up until now (IIRC), you haven't admitted that atheism could be described as a religion, but instead have insisted it must. Several here, myself included, have already conceded that it could be described as a religion, in certain cases.

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 21:02
I've carefully read and tried to understand the arguments here for atheism being a religion and I personally don't buy it. They strike me as strained at best, and in some cases gibberish. This is my personal opinion and conclusion, and I don't expect it to be shared. While I don't think it is productive to attempt to change anyone's mind, let me propose one hypothetical scenario.

Suppose there is an individual who has never been exposed to any religion and has never heard of any God or gods. This individual has not chosen to believe or disbelieve in any supernatural being because he is not familiar with the concept. He has not formed any opinion about whether or not it is possible to know whether or not god exists, because he does not even know what the word "god" means. Clearly he does not "believe in god," and not because he believes there is any proof god does not exist. He does not have "faith" there is no god, because he does not know what that means. I believe such an individual fits the normally accepted definition of atheist, and I believe that his atheism is in no way religious. I would say that he has a complete lack of religion. Now some real atheists are very fervent in their belief that there is no God, and very willing to argue the point with ardor, and may even seem to make a religion out of it. But there are many for whom God is just like Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny - a concept they see no reason to believe or be concerned with. The fact that some people who do believe in God can't fathom this lack of belief or concern does not mean it does not exist.

What you have described in bold is an Agnostic and not an Athiest. An Agnostic hasn't formulated an opinion about the Metaphysical. The Athiest has.

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 21:09
Here's the thing, Major: up until now (IIRC), you haven't admitted that atheism could be described as a religion, but instead have insisted it must. Several here, myself included, have already conceded that it could be described as a religion, in certain cases.

Sarge,

I've never said that it must be described as a religion? I have only argued that it is accurate to do so. It's not necessary to include "the religion" after every utterance of the word "atheist". That would be silly.

Ersatz
01-16-2011, 21:10
OK, please list the requirements of a "religion" per the standard American English definitions of the word. Disqualifying the truth based on some unnamed technicality is not gonna cut it.

That was done on a previous page. All of the definitions were accurately refuted save the fourth, which hinged on whether atheists have "faith."

If you apply "faith" in the way that you have, then mathematics is a religion because it uses imaginary numbers.

You have won your argument. In doing so, you have removed it so far from its base as to also remove any practical meaning.

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 21:21
That was done on a previous page. All of the definitions were accurately refuted save the fourth, which hinged on whether atheists have "faith."

If you apply "faith" in the way that you have, then mathematics is a religion because it uses imaginary numbers.

You have won your argument. In doing so, you have removed it so far from its base as to also remove any practical meaning.

If you admit they are imaginary, do you believe they exist? :dunno:

steveksux
01-16-2011, 21:46
OK, please list the requirements of a "religion" per the standard American English definitions of the word. Disqualifying the truth based on some unnamed technicality is not gonna cut it.

Supernatural beings are the essential hallmark of a religion. Calling "gods" a "technicality" when talking about religions is hilarious coming from the guy that's claiming those who reject religion are religious through semantic games and technicalities.

http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=religion*1+0&amp;dict=A
the belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship
Is Cambridge dictionary English enough for you? Not sure where they got the crazy idea that religions involve worship and gods in addition to mere belief.... Maybe they got it from every single religion in the known world?? :dunno::rofl: If you want to believe the opposite of a religion IS a religion, you're free to do so, but don't expect any rational people to agree with you.

Randy

Snapper2
01-16-2011, 21:48
It is my opinion not a "religion" to believe there is no God. Its the natural state of mankind since the fall. Its up to God now to make or allow us to believe. But we're not so good at following clues though, such as nature itself. He gives more clues but there is nothing in us that seeks after Him.Only after "our knowledge of Him". So He hides Himself in the things we think are foolish so there is no boasting that WE found Him. Psalms says "the fool says in his heart there is no god". You dont have to believe it, or have faith, its a condition we're born with.

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 21:54
Supernatural beings are the essential hallmark of a religion. Calling "gods" a "technicality" when talking about religions is hilarious coming from the guy that's claiming those who reject religion are religious through semantic games.

Randy

Merriam Websters disagrees. It only requires that you believe in something that you cannot prove.

I think it may be that some atheists are actually striving to be anti-religion, and it freaks them out when they find out the word can apply to them also.

If you want to reject all religion, it's not too late to convert to agnosticism, but then you couldn't berate someone for believing in a deity as easily after admitting that you aren't really sure yourself.

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 21:59
It is my opinion not a "religion" to believe there is no God. Its the natural state of mankind since the fall. Its up to God now to make or allow us to believe. But we're not so good at following clues though, such as nature itself. He gives more clues but there is nothing in us that seeks after Him.Only after "our knowledge of Him". So He hides Himself in the things we think are foolish so there is no boasting that WE found Him. Psalms says "the fool says in his heart there is no god". You dont have to believe it, or have faith, its a condition we're born with.

OK. I'll admit it. You lost me there. It's not a religion because god made us that way???

I'm almost certain there is a paradox or two in there somewhere.

steveksux
01-16-2011, 22:01
Merriam Websters disagrees. It only requires that you believe in something that you cannot prove.

I think it may be that some atheists are actually striving to be anti-religion, and it freaks them out when they find out the word can apply to them also.

If you want to reject all religion, it's not too late to convert to agnosticism, but then you couldn't berate someone for believing in a deity as easily after admitting that you aren't really sure yourself.Your misrepresenting the definition doesn't make it true. The first definition is obviously a totally different meaning of the word than the others. conscientiousness is a religion according to #3.

Look up dummy. There's a difference between a tackling dummy and a dummy hand in bridge. According to your strange twist of common sense they are somehow equivalent. They are 2 different concepts using the same word. Flies in the face of common sense to claim otherwise.

The only way atheism is a religion is in a different sense of the word than religions.


Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 22:02
Supernatural beings are the essential hallmark of a religion. Calling "gods" a "technicality" when talking about religions is hilarious coming from the guy that's claiming those who reject religion are religious through semantic games and technicalities.

http://dictionaries.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=religion*1+0&amp;dict=A

Is Cambridge dictionary English enough for you? Not sure where they got the crazy idea that religions involve worship and gods in addition to mere belief.... Maybe they got it from every single religion in the known world?? :dunno::rofl: If you want to believe the opposite of a religion IS a religion, you're free to do so, but don't expect any rational people to agree with you.

Randy

Ask any Brit, they'll tell you we don't speak the queen's English. Good old plain American English is good enough for me.

The Merriam-Websters definition has been posted many times. The final definition of the word religion fits. :wavey:


deja vu?

steveksux
01-16-2011, 22:03
I'd accept any of the definitions of "believe". One may apply, even in the absence of others.

I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.

There it is, in your own words. Finally, an honest answer. Not a religion in the sense of ANY other religion in the known world.

Pretending it is in the sense of other religions is just obvious trolling.

Its so obvious. The definition that applies to traditional religions is clearly and admittedly, even by you, NOT the one that applies to atheism. Case closed. you're playing semantic games for some reason unbeknownst to anyone besides you. Have fun with it, obviously you aren't interested in an honest discussion about it.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-16-2011, 22:08
There it is, in your own words. Finally, an honest answer. Not a religion in the sense of ANY other religion in the known world.

Pretending it is in the sense of other religions is just obvious trolling.

Randy

There is nothing that I have said in that post that contradicts the statement:

Atheism is a religion.

It is you know, a religion that is. :dunno:

Why does that make you so uncomfortable? That was the original question by the way. (see the title of the thread)

steveksux
01-16-2011, 22:15
There is nothing that I have said in that post that contradicts the statement:

Atheism is a religion.

It is you know, a religion that is. :dunno:

Why does that make you so uncomfortable? That was the original question by the way. (see the title of the thread)Hockey is a religion in Canada. Like atheism. That's the closest sense of the word in your supplied definitions of religion.

Its not a religion in the sense of Christianity. By your own definitions. Why does it bother YOU when someone points out the obvious?

So you admit you're doing it in an attempt to annoy people. Troll. Obvious Troll. There we have it, the whole unvarnished truth at last. I think its funny, I don't understand why people aren't embarrassed to post stuff like that. It's kind of amusing, actually. I can argue against crazy ideas like Truthers, doesn't mean they bother me.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 22:17
It is my opinion not a "religion" to believe there is no God. Its the natural state of mankind since the fall. Its up to God now to make or allow us to believe. But we're not so good at following clues though, such as nature itself. He gives more clues but there is nothing in us that seeks after Him.Only after "our knowledge of Him". So He hides Himself in the things we think are foolish so there is no boasting that WE found Him. Psalms says "the fool says in his heart there is no god". You dont have to believe it, or have faith, its a condition we're born with.

God does not make anyone believe. We are invited to believe, or we can choose to disbelieve, because He gave us free will. Without free will there can never be a love relationship.

Kingarthurhk
01-16-2011, 22:21
Hockey is a religion in Canada. Like atheism.

Its not a religion in the sense of Christianity. By your own definitions. Why does it bother YOU when someone points out the obvious?

So you admit you're doing it in an attempt to annoy people. Troll. Obvious Troll. There we have it, the whole unvarnished truth at last.

Randy

It doesn't bother me at all. I do find it interesting you assert your faith by stating you deny your faith. I cannot convince you to believe in God, and you cannot convince me not to believe in God. I have my faith, you have yours. Both are a religion. You base everything you do based on your faith. I base everything I do based on mine. I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.

steveksux
01-16-2011, 22:23
It doesn't bother me at all. I do find it interesting you assert your faith by stating you deny your faith. I cannot convince you to believe in God, and you cannot convince me not to believe in God. I have my faith, you have yours. Both are a religion. You base everything you do based on your faith. I base everything I do based on mine. I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.It IS very simple. Religion in the sense of every religion on the planet, requires gods, rituals and worship, which atheism does not. Takes more than just a belief to make a religion, at least for every other religion on the planet.

I haven't stated anywhere what I believe. That's irrelevant to the clear common sense definition of what religion is and is not.

Pretty simple.

Randy

Snapper2
01-16-2011, 22:24
God does not make anyone believe. We are invited to believe, or we can choose to disbelieve, because He gave us free will. Without free will there can never be a love relationship.

I agree. My mistake there. But He does enable us to do something we were not capable of once that choice is made.

Kingarthurhk
01-17-2011, 00:41
I agree. My mistake there. But He does enable us to do something we were not capable of once that choice is made.

Very true. Once we make the choice, He changes out live.

Careby
01-17-2011, 07:12
...You'd almost think I had committed blasphemy for even suggesting it.
Atheists do not believe in blasphemy.

Careby
01-17-2011, 07:37
What you have described in bold is an Agnostic and not an Athiest. An Agnostic hasn't formulated an opinion about the Metaphysical. The Athiest has.
He is agnostic if you embrace the definition of an agnostic as being a person who does not know, but not if you choose the definition that says a person who believes such knowledge is unknowable. He is an atheist if you embrace the definition of an atheist as being a person who does not believe in god, but not if you choose the definition that says a person who believes there is no god. An agnostic may be an atheist and vice versa, and depending on your choice of definitions, may have to be.

In the end this discussion turns out not to be about atheism or religion, but about dictionaries, semantics, personal perspective, and bias. An atheist does not need a dictionary to tell him what he thinks, and a theist cannot learn what an atheist thinks by reading a dictionary.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 08:00
Atheists do not believe in blasphemy.

I said "almost".

Same level of energy in the denials. :dunno:

Kingarthurhk
01-17-2011, 08:06
It IS very simple. Religion in the sense of every religion on the planet, requires gods, rituals and worship, which atheism does not. Takes more than just a belief to make a religion, at least for every other religion on the planet.

I haven't stated anywhere what I believe. That's irrelevant to the clear common sense definition of what religion is and is not.

Pretty simple.

Randy

Out of curiousity, how do you believe that everything we observe around us came into existance?

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 08:08
Hockey is a religion in Canada. Like atheism. That's the closest sense of the word in your supplied definitions of religion.

Its not a religion in the sense of Christianity. By your own definitions. Why does it bother YOU when someone points out the obvious?

So you admit you're doing it in an attempt to annoy people. Troll. Obvious Troll. There we have it, the whole unvarnished truth at last. I think its funny, I don't understand why people aren't embarrassed to post stuff like that. It's kind of amusing, actually. I can argue against crazy ideas like Truthers, doesn't mean they bother me.

Randy

Steve,

We've covered this ground before. Hockey is a game. While people get rather emotional watching it, no one bases their understanding of the way all things came to be on the game.
Christianity is more organized, but there are also atheist organizations that proselytize. www.atheist.org


It's American English. I can't help it if you don't like it.

You have gone back to old arguments over and over again. It's become rather circular.

If it doesn't bother you, state your opinion, and I'll state mine, and we could agree to disagree about whether it is proper word usage to call Atheism a religion.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 08:15
It doesn't bother me at all. I do find it interesting you assert your faith by stating you deny your faith. I cannot convince you to believe in God, and you cannot convince me not to believe in God. I have my faith, you have yours. Both are a religion. You base everything you do based on your faith. I base everything I do based on mine. I don't think I can make it any simpler than that.

I agree. It is a foundation belief. How did we get here, and what happens when we die are profound questions. Your understanding of those two issues, has an impact on just about everything else you believe.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 08:21
He is agnostic if you embrace the definition of an agnostic as being a person who does not know, but not if you choose the definition that says a person who believes such knowledge is unknowable. He is an atheist if you embrace the definition of an atheist as being a person who does not believe in god, but not if you choose the definition that says a person who believes there is no god. An agnostic may be an atheist and vice versa, and depending on your choice of definitions, may have to be.

In the end this discussion turns out not to be about atheism or religion, but about dictionaries, semantics, personal perspective, and bias. An atheist does not need a dictionary to tell him what he thinks, and a theist cannot learn what an atheist thinks by reading a dictionary.

I've proposed a list of gradient beliefs, I think it makes sense.

Atheist
Atheistic agnostic
Agnostic
Theistic Agnostic
Theist


I think many agnostics have mistakenly classified themselves as atheists.

What about those of us that aren't even sure it is knowable or not. If there is no afterlife, will we be aware of that as we die? If there is, I guess it would depend on quite a few variables.

Careby
01-17-2011, 10:28
I've proposed a list of gradient beliefs, I think it makes sense.

Atheist
Atheistic agnostic
Agnostic
Theistic Agnostic
Theist
If it makes sense to you and allows you to neatly categorize others to your satisfaction, then by all means use it. But don't be surprised to find that others aren't so willing to adopt your labels.

I think many agnostics have mistakenly classified themselves as atheists.
Why is it so important that others label themselves using your criteria?

What about those of us that aren't even sure it is knowable or not. If there is no afterlife, will we be aware of that as we die? If there is, I guess it would depend on quite a few variables.
The profound questions of how we got here and what happens when we die may stimulate us to embrace a religion, or they may not. They pertain to God only to the extent that we believe there is one. They are not matters of religion except for the religious. If you have faith that God exists, then you know He does. How do you know? Faith! If you don't know that God exists, then you do not have faith in Him. In that case, you do not believe, and you are an atheist, like it or not, in the broader sense of the word. If you know that God does NOT exist, then you are an atheist in the narrower sense of the word. Either way, you have not embraced theism, so you are not a theist, you are a non-theist, or a-theist.

The definition of agnostic can likewise be twisted to mean anything one likes, but to me it pertains more to a belief that proof is not possible than merely to "I don't know". If you believe there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, you still have to decide whether or not you personally believe He exists. If you haven't yet decided what you believe, then you don't yet believe in Him, and you are thus currently a non-theist.

And believing is not a matter of choosing a religion for insurance purposes ("just in case"). "What if you are wrong" is no better an argument for the existence of God than "Just look at the complexity".

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 12:00
If it makes sense to you and allows you to neatly categorize others to your satisfaction, then by all means use it. But don't be surprised to find that others aren't so willing to adopt your labels.


Why is it so important that others label themselves using your criteria?


The profound questions of how we got here and what happens when we die may stimulate us to embrace a religion, or they may not. They pertain to God only to the extent that we believe there is one. They are not matters of religion except for the religious. If you have faith that God exists, then you know He does. How do you know? Faith! If you don't know that God exists, then you do not have faith in Him. In that case, you do not believe, and you are an atheist, like it or not, in the broader sense of the word. If you know that God does NOT exist, then you are an atheist in the narrower sense of the word. Either way, you have not embraced theism, so you are not a theist, you are a non-theist, or a-theist.

The definition of agnostic can likewise be twisted to mean anything one likes, but to me it pertains more to a belief that proof is not possible than merely to "I don't know". If you believe there is no way to scientifically prove or disprove the existence of God, you still have to decide whether or not you personally believe He exists. If you haven't yet decided what you believe, then you don't yet believe in Him, and you are thus currently a non-theist.

And believing is not a matter of choosing a religion for insurance purposes ("just in case"). "What if you are wrong" is no better an argument for the existence of God than "Just look at the complexity".

It's not so much about labels, as it is correct word usage. Without that, it is difficult to discuss just about anything.

wounding mantel disprove astride. Don't you agree?

steveksux
01-17-2011, 13:00
Steve,Its Randy, see, I told you your reading comprehension isn't worth a damn.. :tongueout::rofl:

We've covered this ground before. I know, hard to believe you still don't get it Hockey is a game. While people get rather emotional watching it, no one bases their understanding of the way all things came to be on the game.Atheism does not imply anything regarding how things came to be. Has NO BEARING ON HOW THINGS CAME TO BE. We covered this before also.. Again, you're simply playing stupid here, denying the obvious, I find it hard to believe you're actually not getting it.

You're the one that picked the definition of religion that refers to a figure of speech, not to honest to goodness RELIGIOUS religions like Christianity, Islam, or EVERY other religion in the known world, don't blame me when I point out the obvious flaw in your obtuse argument.

Christianity is more organized, but there are also atheist organizations that proselytize. www.atheist.orgYou're still missing worship, supernatural beings, rituals. Find those and you'll have proven atheism is a religion.

It's American English. I can't help it if you don't like it. I like it just fine. You just don't get it. Not my problem. :dunno:

You have gone back to old arguments over and over again. It's become rather circular.:rofl: I keep discrediting your stupid arguments over and over because you keep bringing them up, Mr. Circular. :wavey:

If it doesn't bother you, state your opinion, and I'll state mine, and we could agree to disagree about whether it is proper word usage to call Atheism a religion.Fine. You're wrong. Again. Obviously, Trolling.

There you go, that's my opinion.

One more thing. Allow me to mock you further...

According to your word games, this is a dog. http://www.seafishingvenues.net/Dogfish.jpg-for-web-large.jpg
Sure, it has no legs, its not a mammal, its not a canine, it has no fur, it breaths no air. But its got DOG in its name... what part of DOG don't you understand?

I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.HERE is the actual honest conclusion. Even you in a moment of weakness slipped up and admitted its not a religion in the sense Christianity is a religion.

Randy

steveksux
01-17-2011, 13:08
Out of curiousity, how do you believe that everything we observe around us came into existance?Laws of physics and natural processes. I see no need to invoke magical beings or processes to explain anything. I figure if there is a God, that's how he did it. If God is that powerful, he wouldn't make a watch he had to keep winding every day. He'd be smart enough to make one that kept time by itself and didn't require fiddling with. He isn't neurotic enough to require lesser beings to worship him, and if he wanted us to believe in him, he'd have left some decent evidence behind. Its his own damn fault I don't believe in him... :rofl:

I figure organized religions are as accurate about God as they were about the earth being 6000 years old, the earth being in the center of the universe, the stars and planets being fixed in the heavens, Adam and Eve, etc, you get the picture.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 13:18
Its Randy, see, I told you your reading comprehension isn't worth a damn..
I know, hard to believe you still don't get itAtheism does not imply anything regarding how things came to be. Has NO BEARING ON HOW THINGS CAME TO BE. We covered this before also.. Again, you're simply playing stupid here, denying the obvious, I find it hard to believe you're actually not getting it.

You're the one that picked the definition of religion that refers to a figure of speech, not to honest to goodness RELIGIOUS religions like Christianity, Islam, or EVERY other religion in the known world, don't blame me when I point out the obvious flaw in your obtuse argument.
You're still missing worship, supernatural beings, rituals. Find those and you'll have proven atheism is a religion.

I like it just fine. You just don't get it. Not my problem.

:rofl: I keep discrediting your stupid arguments over and over because you keep bringing them up, Mr. Circular.

Fine. You're wrong. Again. Obviously, Trolling.

There you go, that's my opinion.

One more thing. Allow me to mock you further...

According to your word games, this is a dog.
Sure, it has no legs, its not a mammal, its not a canine, it has no fur, it breaths no air. But its got DOG in its name... what part of DOG don't you understand?

HERE is the actual honest conclusion. Even you in a moment of weakness slipped up and admitted its not a religion in the sense Christianity is a religion.

Randy



Really, you've missed the point entirely. If you'd like to declare yourself the winner, that's fine with me. So far, we have proven ad naseam that it is truly difficult for self described atheists to admit atheism is a religion. You've been very helpful in that endeavor, but my arms are getting tired.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2007/038/b/d/_beatdeadhorseplz__by_MeliHitchcock.gif

What I want to know, is what I asked initially.

Why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion?

You obviously don't have the answer. If you cannot control your emotions, or if this thread upsets you, there are a lot of other topics being discussed on GT, maybe one of them could use your input?? :whistling:

steveksux
01-17-2011, 13:27
Really, you've missed the point entirely. If you'd like to declare yourself the winner, that's fine with me. So far, we have proven ad naseam that it is truly difficult for self described atheists to admit atheism is a religion. You've been very helpful in that endeavor, but my arms are getting tired.
http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2007/038/b/d/_beatdeadhorseplz__by_MeliHitchcock.gif

What I want to know, is what I asked initially.

Why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion?Same reason it's so hard for you to admit you're a goldfish.

You obviously don't have the answer. See above. I have the answer, you just can't accept it. It's you that doesn't have a question that makes any sense whatsoever. :dunno: If you cannot control your emotions, or if this thread upsets you, there are a lot of other topics being discussed on GT, maybe one of them could use your input?? :whistling:Why are you so convinced it's upsetting?

Is this your view?
I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.It appears you accidentally admitted I am right. In its own fashion. Meaning unlike any actual religion. Your own words betray you. What DID you mean by adding "in it's own fashion" if you're trying to imply its a religion like any other in the rest of the thread? It certainly appears to merely be trolling, hoping to get a rise out of atheists. Pretty obviously.

You ask a question based on a false premise and ask why can't people admit it. The entire thread is based on a circular argument on your part. Why do people that don't believe in religion have a hard time admitting they are a religion??? Yeah, That question makes a whole lot of sense. The answer is very simple. They have a hard time admitting it because they have a hard time believing it, and in fact have a hard time taking anyone asking such a silly question as anything but a troll, because it's so obviously a bizarre concept.


Randy

Careby
01-17-2011, 13:29
It's not so much about labels, as it is correct word usage. Without that, it is difficult to discuss just about anything.
How do we establish correct word usage? You choose a dictionary, and then choose among multiple definitions therein to assemble a set of definitions that suits your argument. And you reject sets of definitions assembled either from other dictionaries or even from other definitions contained in the same dictionary that do not support your argument. So clearly dictionaries, the way we are using them, cannot solve our dispute over correct word usage.

Do you believe it is possible for an individual to have no religion?

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 13:59
How do we establish correct word usage? You choose a dictionary, and then choose among multiple definitions therein to assemble a set of definitions that suits your argument. And you reject sets of definitions assembled either from other dictionaries or even from other definitions contained in the same dictionary that do not support your argument. So clearly dictionaries, the way we are using them, cannot solve our dispute over correct word usage.

Do you believe it is possible for an individual to have no religion?

All definitions are appropriate. It is my opinion that all of the definitions of Religion are valid.

Personally, I think that those that admit they don't know seem not to have a religion, but I'd be willing to consider your thoughts on that subject.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 14:04
Same reason it's so hard for you to admit you're a goldfish.

See above. I have the answer, you just can't accept it. It's you that doesn't have a question that makes any sense whatsoever. :dunno: Why are you so convinced it's upsetting?

Is this your view? It appears you accidentally admitted I am right. In its own fashion. Meaning unlike any actual religion. Your own words betray you. What DID you mean by adding "in it's own fashion" if you're trying to imply its a religion like any other in the rest of the thread? It certainly appears to merely be trolling, hoping to get a rise out of atheists. Pretty obviously.

You ask a question based on a false premise and ask why can't people admit it. The entire thread is based on a circular argument on your part. Why do people that don't believe in religion have a hard time admitting they are a religion??? Yeah, That question makes a whole lot of sense. The answer is very simple. They have a hard time admitting it because they have a hard time believing it, and in fact have a hard time taking anyone asking such a silly question as anything but a troll, because it's so obviously a bizarre concept.


Randy

Go ahead and take a victory lap if you want. But you are grasping at straws, and trying to claim some sort of victory on a technicality.

The fact remains, that the word religion can be appropriately used to describe atheism. Softening the way I say that did not make it any less true.


Maybe we can get to what I want to know another way.

Lets just say, just for the sake of argument, that the word "religion" actually could accurately be used to describe atheism.

What about that concept is so irritating to you?

After all, it is only a belief. One that you (and others) are comfortable with in and of itself, it's only the attachment of the word religion that is the problem, right?

chilic82
01-17-2011, 14:19
Laws of physics and natural processes.

Where did these Laws and natural processes come from? Did they create themselves? Why do they operate in the fashion that they do? Did these Laws of physics and natural processes exist before the universe? Have any evidence to back your claim that the laws of physics created the universe?

steveksux
01-17-2011, 14:46
Where did these Laws and natural processes come from? Did they create themselves? Don't know and don't care. Science will eventually find out if there's evidence and we're clever enough, or won't if there's not.
Why do they operate in the fashion that they do? Why does 2+2 = 4? Why is water wet? Why is blue blue? What difference does why make? What are you looking for as an answer? Why implies a reason where there is no need for a reason. The why is a religious question. The question implies something sentient behind the process, which is unproven. Why does it rain? Did these Laws of physics and natural processes exist before the universe? Have any evidence to back your claim that the laws of physics created the universe?Why do you think pre-medieval superstitions are more likely to be true? Where is the evidence for that? So far every time science and religion has clashed, science has won. So I think science is far more likely to find the RIGHT answers. You're simply suggesting a "god in the gaps". Anything unknown = goddidit.

I don't see any benefit in having make believe answers when you don't actually know what's going on.

Randy

steveksux
01-17-2011, 14:58
Go ahead and take a victory lap if you want. But you are grasping at straws, and trying to claim some sort of victory on a technicality. You're the one trying to label a dogfish a breed of dog, not me. I'm not the one grasping at straws.

The fact remains, that the word religion can be appropriately used to describe atheismAs you yourself said, IN ITS OWN FASHION. You admitted you are the one twisting things to compare it to religion. You would have had no need to add "In its own fashion" if you could actually compare actual religions to atheism as actually being similar when compared based on the SAME definitions, instead of cherrypicking very different definitions implying different things to imply a connection that doesn't make sense Softening the way I say that did not make it any less true.Softening it is the only thing that makes it remotely possible to be plausible. Why are you being so dishonest about it? You said it, it means something, now you won't stand behind what you said because it proves my point for me?


Maybe we can get to what I want to know another way.

Lets just say, just for the sake of argument, that the word "religion" actually could accurately be used to describe atheism.

What about that concept is so irritating to you? I've been focusing on why your so wrong about the premise. I thought I'd try to really think about why it is irritating. You are correct, it is irritating for more than the blatant trolling.

After all, it is only a belief. One that you (and others) are comfortable with in and of itself, it's only the attachment of the word religion that is the problem, right?Yes, and I think I figured it out.

It goes to the heart of why atheism is so clearly NOT a religion, as it turns out.


If I started a thread titled "Why is it so hard for Christians to admit Christianity is a superstition like voodoo?", Christians would feel as offended as atheists feel when they are compared to a religion. Might as well say Christians worship the Devil. It is the very thing they reject that defines them. As does atheism.

At their very core, religions are superstitious belief systems. Atheism is not. It requires evidence to believe in any particular thing. Religions accept beliefs based on faith. Night and day, couldn't be more different from that perspective. Both are beliefs. Belief systems even. However belief system based on faith in the supernatural, vs belief system based on evidence of the natural are nothing alike. It would be just as stupid as claiming creationism is science, or alchemy is a branch of chemistry, or numerology is a branch of mathematics. And would get just as much irritation, and derision from scientists in those fields.

Having said that, being superstitions doesn't prove they're false. Could turn out there really is a God, a supernatural being pulling the strings in the background. It would still be a superstition, its still based on the supernatural, however in that case, it would be true as well as superstition.


Randy

chilic82
01-17-2011, 15:20
Don't know and don't care. Science will eventually find out if there's evidence and we're clever enough, or won't if there's not.
Ok.
Why does 2+2 = 4? Why is water wet? Why is blue blue? What difference does why make? What are you looking for as an answer? Why implies a reason where there is no need for a reason. The why is a religious question. The question implies something sentient behind the process, which is unproven. Why does it rain?
Where do you think science originated? Do you really think scientist never ask themselves the question "why"?

Why do you think pre-medieval superstitions are more likely to be true? Where is the evidence for that? So far every time science and religion has clashed, science has won. So I think science is far more likely to find the RIGHT answers. You're simply suggesting a "god in the gaps". Anything unknown = goddidit. I haven't said such,I haven't made any suggestions, where did you get this from?

steveksux
01-17-2011, 15:50
Where do you think science originated? Do you really think scientist never ask themselves the question "why"? Sure, but there are 2 "why" types of questions. Why do large/massive objects attract objects more strongly than small/light ones. Those are the realm of science. Scientists work on those types of why questions. The other sort of "why" questions entail why did the universe just happen to have laws that support human life. That's more of a philosophical "why" questions. Scientists ask those why questions too, same as everyone else. But its not part of the profession.

I haven't said such,I haven't made any suggestions, where did you get this from?There's either natural/physical/scientific view of the world with its explanations, or the religious/superstitious/mystical view of the world. If you're questioning one, the assumption was that you believe in the other. My apologies if I read more into it than was warranted or there is a third option I hadn't considered.

Randy

steveksux
01-17-2011, 15:52
All definitions are appropriate. It is my opinion that all of the definitions of Religion are valid.

Personally, I think that those that admit they don't know seem not to have a religion, but I'd be willing to consider your thoughts on that subject.All definitions are appropriate, standing on their own. However, it would be more honest of you to use the same definition for both things you are trying to equate with each other. Otherwise its simply semantic sophistry masquerading as an argument.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-17-2011, 16:02
Laws of physics and natural processes. I see no need to invoke magical beings or processes to explain anything. I figure if there is a God, that's how he did it. If God is that powerful, he wouldn't make a watch he had to keep winding every day. He'd be smart enough to make one that kept time by itself and didn't require fiddling with. He isn't neurotic enough to require lesser beings to worship him, and if he wanted us to believe in him, he'd have left some decent evidence behind. Its his own damn fault I don't believe in him... :rofl:

I figure organized religions are as accurate about God as they were about the earth being 6000 years old, the earth being in the center of the universe, the stars and planets being fixed in the heavens, Adam and Eve, etc, you get the picture.

Randy

I am not sure you answered the question. In your belief, how did everything that exists today originate?

Careby
01-17-2011, 16:12
I am not sure you answered the question. In your belief, how did everything that exists today originate?
In your belief, how did God originate? Whatever your answer, why can you not apply it to everything that exists today?

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 16:21
You're the one trying to label a dogfish a breed of dog, not me. I'm not the one grasping at straws.


You do realize that is a classic "straw man" argument, don't you?



As you yourself said, IN ITS OWN FASHION. You admitted you are the one twisting things to compare it to religion. You would have had no need to add "In its own fashion" if you could actually compare actual religions to atheism as actually being similar when compared based on the SAME definitions, instead of cherrypicking very different definitions implying different things to imply a connection that doesn't make sense Softening it is the only thing that makes it remotely possible to be plausible. Why are you being so dishonest about it? You said it, it means something, now you won't stand behind what you said because it proves my point for me?


You are reading an awful lot into a turn of a phrase. Too much in fact. Maybe I misspoke, allow me to clarify my position.

By definition, Atheism is a religion. Atheists have a strong belief, one which they cannot prove is true, which also by definition is a matter of faith.

Can I be much more clear?


I've been focusing on why your so wrong about the premise. I thought I'd try to really think about why it is irritating. You are correct, it is irritating for more than the blatant trolling.

Yes, and I think I figured it out.

It goes to the heart of why atheism is so clearly NOT a religion, as it turns out. [/quote[

This next part is cool.

[quote]
If I started a thread titled "Why is it so hard for Christians to admit Christianity is a superstition like voodoo?", Christians would feel as offended as atheists feel when they are compared to a religion. Might as well say Christians worship the Devil. It is the very thing they reject that defines them. As does atheism.

That was the same thing I was saying earlier. It's almost the same as blasphemy. Which kind of goes along with the theme of this thread.


At their very core, religions are superstitious belief systems. Atheism is not. It requires evidence to believe in any particular thing. Religions accept beliefs based on faith. Night and day, couldn't be more different from that perspective. Both are beliefs. Belief systems even. However belief system based on faith in the supernatural, vs belief system based on evidence of the natural are nothing alike. It would be just as stupid as claiming creationism is science, or alchemy is a branch of chemistry, or numerology is a branch of mathematics. And would get just as much irritation, and derision from scientists in those fields.

Having said that, being superstitions doesn't prove they're false. Could turn out there really is a God, a supernatural being pulling the strings in the background. It would still be a superstition, its still based on the supernatural, however in that case, it would be true as well as superstition.


Randy


That's another point I've been making. Atheists tend to be rabidly against the beliefs of others. Odd, no? Why would an atheist care what others do or don't believe. It's almost like proselytizing. Actually, it's exactly like it.
It would be better if they would be polite about it. But they seem to get so emotionally twisted around what others believe. Not very constitutional. Have you read the first amendment lately? It basically says that people have a right to practice their religion the way they want to practice it, the whole Free exercise thereof thing.



Steve,

really. OK just for the sake of argument, lets say that I am wrong, why would it bother you so much? Other than being just one more person that is "wrong on the internet", why is it so scary to contemplate.
http://www.spareroom.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Wrong-on-Internet.jpg

steveksux
01-17-2011, 16:24
I am not sure you answered the question. In your belief, how did everything that exists today originate?Through natural processes following the laws of physics, without any supernatural being intervening, starting stuff, or stirring the pot.

Randy

steveksux
01-17-2011, 17:19
You do realize that is a classic "straw man" argument, don't you?Not at all, its an uncomfortably (for you) apt analogy that is particularly well fitting. Your claim that atheism is a religion, even though it is missing all the classic parts of a religion (supernaturalism, supreme beings, all encompassing theory of how their supernatural being created the world, rules it, intercedes on behalf of the believers, rituals, worship, moral code embedded in it) but because it fits an ALTERNATE definition of "religion" that involves "belief" that is also a part of religion, even though that definition is NOT even refering to theistic religions is very similar to claiming a dog fish is a type of dog. They're both living things, both described as "Dog". Just because a dogfish doesn't have fur, legs, claws, lungs, isn't a mammal or a canine... That's precisely the same as you comparing religions with atheists. You have one minor component in common, and ignore all the other components that make up religions that are lacking in atheism. Its well and good you do so, it's the only way you can pretend they're equivalent.

You are reading an awful lot into a turn of a phrase. Too much in fact. Maybe I misspoke, allow me to clarify my position.

By definition, Atheism is a religion. Atheists have a strong belief, one which they cannot prove is true, which also by definition is a matter of faith.

Can I be much more clear?Its always been clear. Clearly semantic sophistry. That definition is still missing all the elements of theistic religions which are included in the definition above it which applies to theistic religions.
Why does the first definition exist if the one you chose is sufficient to define religions? Busted.

That was the same thing I was saying earlier. It's almost the same as blasphemy. Which kind of goes along with the theme of this thread. Couldn't agree more. Its almost like blasphemy, in exactly the same way that atheism is almost like religion. Both religion and blasphemy require a supernatural supreme being to believe in or blaspheme against.
That's another point I've been making. Atheists tend to be rabidly against the beliefs of others. Odd, no? Maybe if it were true. You have a problem with assuming falsehoods a priori and then making conclusions based on them. Christians would be screaming bloody murder if it was "Allah" on the currency and in the Pledge of Allegiance rather than God, and schoolkids were bowing towards Mecca in high school graduations.

Why would an atheist care what others do or don't believe.You tell me, you're the one that cares so much about what atheists believe?

It's almost like proselytizing. Actually, it's exactly like it.
It would be better if they would be polite about it. But they seem to get so emotionally twisted around what others believe. Not very constitutional. Have you read the first amendment lately? It basically says that people have a right to practice their religion the way they want to practice it, the whole Free exercise thereof thing. Wow, that's quite a straw man army you're building there.

Let me know the next time an atheist shows up at your door trying to "save" you at 9am on a weekend. :rofl:

Feel free to show me where they have ever had anything against you practicing your faith. What they have had a problem with is exactly what you accuse them of. Its the religious that want to have prayers in school (as long as its not MUSLIM prayer), God on the money and in the Pledge (as long as its not ALLAH). Interestingly enough God wasn't in the Pledge or on the money until the 1950's. Free exercise thereof, go for it. Pray all you want, ON YOUR OWN TIME, doesn't bother me until you clutter up my graduation with it. You, if you were honest, would have the same issue if it were Muslim prayers instead of Christian at these events.



Steve,Randy. Not Steve. Its the attention to obvious details such as this that cause your arguments to fail as well.

really. OK just for the sake of argument, lets say that I am wrong, why would it bother you so much? Other than being just one more person that is "wrong on the internet", why is it so scary to contemplate.
http://www.spareroom.co.nz/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/Wrong-on-Internet.jpgYou tell me. You can feel free to stop claiming I am wrong any time as well, you are apparently at least as bad as I am. Takes two to tango.

At least I am not, what did you call it?

A Contrarian Troll? Substitute "thread" for "board" and its kind of eerie.
The Contrarian Troll. A sophisticated breed, Contrarian Trolls frequent boards whose predominant opinions are contrary to their own. A forum dominated by those who support firearms and knife rights, for example, will invariably be visited by Contrarian Trolls espousing their beliefs in the benefits of gun control. It is important to distinguish between dissenters and actual Contrarian Trolls, however; the Contrarian is not categorized as a troll because of his or her dissenting opinions, but due to the manner in which he or she behaves:By starting a thread calling for atheists for their opinions, then when every single non theist, agnostic and atheist, tell you you're wrong in the very premise... well, sounds like a contrarian at least.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number One: The most important indicator of a poster's Contrarian Troll status is his constant use of subtle and not-so-subtle insults, a technique intended to make people angry. Contrarians will resist the urge to be insulting at first, but as their post count increases, they become more and more abusive of those with whom they disagree. Most often they initiate the insults in the course of what has been a civil, if heated, debate to that point.yup.. atheists are emotionally twisted, rabidly against, again, we have a match.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Two: Constant references to the forum membership as monolithic. "You guys are all just [descriptor]." "You're a lynch mob." "You all just want to ridicule anyone who disagrees with you."The whole point of the thread is based on an assumption that all atheists are the same... we're unconstitutionally infringing on your right to free exercise there of, sounds like an atheist lynch mob out to get theists... I think we have another match.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Three: Intellectual dishonesty. This is only a mild indicator that is not limited to trolls, but Contrarians display it to a high degree. They will lie about things they've said, pull posts out of context in a manner that changes their meanings significantly, and generally ignore any points for which they have no ready answers.I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.QFTYou are reading an awful lot into a turn of a phrase. Too much in fact. Maybe I misspoke, allow me to clarify my position.Quoted for Intellectual Dishonesty.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Four: Accusing the accusers. When confronted with their trolling, trolls immediately respond that it is the accusers who are trolls (see Natural Predators below). Often the Contrarian will single out his most vocal opponent and claim that while he can respect his other opponents, this one in particular is beneath his notice.No sign of this yet. Luckily All definitions are appropriate.At least with the dictionary definitions, you seem to only need one that applies. So we don't need to show every sign of a contrarian troll to expose one.

– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Five: Attempts to condescend. The Contrarian will seek refuge in condescending remarks that repeatedly scorn his or her critics as beneath notice – all the while continuing to respond to them.
By definition, Atheism is a religion. Atheists have a strong belief, one which they cannot prove is true, which also by definition is a matter of faith.

Can I be much more clear?Sounds condescending to me. I guess I's just too dumb to see the wisdom in your obtuse obfuscations... :rofl:
– Contrarian Warning Sign Number Six: One distinctive mark of Contrarian Trolls is that every thread in which they dissent quickly devolves into a debate about who is trolling whom. In the course of such a debate the Contrarian will display many of the other Warning Signs mentioned above.I haven't paid much attention to many other threads you've been in, so can't say about this one.
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16683628&postcount=70

The simple answer to your thread question is very clear and been pointed out to you. They disagree with the very premise your question is based on.... that atheism is a religion. To them, the question makes no more sense than me asking you "why is it so hard for you to admit you are a goldfish".

That's the answer. You don't have to agree. You're the one mixing 2 alternate definitions in an attempt to conflate two things that don't match if you use the best, common sense definition for theistic religion. That should be a warning sign. If you have to do that to make your point, maybe your point is pretty shaky. You might have a small meaningless point if you had asked why is it hard for Atheists to admit atheism is like a religion.

You may play semantic games to attempt to equate religions with atheism. The whole semantic games and parsing words are tools theists use to debate varying versions of scripture and doctrines. That's something theists do. Atheists are more common sense and evidence based in their decision making. Including what definitions are most appropriate to apply to the subject at hand. Faith based arguments are much more adept at starting from a desired premise and twisting data as needed to fit the desired outcome.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 18:01
Originally Posted by steveksux
You're the one trying to label a dogfish a breed of dog, not me. I'm not the one grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
You do realize that is a classic "straw man" argument, don't you?


Not at all, its an uncomfortably (for you) apt analogy that is particularly well fitting.

If you are claiming that I called a fish a dog, I'd simply have to ask to prove you are not a liar.

Post the link where I made that claim.

:dunno: I hate to be so blunt, but you have intentionally stated a falsehood, or as some might say, bore false witness against your neighbor.

Good thing you aren't a Judeo-Christian, I think you tripped over two commandments in one post. I'll check and get back to you.


It's difficult to have a conversation with someone that cannot be honest. I really try hard not to place people on my ignore list, but you are awful close.



Randy,

If you are a good person, I'd like to keep talking with you. But I have to ask, who is Steve K, and why do you think he sux?

Kind of brings into question your whole reason for being here, doesn't it? Bringing in pieces of conversations I've had with other obvious trolls brings into question whether you and stubbud are one in the same.




If you can't have an adult discussion, and continue to try to disrupt the thread with your accusations, I'm gonna have to report you to the mods. They will check the IP address' of both screen name's posts.

:wavey: Be Happy.

steveksux
01-17-2011, 18:39
If you are claiming that I called a fish a dog, I'd simply have to ask to prove you are not a liar.

Post the link where I made that claim. I guess we now get to see how you twist the definition of analogy... Clearly stated, in the post you quoted. ANALOGY. [edit to add]My mistake, stated it was an analogy clearly in #672, not the post you quoted. My apologies for the oversight, thought it was obvious][edit to add more]I just noticed you already quoted where I said it was an apt analogy. So you know its an analogy, but don't understand the concept?]

I hate to be so blunt, but you have intentionally stated a falsehood, or as some might say, bore false witness against your neighbor.

Good thing you aren't a Judeo-Christian, I think you tripped over two commandments in one post. I'll check and get back to you.Lying is against the Judeo-Christian ethic also, isn't it? I suppose your pretending you didn't see the part about that being an apt "analogy", is that it? So that's why this dishonest accusation is not technically a "lie"?

It's difficult to have a conversation with someone that cannot be honest. I really try hard not to place people on my ignore list, but you are awful close.:rofl: Another notch in the contrarian troll bedpost...
Already addressed. Analogy. you leave out all sorts of important aspects of theistic religion in order to make the comparison. Same way I compared a dogfish with a fish. I never said either was a valid point. You seem to think its a valid line of reasoning in the case where you seem to have an axe to grind. :dunno: The conclusion is an exercise left to the reader.

Randy,

If you are a good person, I'd like to keep talking with you. But I have to ask, who is Steve K, and why do you think he sux?My old AOL account back when Steve Case was CEO of AOL. If you say it fast it just happens to sound like Steve Case Sucks at AOL. Purely a coincidence, I assure you... :supergrin:

Kind of brings into question your whole reason for being here, doesn't it? Bringing in pieces of conversations I've had with other obvious trolls brings into question whether you and stubbud are one in the same. Not at all. Here in a thread where you are targeting atheists YOU are the contrarian, in your own thread, which is a little unorthodox.

Another notch in the Contrarian Troll checklist! Just tried to accuse me of trolling... :supergrin:

If you can't have an adult discussion, and continue to try to disrupt the thread with your accusations, I'm gonna have to report you to the mods. They will check the IP address' of both screen name's posts.

:wavey: Be Happy.What other screen name? Interesting that the same thing that you apparently think is fair game when you accuse someone else of doing it in another thread is suddenly "disrupting this thread" when its applied to you.

Fairness is an important component of an adult discussion, isn't it? :dunno:

Seems we should just agree to disagree here. I don't see you admitting you're wrong. I'm certainly not going to lie and say that atheism is a religion. Seems we're at a stalemate and wasting each others time for no good reason.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 18:45
Any number of functional evolutionary pathways for flagella have been proposed and detailed since Behe first made this argument. Here's one (http://www.talkdesign.org/faqs/flagellum.html).

Remember, that a flagella is a very simple structure. A mammalian eye though, that is pretty complex, and there are several intermediate structures that would not function.


It at least raises a distinct possibility that there is a design, and therefore a designer.

I honestly don't know if there is a deity. But I don't know there isn't either.

Life is complex beyond all of our imaginations.

http://che107-001w.wikispaces.com/file/view/mitochondria.jpg/177051547/mitochondria.jpg

http://www.healthplace.com/wp-content/uploads/Cell-300x298.jpg

http://sigen.org/index.php/sigen/article/viewFile/20/158/1567

http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2006/cmsc838s/viz4all/ss/pathway.jpg

Click on this link to explore the above image. (http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2006/cmsc838s/viz4all/v4a_impl.html)


It's all just a little to complex to be an accident, which to me at least, leaves open the possibility that life was made by design.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 18:48
My old AOL account back when Steve Case was CEO of AOL. If you say it fast it just happens to sound like Steve Case Sucks at AOL. Purely a coincidence, I assure you... :supergrin:



Oh, OK.

steveksux
01-17-2011, 18:54
Oh, OK.
Yeah, nothing nearly as sinister as it sounds... :supergrin:

For some reason my MSN account BillG8sux was rather short lived... :rofl: cancelled... Never found out why :dunno: :supergrin:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 19:27
Yeah, nothing nearly as sinister as it sounds... :supergrin:

For some reason my MSN account BillG8sux was rather short lived... :rofl: cancelled... Never found out why :dunno: :supergrin:

Randy

Yeah, that Bill guy.... I get it.

Careby
01-17-2011, 19:41
...It's all just a little to complex to be an accident, which to me at least, leaves open the possibility that life was made by design.
This again? Mind-boggling complexity certainly does present a bit of a problem. It makes us long for a satisfying explanation. But how is the concept of a Designer creating it all a satisfying explanation? Such a Designer would Itself be at least as mind-bogglingly complex as its creations, begging the question: what designer designed the Designer? At some point this explanation fails to explain. If the Grand Designer can have evolved from nothing, or can have spontaneously appeared from nowhere, or can have existed forever, then why not the complex objects themselves?

steveksux
01-17-2011, 19:49
This again? Mind-boggling complexity certainly does present a bit of a problem. It makes us long for a satisfying explanation. But how is the concept of a Designer creating it all a satisfying explanation? Such a Designer would Itself be at least as mind-bogglingly complex as its creations, begging the question: what designer designed the Designer? At some point this explanation fails to explain. If the Grand Designer can have evolved from nothing, or can have spontaneously appeared from nowhere, or can have existed forever, then why not the complex objects themselves?

Hey, the Doc and I were enjoying a moment of detente, do you mind??? :tongueout: We were enjoying ourselves.... give us a moment... :supergrin: things were getting a little too heated there for a while...

Randy

chilic82
01-17-2011, 19:55
This again? Mind-boggling complexity certainly does present a bit of a problem. It makes us long for a satisfying explanation. But how is the concept of a Designer creating it all a satisfying explanation? Such a Designer would Itself be at least as mind-bogglingly complex as its creations, begging the question: what designer designed the Designer? At some point this explanation fails to explain. If the Grand Designer can have evolved from nothing, or can have spontaneously appeared from nowhere, or can have existed forever, then why not the complex objects themselves?

Why isn't a designer creating it all a satisfying explanation? You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation for a designer to be a reasonable answer.If this was the case then science would be at a stand still. It would be pointless, as it would lead to infinite regress. We see things in this world that have many traits of design, therefore many of us believe something designed them.The complex objects themselves are different from the designer, therefore they don't hold the same properties as the designer. The designer would have to be timeless, immaterial, etc., etc. The creations are not any of these things.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 19:55
This again? Mind-boggling complexity certainly does present a bit of a problem. It makes us long for a satisfying explanation. But how is the concept of a Designer creating it all a satisfying explanation? Such a Designer would Itself be at least as mind-bogglingly complex as its creations, begging the question: what designer designed the Designer? At some point this explanation fails to explain. If the Grand Designer can have evolved from nothing, or can have spontaneously appeared from nowhere, or can have existed forever, then why not the complex objects themselves?

I don't know if I "long" for an explanation. Actually, I'm pretty sure I'm comfortable accepting that I know an awful lot, but I don't know everything. But I'm pretty comfortable with the fact that everyone else is not so sure either. There are some pretty good arguments either way. I really don't think any of us know for sure.


But many have faith......

Careby
01-17-2011, 19:59
Hey, the Doc and I were enjoying a moment of detente, do you mind??? :tongueout: We were enjoying ourselves.... give us a moment... :supergrin: things were getting a little too heated there for a while...

Randy
Sorry, I couldn't help myself. It's one of many bad habits inherent in my design.

Kegs
01-17-2011, 20:00
Food for thought...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion

Irreligion is an absence of, indifference towards or hostility towards religion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion).<sup id="cite_ref-0" class="reference">[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreligion#cite_note-0)</sup> Depending on the context, it may be understood as referring to atheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism), nontheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontheism), agnosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnosticism), ignosticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignosticism), antireligion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antireligion), skepticism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_skepticism), freethought (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freethought), antitheism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antitheism) or secular humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism). Sometimes deism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) is also included in this group.

Kingarthurhk
01-17-2011, 20:08
Through natural processes following the laws of physics, without any supernatural being intervening, starting stuff, or stirring the pot.

Randy

Okay, then where did these "natural processes" come from, and how are there laws of physics?

Careby
01-17-2011, 20:15
Why isn't a designer creating it all a satisfying explanation? You don't have to have an explanation of the explanation for a designer to be a reasonable answer.If this was the case then science would be at a stand still. It would be pointless, as it would lead to infinite regress. We see things in this world that have many traits of design, therefore many of us believe something designed them.The complex objects themselves are different from the designer, therefore they don't hold the same properties as the designer. The designer would have to be timeless, immaterial, etc., etc. The creations are not any of these things.
Because when the complexity of nature is offered as proof of a designer's involvement, it is fair to point out that such an explanation also contains complexity of unexplained origin. In other words, the explanation, whether or not it is true, does not relieve the cognitive dissonance that inspired the original question. And science offers no real relief, either. Each scientific discovery does lead to more questions, and so far there is no reason to think we will ever know the origin of matter.

Kingarthurhk
01-17-2011, 20:26
Because when the complexity of nature is offered as proof of a designer's involvement, it is fair to point out that such an explanation also contains complexity of unexplained origin. In other words, the explanation, whether or not it is true, does not relieve the cognitive dissonance that inspired the original question. And science offers no real relief, either. Each scientific discovery does lead to more questions, and so far there is no reason to think we will ever know the origin of matter.

For me, this goes back to the issue of faith. In my estimation it takes just as much faith to say that matter came for ex nhilo e.g. "out of nothing" than to believe in an Intelligent Design. Further, given the order and laws of physics it makes more sense ot believe in an Intelligent Design by a Creator than it does to believe that matter suddenly came out of nowhere, and out of nothing and then created order and life on its own accord. Further, I would argue that seeking out an intelligent Creator to commune with, makes more sense than putting one's faith into matter that has came from nothing, and somehow became and ordered system with physical laws that are also ordered.

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 20:33
Hey, the Doc and I were enjoying a moment of detente, do you mind??? :tongueout: We were enjoying ourselves.... give us a moment... :supergrin: things were getting a little too heated there for a while...

Randy

Sorry bro,

The road back is a bit longer than that. Give it a couple of weeks of good behavior, and I'll probably be gullible again. Or at least willing to consider you potentially honest.


Be patient. It could happen.

steveksux
01-17-2011, 20:35
Okay, then where did these "natural processes" come from, and how are there laws of physics?I think answered that ater someone asked that earlier. Basically, some things we know, some we suspect, some we don't know. Science will figure it out if there are enough clues and we're clever enough. Some things we may well never know. Some of the things we think we know will be wrong. Basically curious, but I value the truth more than certainty for certainty's sake.

From my understanding, as the Big Bang started with a singularity, there's no way to tell what was going on before then. So there's a limit to how far we can "well where did THAT come from" each other.

Randy

steveksux
01-17-2011, 20:40
Sorry bro,

The road back is a bit longer than that. Give it a couple of weeks of good behavior, and I'll probably be gullible again. Or at least willing to consider you potentially honest.


Be patient. It could happen.I've never been dishonest with you. Being unwilling to face the truth does not make others who do dishonest. Being unwilling to believe someone can have a different opinion than yours also does not make them dishonest.

Having said that, I'm having just as much trouble believing your position is honestly held and not merely trolling, to be perdectly honest.

The differences between atheism on one hand and all other religions on the other hand seem pretty obvious and overwhelming to me. Merely having a component of belief in common barely makes them related at all, and not in any meaningful way. If you have to water down the definition of religion to that degree, its nearly impossible to find anything anyone believes that would not also be considered a religion. Santa Clause, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, Leprechauns, 911 Truthers, Birthers, all are religions by that definition. When an assumption leads to ridiculous conclusions, time to reexamine the assumptions. Refusal to acknowledge that is either blindness, willful or otherwise, or just flat out intellectual dishonesty. Someone simply unwilling to admit error, maybe a pride issue. Religious zealotry, something along those lines.

Randy

Careby
01-17-2011, 20:42
For me, this goes back to the issue of faith. In my estimation it takes just as much faith to say that matter came for ex nhilo e.g. "out of nothing" than to believe in an Intelligent Design.
I really can't disagree. I have problems with both concepts.
Further, given the order and laws of physics it makes more sense ot believe in an Intelligent Design by a Creator than it does to believe that matter suddenly came out of nowhere, and out of nothing and then created order and life on its own accord.
I don't see why it would make more sense to believe a Creator suddenly came out of nowhere, and out of nothing than for matter to have done so. Or that the Creator has always existed vs. matter having always existed.
Further, I would argue that seeking out an intelligent Creator to commune with, makes more sense than putting one's faith into matter that has came from nothing, and somehow became and ordered system with physical laws that are also ordered.
If a Creator exists, and is interested in communing, I suppose doing so would make sense. I don't really understand the concept of "putting one's faith" into something. Do we consciously choose what we believe? Or do we ask questions, gather facts, and draw conclusions which determine what we believe?

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 20:46
I've never been dishonest with you. Being unwilling to face the truth does not make others dishonest. Being unwilling to believe someone can have a different opinion than yours also does not make them dishonest.

Having said that, I'm having just as much trouble believing your position is honestly held and not merely trolling.

Randy

Really, don't rush it.

I am what I am. An honest agnostic. Believe what you will. Be seeing you around, in a few weeks or so. I do forgive, but I never forget.

steveksux
01-17-2011, 21:02
Really, don't rush it.

I am what I am. An honest agnostic. Believe what you will. Be seeing you around, in a few weeks or so. I do forgive, but I never forget.That's fine.

Frankly, don't really care much either way. I don't need your approval. I don't intend that in a mean way, not sure how to say it without it coming off that way.

Having said that, its nothing personal either, this disagreement stays and ends in this thread as far as I'm concerned. Some will agree with me, some won't, I'll be right sometimes, wrong others. That's life, I don't stay up late worrying about what some anonymous guy on the internet thinks. We're just two anonymous guys on the internet, so who cares?


You want to argue about it, I don't mind (though seems we're going in circles and it's pointless). You want to drop it, that's ok too. Forgive and forget, great. Hold a grudge? Won't bother me.

The way I operate, I'm just as liable to jump to your defense in another thread n another topic. Everyone's entitled to their opinions, everyone's entitled to argue them to the death if that's what they want.

That's where I'm coming from.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-17-2011, 21:32
That's fine.



Cool. Be seeing you around.

Kingarthurhk
01-18-2011, 05:30
I think answered that ater someone asked that earlier. Basically, some things we know, some we suspect, some we don't know. Science will figure it out if there are enough clues and we're clever enough. Some things we may well never know. Some of the things we think we know will be wrong. Basically curious, but I value the truth more than certainty for certainty's sake.

From my understanding, as the Big Bang started with a singularity, there's no way to tell what was going on before then. So there's a limit to how far we can "well where did THAT come from" each other.

Randy

This is my point. I would rather believe in a Creator who has order and purpose that has no begining or end than a singularity of unknown origin. In the scheme of things, a singularity cannot save me. A Savior can. Further, there are clues in the natural processes, if someone is willing to look that speaks of a Creator. Everything is ordered, there are physical laws that are unbreakable, and everything has a purpose. I cannot see an unthinking, unknowing singularity accomplishing any of those things. If you threw all the componets of a vehicle in a garage, unassembled, no matter how long you wait, it won't transform itself into a Mercedes Benz.

However, a really good mechanic with all the right parts can make you that Mercedes Benz. A watch doesn't construct itself, it has ordered parts that make the whole work. The same can be said for everything around us. There is order and purpose.

Careby
01-18-2011, 07:10
This is my point. I would rather believe in a Creator who has order and purpose that has no begining or end than a singularity of unknown origin. In the scheme of things, a singularity cannot save me. A Savior can...
That may not explain the origin of man, but I think it pretty clearly explains the origin of religion.

ksg0245
01-18-2011, 08:55
By definition, Atheism is a religion. Atheists have a strong belief, one which they cannot prove is true, which also by definition is a matter of faith.

By that same definition, football is a religion; followers of football have a strong belief of faith they cannot prove is true, that football is more worthy of following than other sports. A definition you earlier rejected.

Atheists reject your claim that atheism is a religion for the same reason you reject the claim football is a religion. In fact, we reject your claim for an even better reason: one isn't required to prove a belief is false to reject it based on lack of evidence. The rejection of an unsupported belief isn't a matter of faith.

Ron3
01-18-2011, 14:10
Next thread:

"Why is it so hard to admit Christianity is not a religion?"

Cavalry Doc
01-18-2011, 16:50
By that same definition, football is a religion; followers of football have a strong belief of faith they cannot prove is true, that football is more worthy of following than other sports. A definition you earlier rejected.

Atheists reject your claim that atheism is a religion for the same reason you reject the claim football is a religion. In fact, we reject your claim for an even better reason: one isn't required to prove a belief is false to reject it based on lack of evidence. The rejection of an unsupported belief isn't a matter of faith.

Covered this one, except with hockey.

Football is not a fundamental belief, one that all others are based upon. It's a sport that people get emotional over the outcomes.
Besides, we can all prove that football exists. Some of us have even played football, and have personal experience in it's existence.

It's a poor analogy.


Atheists believe that no deity exists, at least according to Merriam-Webster. Maybe the difference is that I am using the word correctly, and some others are not.

Cavalry Doc
01-18-2011, 16:52
Next thread:

"Why is it so hard to admit Christianity is not a religion?"

That would be interesting. Can you support that with the definitions of "Christianity" and "religion"??


I'm betting on "no".

Cavalry Doc
01-18-2011, 16:58
That may not explain the origin of man, but I think it pretty clearly explains the origin of religion.

That's the real fun part. No one really knows. Place your bets, do what makes you feel that you've done the right thing. There is no reason to belittle the choices of others. Who cares if it feels right for them? Why would you deny them that. BTW, I have the same opinion of religious folks that feel they can tell Atheists or agnostics that they are going to hell.


So far, I'm keeping my chips in my pocket, and being polite about it.

ksg0245
01-18-2011, 17:34
Covered this one, except with hockey.

Football is not a fundamental belief, one that all others are based upon.

You should actually read the thread, since football was also mentioned.

Nor is atheism a belief that all others are based upon; it is merely "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism), as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

It's a sport that people get emotional over the outcomes.
Besides, we can all prove that football exists. Some of us have even played football, and have personal experience in it's existence.

It's a poor analogy.

It's a perfectly fine analogy; you're again equivocating definitions as it suits your purpose. As void has pointed out, it is trivially easy to prove that some deities exist.

Atheists believe that no deity exists, at least according to Merriam-Webster.

I asked before, and don't recall getting an answer; is Merriam-Webster the sole arbiter of the definition of the term "atheist"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=atheist
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being."

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587466
"unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities"

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Maybe the difference is that I am using the word correctly, and some others are not.

Or maybe you refuse to acknowledge that not everyone abides by your limited defintion, and have legitimate definitions they prefer which don't fit your bias.

Careby
01-18-2011, 17:43
That's the real fun part. No one really knows. Place your bets, do what makes you feel that you've done the right thing. There is no reason to belittle the choices of others. Who cares if it feels right for them? Why would you deny them that. BTW, I have the same opinion of religious folks that feel they can tell Atheists or agnostics that they are going to hell.

So far, I'm keeping my chips in my pocket, and being polite about it.
I wasn't belittling anyone or being impolite. First of all I have no idea what the truth is, and I don't consider myself to be in any position to suggest to anyone else what they should or should not believe, let alone what they should call themselves. I deny others no freedom to accept or reject whatever religion they like. I'd say it's a fair bet that if there is a hell, then atheists and agnostics alike will be there in great abundance. I'll also say that I believe many religions offer positive benefits for followers, and that many atheists suffer some measure of anguish as a result of their disbelief, particularly when facing death. I seek answers, same as anyone, and when I discuss these issues with believers and non-believers I am looking for clues. When I hear something that does not fit in with my current views, I am motivated to ascertain whether or not my views need to change. When I poke at a theory it is to test its validity and strength.

Cavalry Doc
01-18-2011, 17:49
You should actually read the thread, since football was also mentioned.

Now, why are you so testy? We are trying to keep this thread going until we get an answer.



Nor is atheism a belief that all others are based upon; it is merely "a disbelief in the existence of deity" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism), as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

As has the difference between passive and active.

Atheists, believe that there is no deity. Don't believe me, look it up in the Merriam Websters dictionary.

We have to use these words correctly if they are going to mean anything, and that means all of us, including you.



It's a perfectly fine analogy; you're again equivocating definitions as it suits your purpose. As void has pointed out, it is trivially easy to prove that some deities exist.

If you can prove that no one has yet definitively proven whether football exist or not, OR show me proof that a deity exists....

I'll be impressed. Until then, it's still kind of less than impressive to me. Sorry, just being honest.



I asked before, and don't recall getting an answer; is Merriam-Webster the sole arbiter of the definition of the term "atheist"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
"a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings."

http://machaut.uchicago.edu/cgi-bin/WEBSTER.sh?WORD=atheist
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being."

http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/features/dictionary/DictionaryResults.aspx?refid=1861587466
"unbeliever in God or deities: somebody who does not believe in God or deities"

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."



Or maybe you refuse to acknowledge that not everyone abides by your limited defintion, and have legitimate definitions they prefer which don't fit your bias.

I think that Merriam-Websters is the single best reference for the definitions of words in American English.


You can twist it any way you like, but we have to agree to a standard, and for this discussion, that is the standard. Maybe you'd like to start another thread using a different reference, one that allows you to split the hair narrow enough to deny the truth.

You're choice.

But the real question, is why does even the idea that Atheism could accurately be described as a religion bother you so much?

Really, that is the question that started all of this...

Kentak
01-18-2011, 18:06
Merriam-Webster lists atheism as an antonym of religion.

I would submit that "atheism" cannot be both encompassed by "religion" and be an antonym at the same time.

Careby
01-18-2011, 18:09
Merriam-Webster lists atheism as an antonym of religion.

I would submit that "atheism" cannot be both encompassed by "religion" and be an antonym at the same time.

For the win! Now why did that take so long?

Cavalry Doc
01-18-2011, 20:59
Merriam-Webster lists atheism as an antonym of religion.

I would submit that "atheism" cannot be both encompassed by "religion" and be an antonym at the same time.

looks like they are inconsistent. As they define atheist as one that believes that there is not deity.


Hmmm. So, still, Atheism is system of belief, held to with ardor and faith, that believes there is no deity.

It is also a belief that is a foundation for many, if not all other beliefs.




I guess it can be an antonym, and still fit within the definition of religion at the same time.

Imagine that.

Ron3
01-18-2011, 22:33
I was just pokin' at ya Linus. :)

Ron3
01-18-2011, 22:37
Let me ax ya this since your so good at defining things:

Is Satanism a religion?

Ron3
01-18-2011, 22:52
But the real question, is why does even the idea that Atheism could accurately be described as a religion bother you so much?

Really, that is the question that started all of this...


Because it's a bit insulting.

You are telling people that they are not who they say and think they are. (and like most people who do this you are wrong)

It's just as insulting as telling someone who calls themselves a Packers fan, "Your not REALLY a Packers fan or whatever you call yourself and here's why..."

It's simply rude if not offensive mockery.

Does that answer your question?

Cavalry Doc
01-19-2011, 05:26
Let me ax ya this since your so good at defining things:

Is Satanism a religion?

By definition, yes.

Cavalry Doc
01-19-2011, 05:29
Because it's a bit insulting.

You are telling people that they are not who they say and think they are. (and like most people who do this you are wrong)

It's just as insulting as telling someone who calls themselves a Packers fan, "Your not REALLY a Packers fan or whatever you call yourself and here's why..."

It's simply rude if not offensive mockery.

Does that answer your question?


That's as about a good answer as I've had so far. I'm not sure why it would be insulting though. A religion does not mean that you have a belief in the supernatural, only that you have a strong belief, one for which you really have no proof. The evidence us examined, and was convincing, that's all.

Kingarthurhk
01-19-2011, 05:32
Let me ax ya this since your so good at defining things:

Is Satanism a religion?

Yes, it is.

steveksux
01-19-2011, 06:27
By definition, yes.

I would agree as well. Probably for different reasons than you, but it meets all of both of our definitions to be a religion in all senses of the word that are relevant.

Randy

steveksux
01-19-2011, 06:35
That's as about a good answer as I've had so far. I'm not sure why it would be insulting though. A religion does not mean that you have a belief in the supernatural, only that you have a strong belief, one for which you really have no proof.Of course, this is the heart of the debate. Clearly using the wrong definition leads to a faulty conclusion. (of course, we disagree on which of us that is.. :supergrin:)

Religions, all of which are based on worship of the supernatural, IS what atheists reject. OF COURSE THEY'RE INSULTED WHEN YOU LUMP THEM IN WITH THE VERY SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE (from their perspective, not saying its true) WHOSE REJECTION IS WHAT DEFINES THEM. Duh!

It is exactly if I compared the Heaven's Gate people to Christians. They'd get labelled a cult rather than a REAL Christian religion, as its insulting to compare Christians on an equal footing to the nutballs that thought they had to commit suicide to join Jesus on the Hale-Bopp comet. Just as insulting as Christians would be getting compared to voodoo practitioners. Or "Voodoo is just another religion, just like Christianity." Yeah, some Christians would likely take offense to that.

You can argue all day about WHY some Christian denominations detest the Roman Catholic Church, and think the Pope is the AntiChrist, and disagree with their theological reasoning that gets them there. But its more than a little crazy to start a thread with a question that presumes they don't believe the very premise their position is based on and question why is it so hard for them to accept the Pope as the head of the Christian Church because you as a Catholic accept that as a fact based on your particular interpretation of scripture. Or a Satanist asking Why is it so hard for Christians to accept the fact that Satan is Lord and Ruler of the Universe?

Kind of illustrates why I consider it trolling.

You're simply playing semantic games with Mirriam-Webster instead of scripture to accomplish the same thing.

Randy

void *
01-19-2011, 10:18
Hmmm. So, still, Atheism is system of belief, held to with ardor and faith, that believes there is no deity.

As has been noted multiple times - while some may hold that as a belief with "ardor and faith", that does not require all to.

I suspect most atheists are, like me, just conditionally rejecting the posit that there is a deity. Since it's conditional, there is no ardor or faith - and without ardor or faith, there goes your entire argument.

Also, atheism being an antonym of religion is entirely consistent with the Merriam-Webster definitions and how the words are actually used. Inconsistency only results when someone, such as yourself, attempts to claim that only one specific definition is applicable in all cases.

Ron3
01-19-2011, 16:23
By definition, yes.

I agree.

ksg0245
01-21-2011, 10:20
Now, why are you so testy? We are trying to keep this thread going until we get an answer.

Not being testy, just responding in kind to you. You've gotten an answer several times. You just won't accept it.

As has the difference between passive and active.

Atheists, believe that there is no deity. Don't believe me, look it up in the Merriam Websters dictionary.

I'll take it, then, that your answer to the question "is Merriam-Webster the sole arbiter of the definition of the term "atheist"?" is "yes, Merriam-Webster the sole arbiter of the definition of the term "atheist."

As it happens, I think it's better to consult more than one source.

We have to use these words correctly if they are going to mean anything, and that means all of us, including you.

I'm fine with that, since I've amply demonstrated I'm using the term "atheist" correctly by providing multiple cites. I think what you really mean is "We have to use these words the way I want if they are going to mean what I need them to mean."

If you can prove that no one has yet definitively proven whether football exist or not, OR show me proof that a deity exists....

I'll be impressed. Until then, it's still kind of less than impressive to me. Sorry, just being honest.

No, you're being equivocal. Why do you have such difficulty admitting it?

Why should anyone be required to prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence? Why should anyone believe something for which there is no evidence?

I think that Merriam-Websters is the single best reference for the definitions of words in American English.

Why? Upon what research do you base that conclusion? What makes other sources inferior?

You can twist it any way you like, but we have to agree to a standard, and for this discussion, that is the standard. Maybe you'd like to start another thread using a different reference, one that allows you to split the hair narrow enough to deny the truth.

So "we have to agree to a standard," but YOU get to set it? How nice for you. It's ironic you imply I'm "denying the truth; are the cites I've provided all lies?

You're choice.

But the real question, is why does even the idea that Atheism could accurately be described as a religion bother you so much?

Really, that is the question that started all of this...

Because, as I and several others have repeated explained to you, it can't "accurately be described as a religion" unless you equivocate the definition of religion. Why does it bother you so much that the people to whom the term actually applies reject your attempt to redefine their beliefs, to the point that you refuse to even acknowledge the cites offered?

If you want to believe "strong belief" makes something a religion, I can't stop that religious belief you have.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 15:56
Of course, this is the heart of the debate. Clearly using the wrong definition leads to a faulty conclusion. (of course, we disagree on which of us that is.. :supergrin:)

Religions, all of which are based on worship of the supernatural, IS what atheists reject. OF COURSE THEY'RE INSULTED WHEN YOU LUMP THEM IN WITH THE VERY SUPERSTITIOUS NONSENSE (from their perspective, not saying its true) WHOSE REJECTION IS WHAT DEFINES THEM. Duh!

It is exactly if I compared the Heaven's Gate people to Christians. They'd get labelled a cult rather than a REAL Christian religion, as its insulting to compare Christians on an equal footing to the nutballs that thought they had to commit suicide to join Jesus on the Hale-Bopp comet. Just as insulting as Christians would be getting compared to voodoo practitioners. Or "Voodoo is just another religion, just like Christianity." Yeah, some Christians would likely take offense to that.

You can argue all day about WHY some Christian denominations detest the Roman Catholic Church, and think the Pope is the AntiChrist, and disagree with their theological reasoning that gets them there. But its more than a little crazy to start a thread with a question that presumes they don't believe the very premise their position is based on and question why is it so hard for them to accept the Pope as the head of the Christian Church because you as a Catholic accept that as a fact based on your particular interpretation of scripture. Or a Satanist asking Why is it so hard for Christians to accept the fact that Satan is Lord and Ruler of the Universe?

Kind of illustrates why I consider it trolling.

You're simply playing semantic games with Mirriam-Webster instead of scripture to accomplish the same thing.

Randy

What's wrong with semantics?

se·man·tic
adj \si-ˈman-tik\
Definition of SEMANTIC
1
: of or relating to meaning in language
2
: of or relating to semantics

Yes it is semantics, it's just that an acceptable definition of the word "Religion" can be accurately applied to Atheism.

It's not an accusation that they believe in the supernatural. That's not the point at all. But they do believe in a conclusion that they cannot prove, which is exactly what religious people do. There's nothing wrong with choosing to believe in something. We all do it. Most of us have not done experiments that prove that atomic bombs will work, but we all believe they will. Because we were told they could, and there is historical proof of the matter. Most us have not personally proven that E=mc squared.

We all make choices about what we believe. Just have the conviction to state that it is what it is...... faith.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 15:57
Not being testy, just responding in kind to you. You've gotten an answer several times. You just won't accept it.



I'll take it, then, that your answer to the question "is Merriam-Webster the sole arbiter of the definition of the term "atheist"?" is "yes, Merriam-Webster the sole arbiter of the definition of the term "atheist."

As it happens, I think it's better to consult more than one source.



I'm fine with that, since I've amply demonstrated I'm using the term "atheist" correctly by providing multiple cites. I think what you really mean is "We have to use these words the way I want if they are going to mean what I need them to mean."



No, you're being equivocal. Why do you have such difficulty admitting it?

Why should anyone be required to prove the non-existence of something for which there is no evidence? Why should anyone believe something for which there is no evidence?



Why? Upon what research do you base that conclusion? What makes other sources inferior?



So "we have to agree to a standard," but YOU get to set it? How nice for you. It's ironic you imply I'm "denying the truth; are the cites I've provided all lies?



Because, as I and several others have repeated explained to you, it can't "accurately be described as a religion" unless you equivocate the definition of religion. Why does it bother you so much that the people to whom the term actually applies reject your attempt to redefine their beliefs, to the point that you refuse to even acknowledge the cites offered?

If you want to believe "strong belief" makes something a religion, I can't stop that religious belief you have.

Not just strong belief. Strong belief without proof. It fits better if that belief leads one to a fundamental understanding of the universe.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 16:01
As has been noted multiple times - while some may hold that as a belief with "ardor and faith", that does not require all to.

I suspect most atheists are, like me, just conditionally rejecting the posit that there is a deity. Since it's conditional, there is no ardor or faith - and without ardor or faith, there goes your entire argument.

Also, atheism being an antonym of religion is entirely consistent with the Merriam-Webster definitions and how the words are actually used. Inconsistency only results when someone, such as yourself, attempts to claim that only one specific definition is applicable in all cases.

What you are describing is atheistic agnosticism. Not sure, but leaning that way.

I'm not surprised that it's an antonym. Nothing is perfect, let alone the English language. Cool is an antonym of warm, but a warm gun is really cool.

Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo. It's a complete sentence. Odd but true. Just as it is odd but true that atheism is a religion.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 16:12
For me, this goes back to the issue of faith. In my estimation it takes just as much faith to say that matter came for ex nhilo e.g. "out of nothing" than to believe in an Intelligent Design. Further, given the order and laws of physics it makes more sense ot believe in an Intelligent Design by a Creator than it does to believe that matter suddenly came out of nowhere, and out of nothing and then created order and life on its own accord. Further, I would argue that seeking out an intelligent Creator to commune with, makes more sense than putting one's faith into matter that has came from nothing, and somehow became and ordered system with physical laws that are also ordered.

The interdependency required of elements within a single cell, or the cells within a single organ, or the organs within an organism, or between widely different species within an environment.....

The following mind boggling complexity occurs within single cells.
http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl
Be sure to click on the picture for the detail. :cool:


Evidence that it would take an infinite amount of "accidents" to create even basic metabolic processes.

Personally, I don't know. At least I'm willing to admit it, and generally be polite about it.

Firm refusal to believe what others do is not rudeness, it's honesty in this case.

Atheism is just another religion. It irritates them to no end to point it out. I'm not sure what is insulting about that fact. That is what I am trying to get at.

Those that have faith in a deity, believe in them whether there is proof or not.
Those that don't believe in a deity, believe there is not a deity whether there is no proof or not.

From an agnostics perspective, there really is not a significant difference. The only difference is what they believe, not how they arrived there.

steveksux
01-22-2011, 16:40
What's wrong with semantics?
Nothing wrong when used properly.

In the Obama Tuscon Speech thread, you were claiming that Obama could have been a liar. You're at least as big a liar as Obama.

A liar is one who lies. You don't sleep standing up, do you? Neither does Obama. You both lie when sleeping. Ergo you are a liar, just as Obama is.

Doesn't matter that there's 2 different definitions of lie at play in the two cases. Either definition is valid as you keep pointing out. An acceptable definition of "lie" can be applied to both you and Obama. Therefore you're as big a liar as Obama.

That's the sort of semantic games you are playing here with your definitions of religion.

Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that you are TELLING lies, but that is the obvious conclusion one comes to when one says you are a liar. Just as obvious as religion = supernatural belief.

Mixing connotations of words as they apply to various things when making comparisons like that leads to misleading or erroneous conclusions.

Randy

creaky
01-22-2011, 17:39
Nothing wrong when used properly.

In the Obama Tuscon Speech thread, you were claiming that Obama could have been a liar. You're at least as big a liar as Obama.

A liar is one who lies. You don't sleep standing up, do you? Neither does Obama. You both lie when sleeping. Ergo you are a liar, just as Obama is.

Doesn't matter that there's 2 different definitions of lie at play in the two cases. Either definition is valid as you keep pointing out. An acceptable definition of "lie" can be applied to both you and Obama. Therefore you're as big a liar as Obama.

That's the sort of semantic games you are playing here with your definitions of religion.

Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that you are TELLING lies, but that is the obvious conclusion one comes to when one says you are a liar. Just as obvious as religion = supernatural belief.

Mixing connotations of words as they apply to various things when making comparisons like that leads to misleading or erroneous conclusions.

Randy

Uh, Randy, You should probably pay attention to the whole semantics thing more carefully.

BHO is a liar....true. (and sometimes a lier, I'm sure.)
Doc is sometimes a lier..... but not a liar that I have ever witnessed.

Completely different words.

You should probably just retract your post.

void *
01-22-2011, 17:59
You should probably just retract your post.

Or, perhaps, people could decide that they understand the point even if the words chosen aren't necessarily the best. Just a thought.

void *
01-22-2011, 18:01
Personally, I don't know. At least I'm willing to admit it, and generally be polite about it.

Are we really back to the accusation that there is a claim to *know*, despite the myriad posts that you should easily understand indicate otherwise? (Half expecting a response that there are not ten thousand posts in the thread. I would chuckle at that).

creaky
01-22-2011, 18:07
Or, perhaps, people could decide that they understand the point even if the words chosen aren't necessarily the best. Just a thought.

I could do that, but I'm not going to in this case.

steveksux
01-22-2011, 18:48
Uh, Randy, You should probably pay attention to the whole semantics thing more carefully.

BHO is a liar....true. (and sometimes a lier, I'm sure.)
Doc is sometimes a lier..... but not a liar that I have ever witnessed.

Completely different words.

You should probably just retract your post.Same word. Lie. Two different meanings. Both meanings apply to BHO. Only one applies to Doc.

Same thing he's doing with his 2 definitions of religion. Both apply real religions like Christianity, only one applies to atheists. One that only applies to Christianity (or BHO in the analogy) is the common usage of the word. Atheists as well as Doc would be insulted should someone mistake the semantic gamesmanship involved and assume the common usage of the word is the one intended.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 18:51
Nothing wrong when used properly.

In the Obama Tuscon Speech thread, you were claiming that Obama could have been a liar. You're at least as big a liar as Obama.

A liar is one who lies. You don't sleep standing up, do you? Neither does Obama. You both lie when sleeping. Ergo you are a liar, just as Obama is.

Doesn't matter that there's 2 different definitions of lie at play in the two cases. Either definition is valid as you keep pointing out. An acceptable definition of "lie" can be applied to both you and Obama. Therefore you're as big a liar as Obama.

That's the sort of semantic games you are playing here with your definitions of religion.

Now, I'm not seriously suggesting that you are TELLING lies, but that is the obvious conclusion one comes to when one says you are a liar. Just as obvious as religion = supernatural belief.

Mixing connotations of words as they apply to various things when making comparisons like that leads to misleading or erroneous conclusions.

Randy

It's not my fault if you can't spell? Do you own a dictionary?


Way off topic. Political issues belong in GTPI. I'm not going to take the time to re-read that thread for you, but I believe that I raised the possibility that he was mistaken, taking a bit of creative license, or lying. But that is about a matter of sequence of events, and what did he know when he knew it.
Just to keep from hijacking the thread, why don't you mention that stuff in the original thread.

mmmkay? (feel free to look that one up on urbandictionary.com)


Stick to the accepted American dictionary definitions, and it is reasonable to say Atheism is a religion. I'm not trying to argue the fact. It's a fact.

I'm only trying to truly understand why it's so hard to admit.
All you've helped me do is establish that it is truly hard to admit, especially for the faithful.

steveksux
01-22-2011, 18:56
Way off topic. Political issues belong in GTPI. I'm not going to take the time to re-read that thread for you, but I believe that I raised the possibility that he was mistaken, taking a bit of creative license, or lying. But that is about a matter of sequence of events, and what did he know when he knew it.
Just to keep from hijacking the thread, why don't you mention that stuff in the original thread.

mmmmkay? (feel free to look that one up on urbandictionary.com)


Stick to the accepted American dictionary definitions, and it is reasonable to say Atheism is a religion. I'm not trying to argue the fact. It's a fact.

I'm only trying to truly understand why it's so hard to admit.
All you've helped me do is establish that it is truly hard to admit, especially for the faithful.Its explained quite well in the post you're desperately trying to ignore. Why is it so hard to admit you're as big a liar as Obama? :wavey:

Hint: Because I'm incorrectly using two different connotations of a word to compare you with Obama. Same thing you are doing comparing atheism with deist religions using different connotations of religion.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 18:59
Are we really back to the accusation that there is a claim to *know*, despite the myriad posts that you should easily understand indicate otherwise? (Half expecting a response that there are not ten thousand posts in the thread. I would chuckle at that).

Uh. Yup.

Atheist
Atheistic agnostic
Agnostic
Theistic agnostic
Theist



I understand the words written in the denials that atheism is a religion, quite well in fact, but I am objectively able to realize that they are wholly without merit.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 19:03
Its explained quite well in the post you're desperately trying to ignore. Why is it so hard to admit you're as big a liar as Obama? :wavey:

Hint: Because I'm incorrectly using two different connotations of a word to compare you with Obama. Same thing you are doing comparing atheism with deist religions using different connotations of religion.

Randy

Steve/randy, or whatever...

If you can't keep it civil, I have no interest in speaking with you.
If you are offended by what I am pointing out, which is verifiable fact, please, just put me on your ignore list, and then actually ignore me.

mmmkay?

The emotionally mature people would like to have a conversation without the personal attacks.

If you'll post in the other thread you are mentioning, I might find my way over there to debate those issues in their proper forum.

void *
01-22-2011, 19:20
I am objectively able to realize that they are wholly without merit.

The way I see it, you are steadfastly maintaining that dictionaries mandate usage rather than document it, that you are the arbiter of which dictionary is appropriate to mandate usage, and that you furthermore get to mandate which specific definition is in use. Despite being told repeatedly which specific definitions are being used by the people who actually wrote the words.

You also repeat the assertion that other people are claiming to know. Despite being told mutliple times, in mutliple different posts, by multiple different people that they are making no such claim.

How about you take 30 seconds, realize that other people use words in contexts where the definition in use is *not* the one you want it to be, and then take another 30 seconds and realize that when people note multiple times that they are not making a claim to know - they aren't making a claim to know.

Conditional rejection of a positive assertion is not knowledge. In fact, it implies lack of knowledge. To imply knowledge, a positive assertion of the negation must be made.

When you can stop just saying that people are doing things that you have been told, by those people, multiple times, that they are not - perhaps the conversation could move forward.

void *
01-22-2011, 19:24
I could do that, but I'm not going to in this case.

Well, from my perspective, that just means it looks like you're deciding to miss it intentionally.

Cavalry Doc
01-22-2011, 19:40
The way I see it, you are steadfastly maintaining that dictionaries mandate usage rather than document it, that you are the arbiter of which dictionary is appropriate to mandate usage, and that you furthermore get to mandate which specific definition is in use. Despite being told repeatedly which specific definitions are being used by the people who actually wrote the words.

You also repeat the assertion that other people are claiming to know. Despite being told mutliple times, in mutliple different posts, by multiple different people that they are making no such claim.

How about you take 30 seconds, realize that other people use words in contexts where the definition in use is *not* the one you want it to be, and then take another 30 seconds and realize that when people note multiple times that they are not making a claim to know - they aren't making a claim to know.

Conditional rejection of a positive assertion is not knowledge. In fact, it implies lack of knowledge. To imply knowledge, a positive assertion of the negation must be made.

When you can stop just saying that people are doing things that you have been told, by those people, multiple times, that they are not - perhaps the conversation could move forward.

I've considered what you have said.



Atheism is not just a religion literally, but in spirit, if you'll pardon the use of the word.


The most common reason for religion is to explain the origins of our being. Agreed?

Some believe that some supernatural force created life, and us. Agreed?

Some believe that no supernatural force exists, and that we came to be through chance and by the laws of nature & physics. Agreed?

:dunno:

steveksux
01-23-2011, 06:21
Steve/randy, or whatever...

If you can't keep it civil, I have no interest in speaking with you.
If you are offended by what I am pointing out, which is verifiable fact, please, just put me on your ignore list, and then actually ignore me.

mmmkay?

The emotionally mature people would like to have a conversation without the personal attacks.

If you'll post in the other thread you are mentioning, I might find my way over there to debate those issues in their proper forum.Who's not being civil? Its just a quirk of the English language. The point is very clear. I mention the other thread only to give you context as to how I thought of this point. Its not germaine to the actual point itself. You don't need to read it or even be aware of it's existence to get the point. I offered that only as a courtesy, for context. As much for anyone else as for you to get where I'm coming from.

I was very clear that I'm referring to the definition of lie that refers to being horizontal, not dishonest. So what's uncivil about that? Why should anyone be offended by that? Its just like your question in this thread. Is this thread topic uncivil? I don't understand. What was it you said about using any definition of the word?

So again: Why is it so hard to admit you lie like Obama?

When you figure out the answer to THAT question, you'll have the answer to YOUR question in this thread. They rely on the exact same semantic principles you're using here. I call them semantic tricks, but that is just semantics, after all... :dunno::wavey::supergrin:

Randy

steveksux
01-23-2011, 06:32
I've considered what you have said.



Atheism is not just a religion literally, but in spirit, if you'll pardon the use of the word.


The most common reason for religion is to explain the origins of our being. Agreed?

Some believe that some supernatural force created life, and us. Agreed?

Some believe that no supernatural force exists, and that we came to be through chance and by the laws of nature & physics. Agreed?Scientists believe that. So now science is a religion too??? That's so precious... :rofl::rofl:

Atheism does not tell you anything about the origins of our being. You're confusing cosmology with atheism.

Randy

:dunno:[/QUOTE]

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 08:56
Scientists believe that. So now science is a religion too??? That's so precious... :rofl::rofl:

Atheism does not tell you anything about the origins of our being. You're confusing cosmology with atheism.

Randy

:dunno:

There are a lot of scientists that are christian, jewish, muslim, atheist etc.

Does not Atheism propose that life exists without the influence of a designing intelligence?

If true, that would tell you something about the origins of our being.

void *
01-23-2011, 08:58
I've considered what you have said.

You say that - but you keep turning around and positing that the position I hold is not what I've said it is.

What would you think were someone to do that to you? Would you think they'd considered your position? Or would you think that they're either a) not getting or b) deliberately and knowingly stating things that you've made clear were not the case?

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 09:01
Who's not being civil? Its just a quirk of the English language. The point is very clear. I mention the other thread only to give you context as to how I thought of this point. Its not germaine to the actual point itself. You don't need to read it or even be aware of it's existence to get the point. I offered that only as a courtesy, for context. As much for anyone else as for you to get where I'm coming from.

I was very clear that I'm referring to the definition of lie that refers to being horizontal, not dishonest. So what's uncivil about that? Why should anyone be offended by that? Its just like your question in this thread. Is this thread topic uncivil? I don't understand. What was it you said about using any definition of the word?

So again: Why is it so hard to admit you lie like Obama?

When you figure out the answer to THAT question, you'll have the answer to YOUR question in this thread. They rely on the exact same semantic principles you're using here. I call them semantic tricks, but that is just semantics, after all... :dunno::wavey::supergrin:

Randy


http://img687.imageshack.us/img687/3627/47038.gif
http://fc01.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/136/4/a/OhLookAButterfly_by_MerrBakeneko.gif







http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/stayontopic.jpg








Off topic. Ad hom. Mind yer manners.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 09:13
You say that - but you keep turning around and positing that the position I hold is not what I've said it is.

What would you think were someone to do that to you? Would you think they'd considered your position? Or would you think that they're either a) not getting or b) deliberately and knowingly stating things that you've made clear were not the case?

I don't think I have proposed that your position is anything other than what you have stated. Your opinions are entirely yours.

I just disagree on some points, and am stating my own opinions.


I read back through the thread, can you point out any of my posts where I told you what your opinion is? I couldn't find it.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 10:59
There are a lot of scientists that are christian, jewish, muslim, atheist etc.Exactly. Only Christians, Jews, and Muslims (add other religions) and scientists have an explanation for the origins of the universe. Atheists do not.

Does not Atheism propose that life exists without the influence of a designing intelligence?

If true, that would tell you something about the origins of our being.
If you consider that something, its pretty useless. If you water own definitions to the point of uselessness (oh, yeah, like you're trying to do with "religion") you might have a point. Telling someone the Easter Bunny does not turn the wheels doesn't tell you anything about driving.

Randy

steveksux
01-23-2011, 11:02
Off topic. Ad hom. Mind yer manners.It's not off topic, its an analogy. And it's true. And it answers your question. Hence perfectly on topic.

Do you deny you lie down when sleeping? Or that Obama does?

Why then can't you admit you lie like Obama?

For the same reason atheists won't admit atheism is a religion.

Because the statement as commonly understood is untrue, would be offensive to the comparee if it were true and only by cherrypicking definitions that do not match common usage is it possible to claim the obviously misleading statement is "true", in a trivial, misleading way.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 11:21
Exactly. Only Christians, Jews, and Muslims (add other religions) and scientists have an explanation for the origins of the universe. Atheists do not.

If you consider that something, its pretty useless. If you water own definitions to the point of uselessness (oh, yeah, like you're trying to do with "religion") you might have a point. Telling someone the Easter Bunny does not turn the wheels doesn't tell you anything about driving.

Randy

Actually, it would be very useful. Intelligent design vs. Just happened.
Being one of the ones that have withheld judgment may be making it easier to see that Atheists have come to a conclusion. Atheism is a choice, so is theism. Agnosticism is an understanding that it could be one way or the other. It's a gradient, not different baskets.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 11:28
It's not off topic, its an analogy. And it's true. And it answers your question. Hence perfectly on topic.

Do you deny you lie down when sleeping? Or that Obama does?

Why then can't you admit you lie like Obama?

For the same reason atheists won't admit atheism is a religion.

Because the statement as commonly understood is untrue, would be offensive to the comparee if it were true and only by cherrypicking definitions that do not match common usage is it possible to claim the obviously misleading statement is "true", in a trivial, misleading way.

Randy

Well there are a few differences. I'm sure he is sleeping on linens with a higher thread count, surrounded by luxury and professional security. But I guess it's a trade off, because I've got a much more attractive bed warmer, and a couple of dogs, including a viciously trained pekingese attack dog.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 11:39
Well there are a few differences. I'm sure he is sleeping on linens with a higher thread count, surrounded by luxury and professional security. But I guess it's a trade off, because I've got a much more attractive bed warmer, and a couple of dogs, including a viciously trained pekingese attack dog.:rofl: The small dogs seem to be the most vicious sometimes, dont' they? Like they have a chip on their little shoulders... :supergrin:

I wonder do you get the point now, though? The question as posed appears misleading and offensive, until you read the fine print, discover some obscure alternate meaning behind the key terms that may fit in some limited technical sense, but ignores the best fit/most common definition of religion, or lie, in order to attempt to make a point that makes no sense in the commonly accepted connotation of the word involved.

Randy

Vic777
01-23-2011, 11:40
You should have figured all this out by the time you were Seven years old. Santa Claus, was a clue.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 11:46
Actually, it would be very useful. Intelligent design vs. Just happened. I would argue its not useful at all. We have a serial rapist running loose in Detroit. Should I call 911 and report that the Easter Bunny is not responsible? Clearly that's not useful information. Ruling out things that may have had a hand in creation is useful. Ruling out imaginary things that do not even exist is not. Stuff that doesn't exist can't play a part in cause and effect, they are already ruled out by definition.


Being one of the ones that have withheld judgment may be making it easier to see that Atheists have come to a conclusion. Atheism is a choice, so is theism. Agnosticism is an understanding that it could be one way or the other. It's a gradient, not different baskets.Cereal for breakfast was a choice. I'm not changing my religion tomorrow if I have pancakes and bacon instead. The only way you can make the comparison is if you disregard the dictionary definition that fits theism, and use one that is far less appropriate for theism, simply to allow you to make the claim that atheism is a religion.

Essentially you're moving the goalposts to make your point by avoiding the obvious definition of religion for theistic religions, it seems a fairly circular argument.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 12:40
:rofl: The small dogs seem to be the most vicious sometimes, dont' they? Like they have a chip on their little shoulders... :supergrin:

I wonder do you get the point now, though? The question as posed appears misleading and offensive, until you read the fine print, discover some obscure alternate meaning behind the key terms that may fit in some limited technical sense, but ignores the best fit/most common definition of religion, or lie, in order to attempt to make a point that makes no sense in the commonly accepted connotation of the word involved.

Randy



I lie down to sleep, and atheism is a religion. I get it.

But you did start out using lie as to mean telling an untruth.

Lest we forget post 723:
In the Obama Tuscon Speech thread, you were claiming that Obama could have been a liar. You're at least as big a liar as Obama.

A liar is one who lies.

That was the ad hom, and the reason I paid the rest of your posts only the minimal amount of attention. It was your poor word usage that led to the misunderstanding. Lay and Lie has tripped up a lot of people, don't feel bad.



I still don't get how atheism being accurately described as a religion is offensive. Once you explained what you meant, I was no longer offended. Maybe if the atheists could understand that they are actually not anti-religion, but anti-supernatural belief.


I've seen that Atheists sometimes have a bit of fun pointing out that a particular story in a religious text could not be true. Jonah and the whale for instance. They pick and poke fun at how could people believe in a god when there is no proof that there is one. I'm just pointing out the very real similarity in how they have come to their own conclusion, that there is no god, but also have no proof.

Atheists and Theists have unproven belief systems.

void *
01-23-2011, 12:54
I read back through the thread, can you point out any of my posts where I told you what your opinion is? I couldn't find it.

Do you deny that you keep making the claim that atheists claim to know when *multiple* self-identified atheists have flat out told you they do not claim to know? If you do, then I'll start linking to posts.

If you don't deny it - why are you still doing it?

Do you get it? When people who are self-identified as belonging to the group tell you they make no claim to know, and then you turn around and claim that the people in the group claim to know - it doesn't matter whether or not you are specifically referring to a specific individual. It's the same as if someone said "All people who claim they are agnostics are really theists in disguise", then you, as a self identified agnostic, state that you are not a theist in disguise, and then ten posts later the original person again made the claim. You have been told by people who self-identify as atheist that they do not make the claim to know. You should not be surprised when they object again when you make the same claim despite having the information required to know that the claim cannot be accurate.