Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 4 - 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

steveksux
01-23-2011, 13:16
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:


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 was thinking as in "you lie down to sleep", merriam supports that meaning for "lie", so I'm not sure you are correct that lie is wrong. I certainly agree lay is correct also. Maybe they are different tenses/conjugations of the same verb?

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.They do understand that they are anti-supernatural. And they understand that all theistic religions are all based on supernatural beliefs. The best definition for theistic beliefs is the one that includes not just belief, but belief in supernatural beings and is filed under "Religion" in the dictionary.

So I would suggest it is not reasonable to expect them to reject the most accurate definition for religion, the one that best matches the very thing they reject in defining their worldview, in favor of a less accurate description that as an added bonus of lumping them in with the very thing they reject.


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.Still apples and oranges. Vast difference between belief without proof and disbelief without proof. One is at least a rational position in the scientific sense. No way to prove a negative. If you start believing anything that cannot be proven false, you are a lot different than if you only start believing things that CAN be proven true. Those are still fundamentally different belief systems, and not comparable in any meaningful sense outside some meaningless semantic argument. Philosophically completely different belief systems. Night and day. And someone who rejects believing in stuff that is unproven is also not going to amenable to semantic games equating their belief system when they are clearly NOT equal, not equivalent.

The whole argument collapses from relying on ignoring very obvious differences straining to find semantic similarities that do not pass muster in any meaningful sense.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 13:20
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.

Not sure how to clear this up with you, but the definition of atheist is quite short and quite clear.


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


It looks like your problem is with Merriam-Webster, not me?

I think that many so called atheists, are actually atheistic leaning agnostics. That may be the source of the discomfort. I could see an atheistic agnostic vehemently defending that they have not formed a belief that they could accurately describe as believing that there is no deity, but only refuse to believe in deities. An atheist has formed the belief that there is no deity.


Hope that clears it up.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 14:18
I think that many so called atheists, are actually atheistic leaning agnostics. That may be the source of the discomfort. I could see an atheistic agnostic vehemently defending that they have not formed a belief that they could accurately describe as believing that there is no deity, but only refuse to believe in deities. An atheist has formed the belief that there is no deity.


Hope that clears it up.You may be onto something here... not sure you are looking at it from the right angle though.. I would suggest that the Atheism you describe as a religion may not exist except as a theoretical construct.

Implicit in atheism is to not believe in something because there's no proof. That seems inconsistent to your definition of atheist. As soon as there is evidence to the contrary, that there is a God of some sort, they would no longer believe in the non-existence of a deity. Contrast that with genuine religious belief, with ardor, in which new evidence that they are wrong about any portion of their belief system doesn't invalidate the belief system. Like when the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, isn't 6000 years old, stars are fixed in the heavens, etc.

Some religions ignore the facts completely, still believe in young earth, etc. That's the sort of belief you ascribe to Atheists. Others religions adjust, well, we were wrong about the Earth centered universe, but we're still right on everything else.

So maybe you are correct about the atheistic leaning agnostics, but have defined atheists in such a way that doesn't exist in the real world. Maybe you've been getting responses from ALAs you think are coming from atheists? ALAs that self identify as atheists, but don't fit your definition of atheists.

Just struck me, didn't put a lot of thought into it. May be some holes in there...
Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-23-2011, 14:24
You may be onto something here... Although I would suggest that the Atheism you describe as a religion may not exist except as a theoretical construct.

Implicit in atheism is to not believe in something because there's no proof. That seems inconsistent to your definition of atheist. As soon as there is evidence to the contrary, that there is a God of some sort, they would no longer believe in the non-existence of a deity. Contrast that with genuine religious belief, with ardor, in which new evidence that they are wrong about any portion of their belief system doesn't invalidate the belief system. Like when the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, isn't 6000 years old, stars are fixed in the heavens, etc.

Some religions ignore the facts completely, still believe in young earth, etc. That's the sort of belief you ascribe to Atheists. Others religions adjust, well, we were wrong about the Earth centered universe, but we're still right on everything else.

So maybe you are correct about the atheistic leaning agnostics, but have defined atheists in such a way that doesn't exist in the real world. Maybe you've been getting responses from ALAs you think are coming from atheists?

Just struck me, didn't put a lot of thought into it. May be some holes in there...
Randy

I disagree. Athiests assert there is no God. This cannot be proven. This is a statement of faith. Agnostics says, "I don't know, I haven't made up my mind yet." Agnostics are simply folks who haven't decided on a faith statement.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 14:31
I disagree. Athiests assert there is no God. This cannot be proven. This is a statement of faith. Agnostics says, "I don't know, I haven't made up my mind yet." Agnostics are simply folks who haven't decided on a faith statement.
It cannot be proven, true, can not prove a negative. But it can be DISPROVEN... And the belief being based on evidence would be abandoned without a second thought. Religious beliefs are not so flexible, nor so easily abandoned. Because they are based on faith, not evidence. Thus I would say atheism is not based on faith so much as lack of evidence. One, religion, being faith based, has an emotional component, atheism, based on evidence, not faith does not.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-23-2011, 14:37
It cannot be proven, true, can not prove a negative. But it can be DISPROVEN... And the belief being based on evidence would be abandoned without a second thought. Religious beliefs are not so flexible, nor so easily abandoned. Because they are based on faith, not evidence. Thus I would say atheism is not based on faith so much as lack of evidence. One, religion, being faith based, has an emotional component, atheism, based on evidence, not faith does not.

Randy

I look at the evidence of nature and say it points to an intelligent creator. You say it does not. It is the same evidence. I have faith in a God, you have faith there isn't a God. I fail to see the difference in the need for faith to believe differently in the same evidence, if you wanted to reverse engineer the theory back to the original Metaphysical Presupositions. The major difference being, I am hoping for a happier ending.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 14:42
You may be onto something here... not sure you are looking at it from the right angle though.. I would suggest that the Atheism you describe as a religion may not exist except as a theoretical construct.

Implicit in atheism is to not believe in something because there's no proof. That seems inconsistent to your definition of atheist. As soon as there is evidence to the contrary, that there is a God of some sort, they would no longer believe in the non-existence of a deity. Contrast that with genuine religious belief, with ardor, in which new evidence that they are wrong about any portion of their belief system doesn't invalidate the belief system. Like when the Earth wasn't the center of the universe, isn't 6000 years old, stars are fixed in the heavens, etc.

Some religions ignore the facts completely, still believe in young earth, etc. That's the sort of belief you ascribe to Atheists. Others religions adjust, well, we were wrong about the Earth centered universe, but we're still right on everything else.

So maybe you are correct about the atheistic leaning agnostics, but have defined atheists in such a way that doesn't exist in the real world. Maybe you've been getting responses from ALAs you think are coming from atheists? ALAs that self identify as atheists, but don't fit your definition of atheists.

Just struck me, didn't put a lot of thought into it. May be some holes in there...
Randy



To an agnostic, atheism and theism are both theoretical constructs.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 14:48
It cannot be proven, true, can not prove a negative. But it can be DISPROVEN... And the belief being based on evidence would be abandoned without a second thought. Religious beliefs are not so flexible, nor so easily abandoned. Because they are based on faith, not evidence. Thus I would say atheism is not based on faith so much as lack of evidence. One, religion, being faith based, has an emotional component, atheism, based on evidence, not faith does not.

Randy


But there is one big, fat problem with all this. Among professional logicians, guess how many think that you canít prove a negative? Thatís right: zero. Yes, Virginia, you can prove a negative, and itís easy, too. (http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf)


Agnosticism is based on a lack of evidence. Atheism has taken another step.

Oh, and there is plenty of evidence of the emotions involved in Atheistic faith right here in this thread.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 15:19
I look at the evidence of nature and say it points to an intelligent creator. You say it does not. It is the same evidence. I have faith in a God, you have faith there isn't a God. I fail to see the difference in the need for faith to believe differently in the same evidence, if you wanted to reverse engineer the theory back to the original Metaphysical Presupositions. The major difference being, I am hoping for a happier ending.

This is perhaps why there is such a disconnect, the words we use interchangeably don't mean the same thing.

All the evidence you speak of points just as surely to Odin, the Easter Bunny, Spaceship Jesus, as it does to your God. Yet you believe in your God over the others. That's rationalization, not investigation.

Irreducible complexity that is not so irreducible upon further examination. Miracles of one sort or another. Signs that are interpreted. Not the type of evidence I'm talking about.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
01-23-2011, 15:24
This is perhaps why there is such a disconnect, the words we use interchangeably don't mean the same thing.

All the evidence you speak of points just as surely to Odin, the Easter Bunny, Spaceship Jesus, as it does to your God. Yet you believe in your God over the others. That's rationalization, not investigation.

Irreducible complexity that is not so irreducible upon further examination. Miracles of one sort or another. Signs that are interpreted. Not the type of evidence I'm talking about.

Randy

The evdience of creation? Well, if it were Odin, he would want me to cleave you with a battle axe, the Easter Bunny was never represented as a diety, a spaceship is a created item which contridicts Jesus, who is the Creator, not the created. You may argue belief in God is rationalization, I argue Athiesm is. Because, I trully believe at the heart of Athiesm is the deisre to rebell in order to pursue a more hedonistic agenda without facing the concept or experience of guilt for actions, because after all there is no moral code.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 15:44
This is perhaps why there is such a disconnect, the words we use interchangeably don't mean the same thing.

All the evidence you speak of points just as surely to Odin, the Easter Bunny, Spaceship Jesus, as it does to your God. Yet you believe in your God over the others. That's rationalization, not investigation.

Irreducible complexity that is not so irreducible upon further examination. Miracles of one sort or another. Signs that are interpreted. Not the type of evidence I'm talking about.

Randy

The easter bunny? You are being condescending and rude again. Keep it up, and I'll ignore you, and ask all of my friends to do the same.

Try to discuss the issues without getting personal.

The complexity and wonder of life, and of what we know of the universe is mind boggling, even for the greatest philosophers, scientists and theologians in history.

Atheists have decided that there is no intelligent design, Theists have decided there is.

I would no more support a Christian telling you that you are going to hell and burn in fire for eternity, than I would support you trying to tear down their belief system.

In other words, why can't we all just get along. You believe what you do, and other people believe differently. You should be secure enough in your belief, to not have to justify it by showing your backside.



Just checked your public profile: "steveksux has not made any friends yet". One has to wonder, no?

Japle
01-23-2011, 17:00
Cavalry Doc reminds me of one of those old guys you see every now and then who insists on driving at exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
The more people who pass him on the right, honking and shaking their fists and giving him the finger, the more convinced he is that heís absolutely right and the others are uncontrovertibly wrong.

Thereís no point telling him he has no business forcing his silly standards on other people. He knows heís the only one who knows whatís right. Telling him otherwise just makes him more determined.
Even if he gets a ticket for impeding traffic flow, he wonít stop.
He canít stop.
Heís right!
Canít you see that?

Thereís no point talking. Let it go.

Kingarthurhk
01-23-2011, 17:10
Cavalry Doc reminds me of one of those old guys you see every now and then who insists on driving at exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
The more people who pass him on the right, honking and shaking their fists and giving him the finger, the more convinced he is that heís absolutely right and the others are uncontrovertibly wrong.

Thereís no point telling him he has no business forcing his silly standards on other people. He knows heís the only one who knows whatís right. Telling him otherwise just makes him more determined.
Even if he gets a ticket for impeding traffic flow, he wonít stop.
He canít stop.
Heís right!
Canít you see that?

Thereís no point talking. Let it go.

A majority opinion does not make the assertion right. Neither does might make right. I think Calvary DOC has an interesting point. I have noticed that people react passionately when their faith is challenged. Ironic isn't it?

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 17:20
Cavalry Doc reminds me of one of those old guys you see every now and then who insists on driving at exactly the speed limit in the left lane.
The more people who pass him on the right, honking and shaking their fists and giving him the finger, the more convinced he is that heís absolutely right and the others are uncontrovertibly wrong.

Thereís no point telling him he has no business forcing his silly standards on other people. He knows heís the only one who knows whatís right. Telling him otherwise just makes him more determined.
Even if he gets a ticket for impeding traffic flow, he wonít stop.
He canít stop.
Heís right!
Canít you see that?

Thereís no point talking. Let it go.

Just to point out why it is wrong to assume things:

I'm only 42, and if you think that is old, you don't have a concept of what wisdom is.


I used to set my cruise control for 105 MPH. That was because my Impala's governor kicked in at 107. My BMW M3 went much faster than that..... all the time.


For the ones that don't want to discuss the original question, I agree, they should move on and find other threads to offer their opinions.


:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 17:22
A majority opinion does not make the assertion right. Neither does might make right. I think Calvary DOC has an interesting point. I have noticed that people react passionately when their faith is challenged. Ironic isn't it?

Almost like a table turned? Huh?

Careby
01-23-2011, 17:28
...I still don't get how atheism being accurately described as a religion is offensive...
Accurately described as a religion? Wait, I thought:

...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.
And...
Merriam-Webster lists atheism as an antonym of religion...

How can a term be accurately described as its own antonym?

...Atheists have decided that there is no intelligent design...
Whoa, partner. Merriam-Webster didn't mention that little tidbit. Of course arguing the point with you could be futile depending on what lengths to which you are willing to go to twist the definition of intelligent design. I submit that it is quite possible to "not believe in a god or deity" but at the same time believe that earth critters may have been designed by some entity or inter-galactic genetic design corporation. Man himself is not far from having the ability to design and build new organisms (whether intelligently or not remains to be seen).

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 17:38
Accurately described as a religion? Wait, I thought:


And...


How can a term be accurately described as its own antonym?


Whoa, partner. Merriam-Webster didn't mention that little tidbit. Of course arguing the point with you could be futile depending on what lengths to which you are willing to go to twist the definition of intelligent design. I submit that it is quite possible to "not believe in a god or deity" but at the same time believe that earth critters may have been designed by some entity or inter-galactic genetic design corporation. Man himself is not far from having the ability to design and build new organisms (whether intelligently or not remains to be seen).

Merriam-Webster also lists this as a definition for "Atheist":

athe∑ist
noun \ˈā-thē-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist)

It requires an analog evaluation instead of a digital one.


An atheist has decided that they believe they know what the truth is, no different than a theist in that particular endeavor.

If you have proof one way or the other, you can prove that Atheists do not hold to their beliefs with FAITH.

It's not as hard as it sounds......

Careby
01-23-2011, 17:53
Merriam-Webster also lists this as a definition for "Atheist":

It requires an analog evaluation instead of a digital one.

"You can twist it any way you like, but..."

Oh, I see, even though it was a binary premise, an analog evaluation is in order if you think it can save your argument. Utter BS.

YOU picked the standard, yet YOU reject it when it disagrees with your ill-founded position. You claim not be an atheist, and yet argue vigorously about what atheists do and do not believe, and about whether or not they have defined themselves to your satisfaction. Doesn't seem logical to me. What's the point?

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 18:26
"You can twist it any way you like, but..."

Oh, I see, even though it was a binary premise, an analog evaluation is in order if you think it can save your argument. Utter BS.

YOU picked the standard, yet YOU reject it when it disagrees with your ill-founded position. You claim not be an atheist, and yet argue vigorously about what atheists do and do not believe, and about whether or not they have defined themselves to your satisfaction. Doesn't seem logical to me. What's the point?

It's a perfectly reasonable position.

Theists and atheists alike, believe......

I only argue what the definition of Atheist says. Have you read it yet?

By the spirit, and the literal meaning of the words involved, I just happen to be right.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 18:42
The evdience of creation? Well, if it were Odin, he would want me to cleave you with a battle axe, the Easter Bunny was never represented as a diety, a spaceship is a created item which contridicts Jesus, who is the Creator, not the created.What if Odin doesn't care if anyone acknowledges his role in the creation? As for the Easter Bunny, what deity worth his salt needs mere humans to validate His omnipotence? How do you know he is NOT a deity? What evidence do you base this on? Are you disparaging the Spaceship Jesus folks in the other thread? They are Christians like any other, all sects have their various variations in doctrine.

You may argue belief in God is rationalization, I argue Athiesm is. Because, I trully believe at the heart of Athiesm is the deisre to rebell in order to pursue a more hedonistic agenda without facing the concept or experience of guilt for actions, because after all there is no moral code.I maybe wasn't clear, I meant that belief in a particular God is a rationalization. Even if we agreed that there is evidence there was a Creator, which creator it points to is a matter of faith. That's the rationalization part. Every religion can point to all sorts of "evidence" that proves a creator, yet none has any evidence that rules out OTHER religion's deities. That's taken as a matter of faith, that's the rationalization.

Personally, I feel the evidence generally cited is insufficient to prove there's a creator, but I know that argument is pointless, will always boil down to "I feel it is, I feel it isn't".

Randy

void *
01-23-2011, 18:47
Not sure how to clear this up with you, but the definition of atheist is quite short and quite clear.



It looks like your problem is with Merriam-Webster, not me?

And again, back to the position that requires you be the sole arbiter of which definitions are in use - completely ignoring that dictionaries document usage, that Merriam-Webster lists atheism as an antonym of religion, and that people in this thread have given you the exact and well defined philosophical definitions that apply when *they* use the word atheist.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 18:49
What if Odin doesn't care if anyone acknowledges his role in the creation? As for the Easter Bunny, what deity worth his salt needs mere humans to validate His omnipotence? How do you know he is NOT a deity? What evidence do you base this on? Are you disparaging the Spaceship Jesus folks in the other thread? They are Christians like any other, all sects have their various variations in doctrine.

I maybe wasn't clear, I meant that belief in a particular God is a rationalization. Even if we agreed that there is evidence there was a Creator, which creator it points to is a matter of faith. That's the rationalization part. Every religion can point to all sorts of "evidence" that proves a creator, yet none has any evidence that rules out OTHER religion's deities. That's taken as a matter of faith, that's the rationalization.

Personally, I feel the evidence generally cited is insufficient to prove there's a creator, but I know that argument is pointless, will always boil down to "I feel it is, I feel it isn't".

Randy



It's a matter of faith.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 19:14
The easter bunny? You are being condescending and rude again. Keep it up, and I'll ignore you, and ask all of my friends to do the same.Interesting. Not sure I understand what the issue is. You say you wonder why atheists might get offended when their beliefs are compared to belief in what they consider imaginary beings, then get upset when you assume deists beliefs are getting compared to belief in what you consider an imaginary being? Maybe that finally answered that question about why atheists take umbrage at the comparison? If the context was not clear, I was not disparaging anyones beliefs, just making the point that once you go down the road of believing in invisible beings without evidence, where do you draw the line? How do you distinguish one from the other? How do you rule out the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Easter Bunny, Odin, Ra? There's no more evidence for any one of them, more than the others.

Try to discuss the issues without getting personal.Nothing personal was expressed nor implied. Was simply making the point that there's nothing to distinguish between belief in any particular belief system, whether its mainstream Christianity, culty offshoots of Christianity like the Spaceship Jesus guys, or any other belief that you cannot disprove, including the Easter Bunny.
What evidence do you have that the Easter Bunny is NOT the creator of the universe? Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? Can you prove any of them do not exist? Can you prove any of them are not the one true Creator? No. The choice between them is faith. How would you go about proving that the ancient Egyptians were not correct? What evidence separates any of the faiths, current, or ancient, or created last week, or not even conceived of yet?


The complexity and wonder of life, and of what we know of the universe is mind boggling, even for the greatest philosophers, scientists and theologians in history.Not sure what that has to do with anything being discussed? Never disputed stuff is complicated. I have said that just because we don't understand something is not "evidence" that a Creator made it.

Atheists have decided that there is no intelligent design, Theists have decided there is.Not sure what that proves.

I would no more support a Christian telling you that you are going to hell and burn in fire for eternity, than I would support you trying to tear down their belief system.Nor would I support you trying to tear down the beliefs of a voodoo practitioner, or someone who believes in the Easter Bunny. :supergrin: Either you support belief in all supernatural beings that cannot be proven, or you don't. that's the point. I'm not suggesting there's no evidentiary basis to distinguish them. Its based on total faith.

There's a famous saying that sums it up. Atheists just believe in one less deity than you do (rhetorical you, as you personally are agnostic). Christians disbelieve all the other deity based religions based on a different deity.

In other words, why can't we all just get along. You believe what you do, and other people believe differently. You should be secure enough in your belief, to not have to justify it by showing your backside.I'm simply illustrating a point. You're the one that states belief is enough to qualify as a religion, I don't see how you can exclude the Easter Bunny using that definition. I would not include that as a religion except under the premise of this thread, this particularly watered down overly broad definition of religion.

For the record, I have no problem if people believe whatever makes them happy, as long as it doesn't involve hurting other people, ala militant Islam. I have often stated here when making points regarding atheists considering all religions, Christian included, merely one of many superstitions (hence their objection to being classified as another religion), that that does NOT mean it is incorrect, or meant to demean Christianity. Superstition is belief in supernatural beings, at its heart, and wished to underscore the point that it is not in any way a slam on Christianity.

Just checked your public profile: "steveksux has not made any friends yet". One has to wonder, no?Seems like you're the one showing your backside here.... :dunno:

steveksux
01-23-2011, 19:25
It's a perfectly reasonable position.

Theists and atheists alike, believe......

I only argue what the definition of Atheist says. Have you read it yet?

By the spirit, and the literal meaning of the words involved, I just happen to be right.If you were right by spirit of the words you wouldn't have to ignore the best definition of religion as it applies to deism in order to make the comparison to atheism. You are only right in the sense we discussed earlier, that you lie just like Obama. Lie as in lie down, not the obvious interpretation of the sentence, that you are also dishonest. A narrow semantic sense that misleads rather than informs when one relies on unusual connotations for the apparent point being made. Especially when you reject things like "hockey is a religion in Canada" that fit the connotation you are using to classify atheism as a religion. Hockey is very much in the "spirit" of the connotation of religion you use to call atheism a religion. And very much NOT in the connotation of religion that applies to deistic religions.

If English were not a written language, and only spoken, it would be like you saying all 3 "twos" are similar because they sound the same. Two, too, and to all have different meanings. Just like the different connotations of religion you play with to make your point. Comparing different connotations of the same word is not in any way "by the spirit of the words'.


Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 19:29
And again, back to the position that requires you be the sole arbiter of which definitions are in use - completely ignoring that dictionaries document usage, that Merriam-Webster lists atheism as an antonym of religion, and that people in this thread have given you the exact and well defined philosophical definitions that apply when *they* use the word atheist.

Atheism is what it is.. A decision, based on faith. By definition, and in the true spirit of the words. That makes anyone that is strongly committed to atheism religious.



It's obvious to an agnostic, but I guess it's possible that some are blinded by their faith.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 19:31
Atheism is what it is.. A decision, based on faith. By definition, and in the true spirit of the words. That makes anyone that is strongly committed to atheism religious.



It's obvious to an agnostic, but I guess it's possible that some are blinded by their faith.You in particular, I think... :tongueout::supergrin:

Randy

steveksux
01-23-2011, 19:34
I disagree. Athiests assert there is no God. This cannot be proven. That's not what Cavalry Doc says, he says you can prove a negative.

Personally, I think you're correct, you certainly cannot prove a negative when that negative can manipulate the laws of physics in order to avoid detection if He doesn't want you to prove He exists...

I think Odin is pefectly happy not having anyone worship him, that also means nobody is bugging him begging for intercession in their lives either.. :supergrin:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 19:44
That's not what Cavalry Doc says, he says you can prove a negative.

Personally, I think you're correct, you certainly cannot prove a negative when that negative can manipulate the laws of physics in order to avoid detection if He doesn't want you to prove He exists...

Randy

You're being dishonest again. I posted an article by a professor of philosophy that clearly stated that negatives can be proven.

It just pointed out there was a problem with your post:
originally posted by Randy, aka steveksux
No way to prove a negative. If you start believing anything that cannot be proven false, you are a lot different than if you only start believing things that CAN be proven true.


Just because you were unable to be logical.

It's possible that you cannot prove that no deity exists, but it is possible to prove a negative.

It's just one of many logical errors you have performed in this thread.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 19:46
You in particular, I think... :tongueout::supergrin:

Randy

thin ice.....



I'm close to concluding that you are unable to carry on.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 19:47
You're being dishonest again. I posted an article by a professor of philosophy that clearly stated that negatives can be proven.

It just pointed out there was a problem with your post:



Just because you were unable to be logical.

It's possible that you cannot prove that no deity exists, but it is possible to prove a negative.

It's just one of many logical errors you have performed in this thread.You apparently believe it since you're using it to try to refute me. So the point is made. And again, you just said I was wrong because it IS possible to prove a negative.

Proving God does not exist IS proving a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. How is that NOT proving a negative? So how exactly DO you prove God does not exist if you can prove a negative?

Seems its your logic that is flawed here, not mine.

You do not seem to be an agnostic. I think you are an AtheistIsAReligionist... lots of belief, ardor, zeal and no good evidence to justify it. Ignoring contrary evidence, all the hallmarks. :supergrin::tongueout:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 19:49
You apparently believe it since you're using it to try to refute me. So the point is made.

Proving God does not exist IS proving a negative. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence and all that. How is that NOT proving a negative?

Seems its your logic that is flawed here.

Randy

You didn't read the article at all, did you? http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

So why is it that people insist that you can’t prove a negative? I think it is the result of two things. (1) an acknowledgement that induction is not bulletproof, airtight, and infallible, and (2) a desperate desire to keep believing whatever one believes,

steveksux
01-23-2011, 19:57
You didn't read the article at all, did you? http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf
You dont' understand what "proving a negative is", do you? Did YOU read the article???

I skimmed it. This sort of thing is actually covered in the article. One of the examples IS very similar, belief in UFOs. People continue to believe in spite of no solid physical evidence. It mentions that "proving a negative" relies on inductive reasoning, which is NOT 100% reliable. Kind of defeats the purpose of "proving" a negative if the "proof" is not reliable. The point is you can "prove" the negative, that UFOs do NOT exist, except for the fact that if they do exist and land in front of CNN, the "proof" sort of falls apart. You can only prove they are unlikely, and haven't been proven yet. The example covers proving God does not exist quite well, and supports my position that you can NOT prove this negative, namely that God does NOT exist. Not with certainty.

I suppose if your position is that the Merriam Webster definition of "proof" means "something that is likely to be true", rather than something that is demonstrably true, it would be rather ironic, if not surprising, as this is how "faith" and "religion" have been handled.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 20:00
You dont' understand what "proving a negative is", do you? Did YOU read the article???

I skimmed it. This sort of thing is actually covered in the article. One of the examples IS very similar, belief in UFOs. People continue to believe in spite of no solid physical evidence. It mentions that "proving a negative" relies on inductive reasoning, which is NOT 100% reliable. Kind of defeats the purpose of "proving" a negative if the "proof" is not reliable. The point is you can "prove" UFOs do NOT exist, except for the fact that if they do exist and land in front of CNN, the "proof" sort of falls apart. You can only prove they are unlikely, and haven't been proven yet. The example covers proving God does not exist quite well, and supports my position that you can NOT prove this negative, namely that God does NOT exist.

Randy



Thanks for being so clear on that point. So why do you believe in something that you cannot prove? And then give grief to people that don't have enough evidence to convince you that they are right, just because they contradict what you have CHOSEN to believe?

steveksux
01-23-2011, 20:03
Thanks for being so clear on that point. So why do you believe in something that you cannot prove? And then give grief to people that don't have enough evidence to convince you that they are right, just because they contradict what you have CHOSEN to believe?I have never said what I believe. I'm merely pointing out the article you pointed out does not support your position.

As to the thread topic, I'm just illustrating why atheists would not agree that atheism is a religion, and why they are correct, both from their point of view, and from the clear common best fit dictionary definition of religion that you ignore for the purposes of making a strange point about a comparison that makes no sense in any meaningful context.

And why they would be offended by the comparison, which obviously you agree with, as you took offense when you thought I was comparing the Easter Bunny to organized religions.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 20:10
I have never said what I believe.

Why not?

steveksux
01-23-2011, 20:16
Why not?Who cares, and isn't that off topic?

If you're genuinely interested, I have no problem sharing. Just thought it had no bearing on the topic.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 20:17
Who cares, and isn't that off topic?

Randy

No. It's rather pertinent.

Careby
01-23-2011, 20:24
It's a perfectly reasonable position.

Theists and atheists alike, believe......

I only argue what the definition of Atheist says. Have you read it yet?

By the spirit, and the literal meaning of the words involved, I just happen to be right.
I have a $500 bill (U.S. Federal Reserve Note) in my wallet.

Now, do you believe I have a $500 bill in my wallet? Yes or no, if you please. If you believe that I do, do you have faith that I do? And if you do not believe I do, do you have faith that I do not? It is possible to believe a thing, or to disbelieve a thing, without any additional implication regarding proof, lack of proof, ardor, or lack of ardor. Having great conviction in a belief, as I do about my $500 bill, does not require those not sharing that belief to have great conviction in their lack of belief.

You seem to be saying that the only way for a person to not be religious is to be an agnostic. Depending on how you twist the definition of agnostic, it can be as non-theistic a position as that of an atheist. Our friends at Merriam-Webster have a narrow definition for agnostic - a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable - and a broader one - one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god. If this were my thread, and if I were sole arbiter of definitions, I would pick the narrow definition, in which case "agnostic" means something more than just "I haven't decided what I think". And for a person who has not decided what they think, or in other words, does not (yet) believe in God, or in other words, does not believe God exists, I would use the word "atheist". In my world, an atheist need not be "committed" to the nonexistence of God. To be an atheist only requires that you not be "committed" to the existence of God. Analogies using Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny are perfectly apt to atheists, but ridiculous, sacrilegous, or even offensive to those who believe in God. Also offended, of course, are those who believe in Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. But I digress.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 20:32
I have a $500 bill (U.S. Federal Reserve Note) in my wallet.

Now, do you believe I have a $500 bill in my wallet? Yes or no, if you please. If you believe that I do, do you have faith that I do?

These mundane questions do not carry the weight of whether the universe was created or just occurred.


Besides, I'd reserve judgment. I don't know whether you have $500 in your wallet or not, and feel no reason to place a bet.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 20:33
No. It's rather pertinent.I'm an engineer by training, a scientist by temperament. So I require solid evidence before believing in something. The search for the supernatural has been going on probably man first became capable of asking where did I come from, and nothing resembling the kind of evidence I'm looking for (solid physical stuff, not signs, and mind boggling complexity begging for a clear answer that has not been forthcoming except through a series of various religions, all of which have thrived, withered, died out, to be replaced by a new religion, new beliefs, none based on any more evidence than the last.

The number of believers of a particular belief does not indicate whether they are true or not.

So I doubt very seriously that there is any deity behind stuff. I don't know that for sure, its possible that there is a Deity that apparently doesn't wish to be discovered. Has not left evidence behind, so far everything that has been investigated and understood in the natural world has a natural explanation after all. So if there is a God, it's his own damn fault I don't believe in him. :supergrin: He has apparently chosen to use the laws of nature to affect nature thus rendering himself undetectable.

Which incidentally makes my God better than all the other Gods out there. Any deity worth his salt can build a bicycle. My God, if he exists, is able to roll parts down hill in such a manner that they assemble themselves into a bicycle by the time they reach the bottom of the hill, all without relying on anything but the very laws of nature he created. THAT takes REAL talent. An analogy to evolution, the Big Bang, obviously.

If something concrete pops up proving there is a Deity, my bad, I was wrong. I've seen nothing to convince me there's any supernatural dimension to the physical world so at this point, I'd say there is none. Proven to my satisfaction, but not 100% conclusive. Since you can't prove at least THAT particular negative. Which is why I said earlier that by your definition, I don't know that there is ANYONE that is an atheist. Noone can be 100% certain of that if they are honest.

Prior to the thread I would have thought atheist. After enduring this thread I'd say I was agnostic, and certainly so by your definition. After all the hair splitting, I'd say maybe an atheist leaning agnostic, or is it the other way around? :dunno::supergrin:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 20:42
So I doubt very seriously that there is any deity behind stuff. I don't know that for sure, its possible that there is a Deity that apparently doesn't wish to be discovered.

Would you classify yourself as an atheistic agnostic then?

Careby
01-23-2011, 20:47
These mundane questions do not carry the weight of whether the universe was created or just occurred.

Besides, I'd reserve judgment. I don't know whether you have $500 in your wallet or not, and feel no reason to place a bet.
The weight a question carries does not matter. If anything, I would think the awesome weight of a question such as whether or not there is a Creator would motivate you to get busy and decide what you believe rather than taking the wishy-washy route of "I don't really know yet". The clock is ticking, man. I'm too old to be an agnostic and you're getting there.

But more to the point of the thread, if you are reserving judgment, and don't know whether or not I have a $500 bill, then I submit that you DO NOT BELIEVE THAT I DO. Sure, you don't KNOW the answer. But you DO NOT BELIEVE, because you have no reason to believe. The same goes for God. If you do not have reason to believe (by your own personal criteria, whatever they are), then you don't believe. Simple as that.

steveksux
01-23-2011, 20:52
Would you classify yourself as an atheistic agnostic then?
I updated since you posted, I assumed I was an atheist leaning agnostic if that's what you mean. Or I have invented my own religion based on the middle of my post. A createyourownreligion leaning agnostic?

I even have my own parable.

God has a supermarket. He sells green beans. The people that buy Green Giant green beans think the people that by Libby green beans are infidels and are trying to kill them. The people that buy frozen green beans think the people who buy fresh green beans are going to Hell.

God is pissed. He just said green beans are good for you. Stop fighting and eat whatever green beans you like. He doesn't care.

The only thing I'm utterly certain of is all the organized religions are based on guesswork and will be wrong. Past and present. Based on everything they used to believe that science has proven wrong so far. The best any of them can hope for is some sort of rough approximation of the truth. Spaceship Jesus probably one of the rougher approximations... :rofl: No offense intended to any Spacecraft Jesusians in the audience....

Randy

Careby
01-23-2011, 20:55
Prior to the thread I would have thought atheist. After enduring this thread I'd say I was agnostic, and certainly so by your definition. After all the hair splitting, I'd say maybe an atheist leaning agnostic, or is it the other way around? :dunno::supergrin:

Randy
At the risk of sounding like I care about labels or semantics, I'd say atheist is a perfectly appropriate term for the position you've described. But religion is not.

Cavalry Doc
01-23-2011, 21:23
I updated since you posted, I assumed I was an atheist leaning agnostic if that's what you mean. Or I have invented my own religion based on the middle of my post.

It was only a very simple question.

ksg0245
01-24-2011, 11:36
Not just strong belief. Strong belief without proof.

Which is why many become atheists; lack of proof of deities.

It fits better if that belief leads one to a fundamental understanding of the universe.

So the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are only accepted by atheists?

steveksux
01-24-2011, 19:26
It was only a very simple question.
Should be, but its not so simple given the way you play with these definitions.. :tongueout:

I figured there's atheists and agnostics, but you got more variations in between them than Eskimo's have words describing snow! :rofl: :tongueout:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
01-24-2011, 19:56
Which is why many become atheists; lack of proof of deities.



So the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution are only accepted by atheists?

Not at all. I remember hearing a story about Billy Graham stating that God created the Universe with a Big Bang.

?? Don't know, do you ??

ksg0245
01-25-2011, 08:55
Not at all. I remember hearing a story about Billy Graham stating that God created the Universe with a Big Bang.

?? Don't know, do you ??

Neither I nor, I think, any other atheist here, has claimed to; I haven't kept track of how many times in this thread you've been told that, but I think a safe guess would be at least five times by at least three different self-identified atheists, at least two of whom have clearly explained to you using multiple cites that atheism is about a lack of belief and not a position regarding knowledge. Such explanations fall on deaf ears.

The point is that your assertion atheism is a "belief [that] leads one to a fundamental understanding of the universe" is demonstrably wrong, since the two arguably primary theories regarding a "fundamental understanding of the universe" are, as you've just admitted, not defined as atheist beliefs.

Cavalry Doc
01-26-2011, 19:43
Neither I nor, I think, any other atheist here, has claimed to; I haven't kept track of how many times in this thread you've been told that, ...

And I've also pointed out that those that are undecided, have probably misclassified themselves as atheists. They are more likely atheistic agnostics.


Not my fault.

void *
01-26-2011, 22:32
And I've also pointed out that those that are undecided, have probably misclassified themselves as atheists. They are more likely atheistic agnostics.


Not my fault.

Misclassified? More like, exactly defined, and you ignore that.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16262678&postcount=4

Do I know? Nope. (gnostic/agnostic - whether or not you hold the position that it is known, and more genereally, whether it can be known, in a philosophical sense).
Do I believe? Nope. (atheist/theist - whether or not you believe)

The answer to the first question makes me an agnostic. The answer to the second makes me an atheist. This has been described in detail to you - and by more than just me (as following the link above shows)

If anybody has misclassified - it's not the guys who are saying straight out 'No, I don't know, and no, I don't believe'.

And after 800 posts, I'm sorry, but if you're not grokking that - that *is* your fault.

Dragoon44
01-27-2011, 00:45
So I doubt very seriously that there is any deity behind stuff. I don't know that for sure, its possible that there is a Deity that apparently doesn't wish to be discovered. Has not left evidence behind

Is that so? hmmm so If God did indeed create the universe and all that is in it. Then it would appear that he did indeed leave evidence, His creation.

Imagine two people staring at a painting, one says, "The artist is certainly talented". The other responds, "If there is indeed and artist he certainly has left no evidence of his existence."

The rationale response would be....wait....what???

so far everything that has been investigated and understood in the natural world has a natural explanation after all. So if there is a God, it's his own damn fault I don't believe in him. He has apparently chosen to use the laws of nature to affect nature thus rendering himself undetectable.

You mean the natural laws that He Himself created? let me see if I understand you correctly here. If God uses the "Natural" laws that He himself established, created etc. His use of what he created renders him undetectable?

Wait......what???????

You obviously have a belief system, apparently it consists of,

Something came from nothing, for no discernible reason or purpose. and thru an incalculable number of random accidents here we are.

And it must be true, because...well.......here we are.

And you would claim you don't have faith??

ksg0245
01-28-2011, 08:13
And I've also pointed out that those that are undecided, have probably misclassified themselves as atheists. They are more likely atheistic agnostics.


Not my fault.

If I don't believe deities exist, how am I misclassified as not believing deities exist? And if that's been repeatedly pointed out to you with supporting evidence, whose fault is it you keep getting it wrong?

void *
01-28-2011, 11:00
Something came from nothing, for no discernible reason or purpose. and thru an incalculable number of random accidents here we are.

Who said it came from nothing? Nobody. The scientific statement is 'Right now based on what we observe it looks a whole lot like everything that is used to all be packed in a very, very small space'. While there are various ideas about how that space got there - it is not stated that it came from "nothing". I've read that the math has been done on it spontaneously arising from vacuum fluctuations - which is the closest to 'it came from nothing' that has been posited - and the result was that such a universe would be different than ours. What science actually says about where the something came from is 'We don't know yet, and it's possible we can't know, and it's also possible the question doesn't make sense'.

Likewise, calling evolution 'an incalculable number of random accidents' is like saying a rock rolls downhill in a particular path because of 'an incalculable number of random accidents'. There are random mutations and the like, sure, but evolution does not posit a whole bunch of random events magically resulted in people.

weemsf50
01-28-2011, 11:19
It is hard to define "mutation" any other way than random.

Dragoon44
01-28-2011, 11:46
Who said it came from nothing? Nobody. The scientific statement is 'Right now based on what we observe it looks a whole lot like everything that is used to all be packed in a very, very small space'.

Packed in a very small space WHERE? and more to the point where did that "Very small space" come from? how did it come into existence in the first place?

The HONEST scientific answer is "We don't know".

Science itself closely resembles a religion. it's adherents cling to their theories\beliefs as fiercely as disciples of a religion. It even has it's own sects\Disciplines that not only squabble and disagree with one another but adherents in the same sect\discipline often do the same.

void *
01-28-2011, 12:37
Packed in a very small space WHERE? and more to the point where did that "Very small space" come from? how did it come into existence in the first place?

The HONEST scientific answer is "We don't know".

Which is, in fact, what I just said, is it not? I seem to remember writing something like "What science actually says about where the something came from is 'We don't know yet, and it's possible we can't know, and it's also possible the question doesn't make sense'." in the same paragraph as the bit you quoted.

As for "Where", that is also the same answer - we don't know if there is a "where" (some kind of something outside our connected spacetime), we may never be able to know, and it is possible the question doesn't actually make any sense.

"We don't know, we're trying to find out" is a good, honest answer - there is nothing wrong with it, and the idea that not knowing is somehow bad is IMHO completely invalid. If we threw in unprovable, supernatural possibilities and said "well, we don't know, so it's gotta be that" every time we didn't have a pretty good idea about something, we'd never move forward. We'd still be thinking that lightning was Thor throwing his weight around.

Point being you represented "it came from nothing" as a statement given by people who don't believe. In general, the only people who position that as the scientific statement are people who want to erect a strawman to knock it down, or people who have been fooled into thinking that science really makes that statement by people who were erecting the strawman to knock it down. The reality is, the theories we have at the moment that have enough support in both observation and experimentation don't state that. The Big Bang theory certainly doesn't.

Careby
01-28-2011, 13:53
...Science itself closely resembles a religion. it's adherents cling to their theories\beliefs as fiercely as disciples of a religion. It even has it's own sects\Disciplines that not only squabble and disagree with one another but adherents in the same sect\discipline often do the same.
The word "Science" covers an awful lot of territory. While I wouldn't want to generalize, or to tell those who consider themselves scientists what they should or should not believe, or with what ferocity, let's assume for the sake of argument that your statement is correct. Some scientists are atheists, and some atheists are scientists, but atheism is not science. It is quite possible to disbelieve in the existence of God while also disbelieving any number of scientific theories including the Big Bang, Abiogenesis/Biopoesis, Evolution, or for that matter, even the laws of thermodynamics. And vice versa.

Cavalry Doc
01-28-2011, 18:33
Misclassified? More like, exactly defined, and you ignore that.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16262678&postcount=4

Do I know? Nope. (gnostic/agnostic - whether or not you hold the position that it is known, and more genereally, whether it can be known, in a philosophical sense).
Do I believe? Nope. (atheist/theist - whether or not you believe)

The answer to the first question makes me an agnostic. The answer to the second makes me an atheist. This has been described in detail to you - and by more than just me (as following the link above shows)

If anybody has misclassified - it's not the guys who are saying straight out 'No, I don't know, and no, I don't believe'.

And after 800 posts, I'm sorry, but if you're not grokking that - that *is* your fault.

Got a little lost in your post, and honestly stopped listening/reading.
:dunno:






Theist. Knows. Has openly made the decision.

Theistic Agnostic. Doesn't really know for sure. Leans toward the belief that a deity exists.

Agnostic. Doesn't know. Doesn't mind admitting it.

Atheistic Agnostic. Doesn't really know for sure. Leans toward the belief that no deity exists.

Atheist. Knows. Has openly made the decision.







This is so simple, that I do not understand how everyone does not get it.

Cavalry Doc
01-28-2011, 18:36
If I don't believe deities exist, how am I misclassified as not believing deities exist? And if that's been repeatedly pointed out to you with supporting evidence, whose fault is it you keep getting it wrong?

If you know that deities do not exist, you are an atheist.

If you don't know whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.

If you know that deities do exist, you are a theist.



It's only American English. And admittedly hard language to learn, and even harder to master.


But this does not require a master. Just a close observer.

Dragoon44
01-28-2011, 23:46
Point being you represented "it came from nothing" as a statement given by people who don't believe. In general, the only people who position that as the scientific statement are people who want to erect a strawman to knock it down, or people who have been fooled into thinking that science really makes that statement by people who were erecting the strawman to knock it down. The reality is, the theories we have at the moment that have enough support in both observation and experimentation don't state that. The Big Bang theory certainly doesn't.

While I could argue what the point actually is lets just go with your line of thinking. Which in essence to me is that you believe that the universe came from something. You just don't know what that something was, how it came into being or where it came from or how.

But in the midst of all that uncertainty you have one firm belief. That whatever and however it most certainly did not involve God.

Now that may or may not be your personal belief but it would appear that it is the belief of the poster my statements were directed at.

void *
01-29-2011, 09:52
While I could argue what the point actually is lets just go with your line of thinking. Which in essence to me is that you believe that the universe came from something. You just don't know what that something was, how it came into being or where it came from or how.

Stop right there.

You are attributing a line of thinking to me that is not what I said, nor what I think. We don't know is not the same thing as belief that 'it came from something'. It is We don't know.

It could be that there was something. It could be that there was nothing, and the rules in play don't work by our standard notions of causality, allowing it to pop into existence uncaused. The statement "We don't know, but we're trying to find out" is not a license for you to come in and tell me that I believe something in particular

But in the midst of all that uncertainty you have one firm belief. That whatever and however it most certainly did not involve God.

You might want to go read back issues of RI. I've freely admitted the possibility pretty much every time someone like you comes in and starts making assumptions and telling me what I think. Not believing a particular possibility is *not* the same thing as firmly believing it certainly was not that possibility.

I don't believe that it was branes colliding. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.
I don't believe that it is an eternal chain of universes spawning off more universes. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.
I don't believe that the notions of causality we have are due to causality being a part of the structure of our universe, allowing the universe to arise uncaused. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.
(Insert the huge swath of possibilities here)
I don't believe it was a creator. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.

Why do you think that you can tell me that I am certain it is *not* one possibility, when the truth is that I don't believe *any* of the possibilities, but acknowledge them *all* as possibilities? The difference between the creator posit and (some of) the others is that we may be able to investigate some of the others, while the creator posit can always fall back to a position where it can't be investigated. I am a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical naturalist. There is an important distinction. If you understand that distinction, and can stop trying to tell me what I think, perhaps we can have a useful conversation.

steveksux
01-29-2011, 11:13
Is that so? hmmm so If God did indeed create the universe and all that is in it. Then it would appear that he did indeed leave evidence, His creation.Quite true, but I was saying if He chose to use entirely natural processes to create the Universe, there would be no evidence of supernatural influence. Gods handiwork in that case is indistinguishable from there being no God and natural processes creating everything without influence from a Creator.


You mean the natural laws that He Himself created? let me see if I understand you correctly here. If God uses the "Natural" laws that He himself established, created etc. His use of what he created renders him undetectable?That's essentially my point, if those natural laws were all followed, science is not going to discover any supernatural effects whatsoever, and there's never going to be proof of God driving the process. A ball falls when you drop it, gravity explains that just fine, no need to resort to supernatural explanations for God making the ball fall. However, I'm allowing the possibility that God created gravity.


You obviously have a belief system, apparently it consists of,

Something came from nothing, for no discernible reason or purpose. and thru an incalculable number of random accidents here we are.

And it must be true, because...well.......here we are.

And you would claim you don't have faith??Outside of the came from nothing part, actually pretty close to true. I have faith in science, and what my senses, logic tell me. I just dispute that its a religious type of faith. To me, religion always involves supernatural beings, and I haven't seen any evidence of supernatural beings. I'm not claiming religion is wrong, as I hold out the possibility that the reason there's no evidence of the supernatural being is the supernatural being chooses to work within the framework of natural laws of the universe, and so leaves nothing behind to distinguish His handiwork from a perfectly naturalistic solution that doesn't require a deity.

For instance, I don't see the conflict between evolution and religion. There's only a conflict if people insist on Adam and Eve and the rib thing. If that's just a story and God actually used Evolution to create mankind, there's no conflict. Adam and Eve may just be a simple story we were told because that's all we were capable of understanding at the time. Sort of like when a 6 year old asks you where babies come from. You don't go into all the details at that age, tell them something like "when mommy and daddy love each other very much, they make a baby".

To borrow your painting analogy, I'd suggest my point is more along the lines of you have this painting, say the Mona Lisa. We have evidence Leonardo Da Vinci painted it. My position is that you don't need a deity to explain the existence of the painting, Leonardo painted it. But I'm also saying that doesn't prove there ISN'T a deity. Maybe the deity created Leonardo... Going farther, if Leonardo appeared out of nowhere, that would be evidence of a supernatural deity at work. If that deity relied on Leonardo's parents doing the wild thing to produce Leonardo, He's using natural laws to accomplish his goals, and so there is no evidence left behind that requires that He exist to explain how things came to be. The deity is possible, belief is optional. But the outcome is indistinguishable from a scenario where there is no deity involved, only the natural laws at work.

Randy

steveksux
01-29-2011, 11:17
It is hard to define "mutation" any other way than random.Evolution does not consist entirely of just mutations though.

Some mutations are good, some bad. The good ones help the species survive long enough to reproduce, get more predominant in subsequent generations.
This sort of microevolution has been proven quite extensively. Antibiotic resistant bacteria for instance.

Randy

steveksux
01-29-2011, 11:24
Packed in a very small space WHERE? and more to the point where did that "Very small space" come from? how did it come into existence in the first place?

The HONEST scientific answer is "We don't know".

Science itself closely resembles a religion. it's adherents cling to their theories\beliefs as fiercely as disciples of a religion. It even has it's own sects\Disciplines that not only squabble and disagree with one another but adherents in the same sect\discipline often do the same.The individual disputes aren't endless though. Sooner or later experiments and facts prove one camp wrong and the other right, and they move on to new issues.

Any issue in dispute eventually comes down to a put up or shut up moment, where you have to prove it. May take a while to come up with an idea, or technology for an experiment to prove something one way or another, but generally there is evidence out there if someone is clever enough to find it.

Religious disagreements are never ending, based on translations and interpretations of ancient scriptures, no way to resolve them, as neither side has an objective standard of which version/translation/scripture/interpretation is the right one. They're still arguing about whether Mary was always a virgin, or just a virgin until after Jesus was born. 2000 years later. Throwing various bible verses at each other, from various bibles. Never to be resolved.

Regardless of the surface similarities you mention, they are fundamentally different. Faith based vs fact based.
Randy

Careby
01-29-2011, 12:54
...This is so simple, that I do not understand how everyone does not get it.
I'd say that is a concise summary of the entire thread.

I divide the argument into two parts, (1) what is an atheist, and (2) is atheism a religion. You really can't have a discussion about (2) until you agree on the answer to (1). And I for one don't agree with you on (1).

You seem to define a spectrum of degrees of belief, with theism at one end, agnosticism in the middle, and atheism at the other end. I define theism as simply belief in a God or gods, and atheism as simply the lack of such belief. If you believe, you're a theist, and if you don't, you're an atheist. "Not believing" requires no certainty, no proof, no commitment, no thinking, and no action of any kind. I define agnosticism not as an intermediate condition somewhere between belief and disbelief, but rather a belief about the nature of knowledge of deities. I believe agnosticism can but does not have to accompany atheism.

Since we're unlikely to ever come to terms on the answer to question (1), it would be (has been) a complete waste of time to discuss question (2). Or, put another way, if you accepted my answer to (1), the answer to (2) would be obvious.

I write this not in an attempt to change your mind, as I know that's a lost cause. But if you are truly trying to "understand how everyone does not get it," I just happen to be a member of the group "everyone," and this is my explanation.

void *
01-29-2011, 20:09
It is hard to define "mutation" any other way than random.

And, indeed - I said that there are random mutations. Random events being a part of a process does not automatically make the process random, nor does it mean the result will be random.

Cavalry Doc
01-29-2011, 21:40
Mutation could also be a shaping. It COULD be by design.




:dunno:

Dragoon44
01-29-2011, 22:07
Stop right there.

You are attributing a line of thinking to me that is not what I said, nor what I think. We don't know is not the same thing as belief that 'it came from something'. It is We don't know.

It could be that there was something. It could be that there was nothing, and the rules in play don't work by our standard notions of causality, allowing it to pop into existence uncaused. The statement "We don't know, but we're trying to find out" is not a license for you to come in and tell me that I believe something in particular



You might want to go read back issues of RI. I've freely admitted the possibility pretty much every time someone like you comes in and starts making assumptions and telling me what I think. Not believing a particular possibility is *not* the same thing as firmly believing it certainly was not that possibility.

I don't believe that it was branes colliding. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.
I don't believe that it is an eternal chain of universes spawning off more universes. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.
I don't believe that the notions of causality we have are due to causality being a part of the structure of our universe, allowing the universe to arise uncaused. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.
(Insert the huge swath of possibilities here)
I don't believe it was a creator. It's a possibility, but there's currently not enough evidence for me to accept the posit.

Why do you think that you can tell me that I am certain it is *not* one possibility, when the truth is that I don't believe *any* of the possibilities, but acknowledge them *all* as possibilities? The difference between the creator posit and (some of) the others is that we may be able to investigate some of the others, while the creator posit can always fall back to a position where it can't be investigated. I am a methodological naturalist, not a philosophical naturalist. There is an important distinction. If you understand that distinction, and can stop trying to tell me what I think, perhaps we can have a useful conversation.

I take it you did not read the last line of my post?

Now that may or may not be your personal belief but it would appear that it is the belief of the poster my statements were directed at.

packsaddle
01-29-2011, 22:45
Any issue in dispute eventually comes down to a put up or shut up moment, where you have to prove it.

Science is the quest for knowledge, but it doesn't "prove" anything.

Evidence can be found to support a scientific theory, but it doesn't "prove" anything because there may be evidence to the contrary that hasn't been discovered yet.

More importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable, so if something is "proven" then it is no longer (or never was) falsifiable.

You may want to brush up on your philosophy of science.

Dragoon44
01-29-2011, 23:03
Quite true, but I was saying if He chose to use entirely natural processes to create the Universe, there would be no evidence of supernatural influence. Gods handiwork in that case is indistinguishable from there being no God and natural processes creating everything without influence from a Creator.

The obvious thing you are missing is assuming there was something "Natural" involved to begin with or how those processes became "Natural". in an earlier post you spoke of "Natural Laws". I find it interesting you use the word "law" since law points to a law maker or law giver and it also speaks of purpose.

If creation is God's handiwork and a demonstration of His power then those "natural laws" you speak of are ones he established. Christians understood this that is why they established universities where true science as we know it was born. in the heart of Western (Christian Europe).

Ones view of God or Deity profoundly affects your world view. Christians believed that God was a personal, rational, and logical being and believed that this being the case his creation was ordered, logical, rational and functioned according to laws or rules which He created. So they conceived it was possible to discover those rules.

Other societies whose religions consisted of impersonal, unknowable forces never considered they could discover logical or rational rules governing the universe. that si why they didn't develop true science.

Outside of the came from nothing part, actually pretty close to true. I have faith in science,

Lets discuss this faith. You apparently hold Christian faith as being unreasonable.

But then claim a faith in science, and undoubtedly if you are honest you have to admit that science has established itself to be wrong on many, many, occasions. Now I will not dispute that this is in one sense a good thing. That science eventually recognizes as position that was previously widely held or believed to now be in error. I am just bit fuzzy on the "reasonable" faith part in having faith in something that has proven to be wrong time and time again. and particularly claims that it has proven something else wrong.

How does that go exactly, "I have faith that science has the answers", (Just not necessarily the correct or true ones at the moment).


as I hold out the possibility that the reason there's no evidence of the supernatural being is the supernatural being chooses to work within the framework of natural laws of the universe, and so leaves nothing behind to distinguish His handiwork from a perfectly naturalistic solution that doesn't require a deity.

The issue I have here is that if God created the universe that the "natural" laws you refer to are his creation. in other words they are the rules and laws he established about how things would work in His creation.

You on the other hand appear to think that "natural laws" just are and create themselves somehow. again, you posit a law without a lawmaker or a purpose.

Sort of like when a 6 year old asks you where babies come from. You don't go into all the details at that age, tell them something like "when mommy and daddy love each other very much, they make a baby".

I reject the notion that our ancestors were simpletons. This however is a common view of evolutionists. They always want to believe that they are somehow inherently smarter than their ancestors.

So how did these simpletons build the great pyramids of Egypt?

How is it these ignorant ancients had a religion whose creation account in it's order closely resembles what science says?

Science says the Earth was once covered by water.
The Bible says the Earth was once covered by water.

Science says the first living creatures arose in the seas
The Bible says the first living creatures arose in the seas.

Science says the first life on land was plants.
The Bible says the first life on land was plants.

Science says land animals appeared before man.
The Bible says animals came before man.

Science says that man was the last creature to appear on earth.
The Bible says that man was the last creature to appear on earth.

Pretty good for a bunch of ignorants that needed to be told simple bed time stories don't you think?

Dragoon44
01-29-2011, 23:10
Religious disagreements are never ending, based on translations and interpretations of ancient scriptures, no way to resolve them, as neither side has an objective standard of which version/translation/scripture/interpretation is the right one. They're still arguing about whether Mary was always a virgin, or just a virgin until after Jesus was born. 2000 years later. Throwing various bible verses at each other, from various bibles. Never to be resolved.


Actually the Religious arguments and scientific arguments share a common denominator. They are arguments over what the data means. in the case of religion that data is the scriptures themselves.

In science data is collected tests are conducted and then interpreted. One group of scientists interprets the Data to mean X another group interprets it to mean Y. Another group says there is data lacking or provides new data to make a new claim.

Regardless of the surface similarities you mention, they are fundamentally different. Faith based vs fact based.

If they are actually facts how do facts change? the truth is a large part of science is merely theories not FACTS.

steveksux
01-30-2011, 18:29
Science is the quest for knowledge, but it doesn't "prove" anything.Yes, it does. Newtons laws of motion have been proven false. Einstein was right.


Evidence can be found to support a scientific theory, but it doesn't "prove" anything because there may be evidence to the contrary that hasn't been discovered yet.

More importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable, so if something is "proven" then it is no longer (or never was) falsifiable.

You may want to brush up on your philosophy of science.You might want to brush up on your reading comprehension skills.
The point was science CAN find evidence, prove one side wrong, prove one theory fits. It can prove there is something not quite right about a theory that almost fits, and that information can lead to other experiments, other theories to tease out the missing parts. Religions cannot. They bicker endlessly over competing versions of various holy books.

If you would have been paying attention, you might have noticed the actual point. I'm not giving a dissertation on how science works. :upeyes:

Randy

steveksux
01-30-2011, 21:14
The obvious thing you are missing is assuming there was something "Natural" involved to begin with or how those processes became "Natural". You're assuming there was a supernatural being behind it all. There's no actual evidence of anything supernatural that anyone has discovered yet. Religion suggests there's a supernatural being that creates everything, and everything that exists is therefore evidence of the supernatural being. Its an entirely circular argument. That said, if there is a God that created everything, it would be a true circular argument. So I'm not the one stating there isn't a God, or can't be one. Just I'm unconvinced until some evidence of anything supernatural. Till then I'm sticking with natural processes.


in an earlier post you spoke of "Natural Laws".

I find it interesting you use the word "law" since law points to a law maker or law giver and it also speaks of purpose.Reading too much into the word, I just used it because its a figure of speech. Natural laws in science don't point to a law maker or giver. How they came to be is just another avenue to explore, see if there's any evidence to allow us to find out the how.

If creation is God's handiwork and a demonstration of His power then those "natural laws" you speak of are ones he established. Christians understood this that is why they established universities where true science as we know it was born. in the heart of Western (Christian Europe).

Ones view of God or Deity profoundly affects your world view. Christians believed that God was a personal, rational, and logical being and believed that this being the case his creation was ordered, logical, rational and functioned according to laws or rules which He created. So they conceived it was possible to discover those rules.That's actually the basis for me saying that this sort of God is undetectable. If He follows all those rules, there's no fingerprints left behind. If we can show natural laws being broken, either they're wrong, or there's something supernatural that doesn't have to follow those laws.

Other societies whose religions consisted of impersonal, unknowable forces never considered they could discover logical or rational rules governing the universe. that si why they didn't develop true science.That's pretty interesting, hadn't thought of that, makes a lot of sense.

Interestingly, at one point Arabia was at the forefront of ancient science, big on math, invented the number zero if I'm not mistaken. They went fundamentalist Islam and were left in the dust.

Lets discuss this faith. You apparently hold Christian faith as being unreasonable.Don't know if I'd say unreasonable, merely unsupported by hard evidence.

But then claim a faith in science, and undoubtedly if you are honest you have to admit that science has established itself to be wrong on many, many, occasions. Now I will not dispute that this is in one sense a good thing. That science eventually recognizes as position that was previously widely held or believed to now be in error. I would wholeheartedly agree, it has often proven itself wrong. But I think the fact that science gets proven wrong all the time is its greatest attribute. It is self correcting. Finding errors is a good thing. The fact that its actively interested in finding its own errors is fantastic. I am just bit fuzzy on the "reasonable" faith part in having faith in something that has proven to be wrong time and time again. and particularly claims that it has proven something else wrong. I come from an engineering background. They don't make things perfect. They make it within a margin of error. That's science, every error found makes it closer to the truth. Cases like Einstein vs Newton, where its a huge change in the fundamental view of the way things work, even better. Sooner you get off the wrong track, the better.

So yup, I have lots of faith in science, cause there's lots of scientists looking to make their name by proving something about currently accepted science wrong.
How does that go exactly, "I have faith that science has the answers", (Just not necessarily the correct or true ones at the moment).I don't think science has all the answers, but its getting closer all the time. That's the best you can hope for. There's a million religions, all of them claim to have the right answers. None have anything to separate them from each other on a rational basis. None have any method to falsify any of their beliefs. How do you go about picking any particular one over the others? There's plenty of uncertainty going that route too.

The issue I have here is that if God created the universe that the "natural" laws you refer to are his creation. in other words they are the rules and laws he established about how things would work in His creation.Agreed. That's why I suggest in that scenario that science will not be able to find any evidence of God, just "natural" laws that don't appear to require any supernatural intervention to operate.
You on the other hand appear to think that "natural laws" just are and create themselves somehow. again, you posit a law without a lawmaker or a purpose.
I don't think even scientists have the answers to how the natural laws ended up as they came to be, some sort of result of the big bang I suppose. I sure don't claim to understand the theories. I don't expect it to be easy to figure out that sort of stuff, its a 13 billion year old crime scene, the evidence is pretty sketchy. I'm not claiming there can't be a God. I'm just not convinced one is mandatory.

I reject the notion that our ancestors were simpletons. This however is a common view of evolutionists. They always want to believe that they are somehow inherently smarter than their ancestors.I agree with you, actually. Its unquestionable that we have more knowledge now than they did back then, I don't think that makes us more intelligent/smarter, or that they were simpletons. I doubt our IQs are any higher than theres were. Its a lot easier learning something someone else already figured out than it is to figure it out on your own, so we have a massive advantage, based on all the stuff that was figured out between us and them by exceptionally smart people throughout history.

So how did these simpletons build the great pyramids of Egypt?
Combination of very clever and lots of slave labor...
How is it these ignorant ancients had a religion whose creation account in it's order closely resembles what science says?

Science says the Earth was once covered by water.
The Bible says the Earth was once covered by water.I'm not sure science claims that, y understanding there was at one point only one continent, that split into the current configuration over time

Science says the first living creatures arose in the seas
The Bible says the first living creatures arose in the seas.
[/quote]Correct, but bible missed a whole bunch of stuff between the microbes and the fish..


Science says the first life on land was plants.
The Bible says the first life on land was plants.

Science says land animals appeared before man.
The Bible says animals came before man.
Check and check


Science says that man was the last creature to appear on earth.
The Bible says that man was the last creature to appear on earth.
I doubt that man was the last creature to appear on earth, we tend to be kind of full of ourselves, sometimes... :supergrin:


Pretty good for a bunch of ignorants that needed to be told simple bed time stories don't you think?I wasn't trying to imply that they were simpletons, just that quantum mechanics and relativity theory was probably a little over their heads.. :supergrin:

Randy

Animal Mother
01-30-2011, 21:28
More importantly, a scientific theory must be falsifiable, so if something is "proven" then it is no longer (or never was) falsifiable. I think you need to brush up on your understanding of falsifiable as a concept. It doesn't imply that something can be falsified, it mean that there is a method through which a hypothesis or theory could be shown false. That holds true even for Natural laws. If a situation were found such that Newton's Third Law didn't hold true, it would have been falsified, and that is certainly conceptually possible as it would simple be an even in which the force on two bodies is not equal opposite and collinear. In fact, we now know that Newton's laws don't hold true at very small scales, very high speeds, or under strong gravitational fields.

Therefore, we could say that Newton's law has been falsified despite having been accepted as a Natural law for two centuries.

steveksux
01-30-2011, 22:33
Actually the Religious arguments and scientific arguments share a common denominator. They are arguments over what the data means. in the case of religion that data is the scriptures themselves.I agree, certainly there are similarities. The difference is that the data can be tested in science, and proven wrong, one side can win an argument and move on to the next one. There's progress.

How does one go about resolving an argument about whether Mary was a virgin her whole life, vs just until after Jesus was born? Everyone has their own interpretation of various versions of scriptures, various verses to try to support their argument. But there's no way to resolve the argument. I believe mine, you believe yours. No way to even rule out the Heaven's Gate crazies that tried to ride the Hale-Bopp comet to Jesus. I bet they have scripture to justify their beliefs. I'm not saying all religions are as crazy as they are, but there's no objective standard to sort through all the scriptural references. In the end, the verses mean what the believer says they mean.

Endless bickering, and nothing will ever get resolved.


In science data is collected tests are conducted and then interpreted. One group of scientists interprets the Data to mean X another group interprets it to mean Y. Another group says there is data lacking or provides new data to make a new claim.All true enough, but sooner or later someone comes up with a way to resolve those issues, determine which theory is right, or closer to right (if any, sometimes all existing theories are wrong), and then progress is made. Quantum mechanics and relativity conflict at some level, either or both theories are wrong, or at least incomplete. Science knows that, and admit where the flaws are, its a clue to lead to the next level of understanding.


If they are actually facts how do facts change? the truth is a large part of science is merely theories not FACTS.There are theories, but there are facts also, some theories get proven wrong when experiments contradict them. Stuff certainly gets ruled out based on facts. Evolution has been confirmed so many ways its considered a theory and a fact.

You can't really say that science isn't based on demonstrable facts, or that religions are. That doesn't prove religion is wrong, by the way, just that its not supported by the same level of fact checking that science is.

Randy

steveksux
01-30-2011, 22:39
I think you need to brush up on your understanding of falsifiable as a concept. It doesn't imply that something can be falsified, it mean that there is a method through which a hypothesis or theory could be shown false. That holds true even for Natural laws. If a situation were found such that Newton's Third Law didn't hold true, it would have been falsified, and that is certainly conceptually possible as it would simple be an even in which the force on two bodies is not equal opposite and collinear. In fact, we now know that Newton's laws don't hold true at very small scales, very high speeds, or under strong gravitational fields.

Therefore, we could say that Newton's law has been falsified despite having been accepted as a Natural law for two centuries.Interestingly enough, even though Einstein's relativity's confirmation showed that Newton's laws of motion were incorrect, NASA still used Newtonian mechanics for course plotting on the moon missions rather than relativity. They're close enough at the speeds of spacecraft to not bother with the increased complexity of relativity.

Interesting when people say science is constantly being proven wrong, in that context. Science proved itself wrong, and in the process found a better more accurate answer, and a wholly new outlook on the structure of the universe. But Newtonian mechanics are pretty damn accurate under 99.99999% of the time, seems "wrong" is not quite the right word. Its so close to right there were no discrepancies noticed for hundreds of years. Not like when the Church was proven wrong when it thought the earth was the center of the universe...

Randy

ksg0245
01-31-2011, 14:05
If you know that deities do not exist, you are an atheist.

I've asked you before to provide a source giving that specific definition. Did I miss it? Merriam-Webster doesn't use your definition, which is interesting, since you insist that's the only acceptable source of American English definitions. While it is certainly true that knowing deities don't exist makes one an atheist, it is not true that knowledge is required to disbelieve deities exist, despite your efforts to redefine the term. I would be thrilled for you to provide a definition actually supporting your assertion, but since I've never seen atheism plainly defined anywhere as knowledge, I'm doubtful you can.

If you don't know whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.

If you know that deities do exist, you are a theist.

I don't think you ever provided a definition of the difference between "know" and "believe," either. You just retreated to that "strong belief" dodge. I can only assume you either don't recognize the difference or don't think it's relevant, which seems odd coming from someone purporting to be an authority on the use of English words.

It's only American English. And admittedly hard language to learn, and even harder to master.

Particularly when one only recognizes a single source as authoritative, and refuses to consider any other.

But this does not require a master. Just a close observer.

Or a refusal to look at more than one dictionary.

ksg0245
01-31-2011, 14:11
Got a little lost in your post, and honestly stopped listening/reading.
:dunno:

Theist. Knows. Has openly made the decision.

Theistic Agnostic. Doesn't really know for sure. Leans toward the belief that a deity exists.

Agnostic. Doesn't know. Doesn't mind admitting it.

Atheistic Agnostic. Doesn't really know for sure. Leans toward the belief that no deity exists.

Atheist. Knows. Has openly made the decision.

This is so simple, that I do not understand how everyone does not get it.

Maybe they haven't seen the dictionary that defines theists and atheists as knowing deities do or do not exist.

weemsf50
02-02-2011, 09:12
I believe that the following quote is within both the parameters of this thread and the rules of the forum, not to mention copyright law:

At the very least, we must shed Enlightenment prejudices about religion and consider the facts more objectively. We must reject the hoary myth that 'religion is the problem,' as well as the fallacious idea that the answer is a public square denuded of all religion. As we have witnessed again and again, religion of one kind or another has provided a rationale for evil, but so also has its opposite. The quality and tone of public discussion would improve immeasurably if secularists were to acknowledge that their faith is one faith among others and talk openly of their own failures-one the one hand, directly inspiring utopian evil, and on the other, failing to provide humanistic values strong enough to resist modern evil. Os Guinness, Unspeakable, page 232

Careby
02-02-2011, 11:57
I believe that the following quote is within both the parameters of this thread...

"Secularist" is another word that has different meanings to different people, and multiple dictionary definitions which can be twisted to one's own ends. So in that respect, yes I think it fits the "parameters of this thread" nicely. In my own isolated little world, "secularist" is not synonymous with "atheist", and I have personally known self-proclaimed Christian secularists. I would hardly say secularists are of one faith, but I do agree that evil would exist even in a world without religion.

Dragoon44
02-06-2011, 01:06
You're assuming there was a supernatural being behind it all. There's no actual evidence of anything supernatural that anyone has discovered yet. Religion suggests there's a supernatural being that creates everything, and everything that exists is therefore evidence of the supernatural being. Its an entirely circular argument. That said, if there is a God that created everything, it would be a true circular argument. So I'm not the one stating there isn't a God, or can't be one. Just I'm unconvinced until some evidence of anything supernatural. Till then I'm sticking with natural processes.

Actually if I am assuming anything it is that something did not come from nothing by itself. In short REASON tends to tell me that the universe did not "just happen". And that the reason that our planet appears to be fine tuned to support life is because it is fine tuned to support life.

And exactly how would scientists that reject anything supernatural ever discover evidence of the supernatural to begin with? seriously, if a scientist has adopted the belief that everything can be explained by natural causes would you really expect them to find evidence of the supernatural?

Reading too much into the word, I just used it because its a figure of speech. Natural laws in science don't point to a law maker or giver. How they came to be is just another avenue to explore, see if there's any evidence to allow us to find out the how.


Evidence of what exactly? how "Laws" created themselves?

That's actually the basis for me saying that this sort of God is undetectable. If He follows all those rules, there's no fingerprints left behind. If we can show natural laws being broken, either they're wrong, or there's something supernatural that doesn't have to follow those laws.

Or there is something supernatural that created those laws. Again, do you believe that these "laws" created themselves?

Interestingly, at one point Arabia was at the forefront of ancient science, big on math, invented the number zero if I'm not mistaken. They went fundamentalist Islam and were left in the dust.

That is a myth, the Arabs were never in the forefront of anything. Their "science", math, and even medicine were acquired from conquered people and cultures. So called "Arabic" numerals originated in India. Their medicine was the product of Christian Nestorian schools of medicine. Their science of course was adopted from the Greeks specifically Aristotle. And that is one reason they never progressed into true science. They adopted Aristotle and made it virtually canon equal to the Quran.

In contrast the west STARTED with Aristotle then went beyond him.

Don't know if I'd say unreasonable, merely unsupported by hard evidence.

Sounds like a description of Darwinian evolution.

I would wholeheartedly agree, it has often proven itself wrong. But I think the fact that science gets proven wrong all the time is its greatest attribute. It is self correcting. Finding errors is a good thing. The fact that its actively interested in finding its own errors is fantastic.

And yet it clings to the dead end of Darwinian evolution and "Natural selection". Even though the intermediate forms that Darwins theory demands have never shown up they cling fiercely to it. Because they have to. Almost 200 years later they still have no alternative to the theory of natural selection.

I don't think science has all the answers, but its getting closer all the time. That's the best you can hope for. There's a million religions, all of them claim to have the right answers. None have anything to separate them from each other on a rational basis. None have any method to falsify any of their beliefs. How do you go about picking any particular one over the others? There's plenty of uncertainty going that route too.


Which one of them besides the Judeo Christian were the impetus for true science? Which one of them has a creation story that follows the order in science says things happened? Virtually all other religions believed that the universes was eternal that it had always existed. The Judeo Christian tradition says the universe had a beginning. (And so does science)

Agreed. That's why I suggest in that scenario that science will not be able to find any evidence of God, just "natural" laws that don't appear to require any supernatural intervention to operate.

You mean just "Natural" laws that somehow created themselves?

I don't think even scientists have the answers to how the natural laws ended up as they came to be, some sort of result of the big bang I suppose.

Sounds like just another version of, "It just happened..........uhhh....somehow"

Overall I find it interesting that you demand FACTS and PROOF from religion before you would consider it valid yet you are quite willing to let science slide in that regard.

You claim that religious assumptions are bad but apparently think Scientific assumptions are ok.

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 09:11
"Secularist" is another word that has different meanings to different people, and multiple dictionary definitions which can be twisted to one's own ends. So in that respect, yes I think it fits the "parameters of this thread" nicely. In my own isolated little world, "secularist" is not synonymous with "atheist", and I have personally known self-proclaimed Christian secularists. I would hardly say secularists are of one faith, but I do agree that evil would exist even in a world without religion.

Atheism being described as a religion is not a twist. The statement that "Atheism is a religion" is correct in both spirit and in the literal meaning of the words.

I think that many agnostics have mislabeled themselves as atheists.
I think that many self described atheists are uncomfortable with the fact that they have made up their own fairy tale about how we all came to be in existence (albeit without any fairies) , and that realization chafes them, because then their favorite pastime of trying to convince people to abandon their religion, is now obviously hypocritical proselytizing.


Truth hurts. A lack of proof in a deity, leads one to agnosticism, not atheism.
Faith that there is no god, leads to atheism.


None of us have proof. Many of us have faith that what we believe is true. I have no problem with that. I think people have a right to believe what they want to believe, and a polite gentleman allows them the comfort of their faith, as long as it does not break my leg or pick my pocket.

But truth must be told, and words really have definitions.

Careby
02-06-2011, 11:13
...The statement that "Atheism is a religion" is correct...
Repeating your argument over and over does not make it any more compelling. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 11:51
Repeating your argument over and over does not make it any more compelling. Sorry, I don't buy it.

Neither does denying the truth.

Atheism is a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Fact.


Nothing personal. We just disagree.

RC-RAMIE
02-06-2011, 13:52
Neither does denying the truth.

Atheism is a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Fact.


Nothing personal. We just disagree.

What beliefs is it that I hold on to with ardor and faith exactly?

bleedingshrimp
02-06-2011, 14:14
Neither does denying the truth.

Atheism is a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Fact.


Nothing personal. We just disagree.

Nothing personal, but you're incorrect. A belief "system" consists of more than one belief.

Atheism is a single disbelief ; the disbelief in a deity....no matter how many times you assert otherwise.

I can have NO ideas or fundamental beliefs about the world shaped by this disbelief (ex: origin of life, abortion, morality, etc) and still hold this disbelief.

I don't believe in God for the same reason I don't believe in any superstition or supernatural premises (voodoo, ghosts, fairies, demons, monsters under the bed).

The truth does indeed hurt, particularly when it pelts you from every side and you simply trudge right along.

ksg0245
02-06-2011, 17:10
Atheism being described as a religion is not a twist. The statement that "Atheism is a religion" is correct in both spirit and in the literal meaning of the words.

Then so too is football and a whole host of other things that aren't considered "religions" by pretty much everyone.

I think that many agnostics have mislabeled themselves as atheists.

Unless, of course, they don't actually believe in deities, in which case they've correctly labeled themselves as atheists.

I think that many self described atheists are uncomfortable with the fact that they have made up their own fairy tale about how we all came to be in existence (albeit without any fairies) , and that realization chafes them, because then their favorite pastime of trying to convince people to abandon their religion, is now obviously hypocritical proselytizing.

Wow. How is saying "I don't believe in deities because there isn't any strong evidence" either a fairy tale or proselytizing?

Truth hurts. A lack of proof in a deity, leads one to agnosticism, not atheism.
Faith that there is no god, leads to atheism.

Huh. In post 810 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16759597&postcount=810) you claimed:

If you know that deities do not exist, you are an atheist.

If you don't know whether deities exist, you are an agnostic.

If you know that deities do exist, you are a theist.

Do you REALLY believe knowledge and faith are the same thing?

None of us have proof. Many of us have faith that what we believe is true. I have no problem with that. I think people have a right to believe what they want to believe, and a polite gentleman allows them the comfort of their faith, as long as it does not break my leg or pick my pocket.

But truth must be told, and words really have definitions.

Some of them have more than one.

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 17:39
Then so too is football and a whole host of other things that aren't considered "religions" by pretty much everyone.



This is a tired and shallow argument. Does football explain the existence of man? Football may evoke strong emotions, but it does not formulate a foundation for the rest of your beliefs.



Unless, of course, they don't actually believe in deities, in which case they've correctly labeled themselves as atheists.


If they believe that no deity exists, then they are atheists.

If they aren't sure, maybe not.


Wow. How is saying "I don't believe in deities because there isn't any strong evidence" either a fairy tale or proselytizing?


I don't believe in any particular deity because there isn't any convincing strong evidence, but I also don't see any strong evidence that there is not a deity either.

So, being an ethical and thoughtful guy, I've reserved judgment.

Atheists have made a leap of faith.


Huh. In post 810 (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16759597&postcount=810) you claimed:


A lack of proof of an opposite position is not proof of the alternative.
It's really not that hard to get.


Do you REALLY believe knowledge and faith are the same thing?


I really believe that a belief, strongly held, without proof, is faith.


Some of them have more than one.

And are not all of them valid?

Atheism is a religion. Fact.

Using all of the definitions in Websters, can you prove that statement false.

:whistling:

Careby
02-06-2011, 17:55
Atheism is a religion. Fact.

Using all of the definitions in Websters, can you prove that statement false.

:whistling:
Webster's says atheism and religion are antonyms. Fact. Your dictionary, not mine. :whistling:

steveksux
02-06-2011, 19:15
This is a tired and shallow argument. Does football explain the existence of man? Football may evoke strong emotions, but it does not formulate a foundation for the rest of your beliefs.That's also a tired and shallow argument. Atheism doesn't formulate any sort of foundation for the rest of your beliefs. It only covers one. Deities. None. That's it.

It's not our fault you've had to resort to using that particular definition to try to pretend that atheism is a real religion. If it was a real religion you wouldn't have had to ignore the primary definiton of religion that best covers actual real live religions in order to cover it. In the process of watering down the meaning of religion so its so useless that it includes atheism, it necessarily DOES include football, belief in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, leprechauns, Voodoo, numerology, alchemy, and all other manner of things that are obviously not religions either.

Your definition. Not mine. Words have meanings. There are consequences to choices. Live with it. :dunno: You can't play fast and loose with common sense and then get all butt hurt when the same rules are applied against you.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 19:17
Webster's says atheism and religion are antonyms. Fact. Your dictionary, not mine. :whistling:

That's not what I asked you.


I'm OK with contradictions. Being an antonym does nothing to refute the fact that using the Websters definitions, that Atheism is a religion.


:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 19:19
That's also a tired and shallow argument. Atheism doesn't formulate any sort of foundation for the rest of your beliefs. It only covers one. Deities. None.



Steve. Really? And whether a deity is watching over your shoulder or not, and whether you will stand before them for judgment or not, doesn't influence the rest of your beliefs.

If not, maybe you really aren't as sure as you have been claiming.

void *
02-06-2011, 19:31
Steve. Really? And whether a deity is watching over your shoulder or not, and whether you will stand before them for judgment or not, doesn't influence the rest of your beliefs.

You mean something like how, if you don't believe in life after death because you don't believe in a deity which requires it - it makes things like murder that much more horrid a crime, since instead of merely changing the state of existence of the victim, a murderer is ending that person's existence?

Or, perhaps, raising the importance of spending time with family and friends, because if something happens to them, you'll never see them again, ever?

Or how, if you don't believe there is a all-powerful deity to forgive you whether or not people you have wronged forgive you, it becomes a whole lot more important not to do wrong to others - because if you do, and the others *dont'* forgive you, that's just the way it's going to be?

That kind of influence?

Or were you shooting for a more negative implication there?

By the way - the point of the post you are responding to is that there is no mandatory set of beliefs. There is one requirement - not believing. Beyond that there's a wide array of positions.

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 19:41
You mean something like how, if you don't believe in life after death because you don't believe in a deity which requires it - it makes things like murder that much more horrid a crime, since instead of merely changing the state of existence of the victim, a murderer is ending that person's existence?

Or, perhaps, raising the importance of spending time with family and friends, because if something happens to them, you'll never see them again, ever?

Or how, if you don't believe there is a all-powerful deity to forgive you whether or not people you have wronged forgive you, it becomes a whole lot more important not to do wrong to others - because if you do, and the others *dont'* forgive you, that's just the way it's going to be?

That kind of influence?

Or were you shooting for a more negative implication there?

By the way - the point of the post you are responding to is that there is no mandatory set of beliefs. There is one requirement - not believing. Beyond that there's a wide array of positions.

So you get it. It is a starting point for everything else.

void *
02-06-2011, 19:59
So you get it. It is a starting point for everything else.

It's not a starting point. It's one factor among many. And you're still missing the point (or intentionally ignoring it): A lack of belief in gods does not imply some set of particular other beliefs.

Cavalry Doc
02-06-2011, 20:07
It's not a starting point. It's one factor among many. And you're still missing the point (or intentionally ignoring it): A lack of belief in gods does not imply some set of particular other beliefs.

See, you are probably one of those self mislabeled agnostics.

Atheists have made the decision and believe.....

ksg0245
02-06-2011, 21:27
This is a tired and shallow argument.

And yet you keep making it. It's not my fault that the definition you keep insisting applies to atheism applies equally to football. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

Does football explain the existence of man?

Nope. Nor does atheism. Now please explain the relevance of your question.

Football may evoke strong emotions, but it does not formulate a foundation for the rest of your beliefs.

Nor does atheism, unless you can offer an example of an atheist belief that is a foundation for the rest of an atheist's beliefs that isn't shared with at least some theists. Keep in mind, you yourself have already admitted, for example, that the Big Bang theory is not an exclusively atheist belief but is instead a scientific theory that some theists also accept as valid; atheism is not required to accept the legitimacy of the Big Bang Theory.

If they believe that no deity exists, then they are atheists.

If they aren't sure, maybe not.

So are you're abandoning your claim "If you know that deities do not exist, you are an atheist," or are you back to your assertion that belief and knowledge are equivalent? You seem to use the terms interchangeably, which confuses me.

I don't believe in any particular deity because there isn't any convincing strong evidence, but I also don't see any strong evidence that there is not a deity either.

So, being an ethical and thoughtful guy, I've reserved judgment.

Atheists have made a leap of faith.

How is it a "leap of faith" to say "The lack of evidence fails to convince me deities exist, so until such evidence is presented, I don't believe deities exist"? Is a leap of faith required to reject other supernatural claims, or just this particular one?

A lack of proof of an opposite position is not proof of the alternative.
It's really not that hard to get.

Apparently it's "that hard to get" that atheists aren't claiming any such thing. Instead, they say "no proof? then why believe unsupported assertions?"

I really believe that a belief, strongly held, without proof, is faith.

Yes, you keep saying that, but that isn't an answer to my question. You do seem to do that, answer questions that weren't asked.

And are not all of them valid?

Sure, IN THE PROPER CONTEXT. You seem to have difficulty with that concept.

Atheism is a religion. Fact.

:upeyes:

Using all of the definitions in Websters, can you prove that statement false.

:whistling:

This is a tired and shallow argument, but I'll tell you what; I'll give you an answer, AFTER you answer either 'yes' or 'no' to these two as yet unanswered questions:

1. Do you believe deities exist?

2. Are knowledge and belief the exact same things?

I'm only interested in a one word answer to each question.

steveksux
02-06-2011, 22:32
So you get it. It is a starting point for everything else.Actually, its you who don't get it.

Religion already includes all that other stuff. Its not just a starting point.

Or are you now arguing that belief in Santa Clause is a religion too, since that's a starting point? You know, He knows whether you're naughty or nice, so be good for goodness sake... :rofl::rofl:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 05:35
Actually, its you who don't get it.

Religion already includes all that other stuff. Its not just a starting point.

Or are you now arguing that belief in Santa Clause is a religion too, since that's a starting point? You know, He knows whether you're naughty or nice, so be good for goodness sake... :rofl::rofl:

Randy

Maybe you just can't understand the difference between a jolly old elf who brings kids toys, and the creator of the universe and life.

I guess if you don't look too deep, you might equate Santa with a Deity.

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 05:41
And yet you keep making it. It's not my fault that the definition you keep insisting applies to atheism applies equally to football. If you have a problem with that, take it up with Merriam-Webster.



Nope. Nor does atheism. Now please explain the relevance of your question.



Nor does atheism, unless you can offer an example of an atheist belief that is a foundation for the rest of an atheist's beliefs that isn't shared with at least some theists. Keep in mind, you yourself have already admitted, for example, that the Big Bang theory is not an exclusively atheist belief but is instead a scientific theory that some theists also accept as valid; atheism is not required to accept the legitimacy of the Big Bang Theory.



So are you're abandoning your claim "If you know that deities do not exist, you are an atheist," or are you back to your assertion that belief and knowledge are equivalent? You seem to use the terms interchangeably, which confuses me.



How is it a "leap of faith" to say "The lack of evidence fails to convince me deities exist, so until such evidence is presented, I don't believe deities exist"? Is a leap of faith required to reject other supernatural claims, or just this particular one?



Apparently it's "that hard to get" that atheists aren't claiming any such thing. Instead, they say "no proof? then why believe unsupported assertions?"



Yes, you keep saying that, but that isn't an answer to my question. You do seem to do that, answer questions that weren't asked.



Sure, IN THE PROPER CONTEXT. You seem to have difficulty with that concept.



:upeyes:



This is a tired and shallow argument, but I'll tell you what; I'll give you an answer, AFTER you answer either 'yes' or 'no' to these two as yet unanswered questions:

1. Do you believe deities exist?

2. Are knowledge and belief the exact same things?

I'm only interested in a one word answer to each question.

For such a verbose guy, it's odd that you only want one word answers. Sounds like you're well on your way to building that straw man.

1. I haven't decided one way or the other.
2. They ARE spelled differently.

ksg0245
02-07-2011, 06:50
For such a verbose guy, it's odd that you only want one word answers.

Why?

Sounds like you're well on your way to building that straw man.

What "straw man"?

1. I haven't decided one way or the other.
2. They ARE spelled differently.

Were the parameters I set unclear?

void *
02-07-2011, 07:55
See, you are probably one of those self mislabeled agnostics.

Atheists have made the decision and believe.....


Close to all the self-identified atheists in this discussion is telling you that is not the case.

It is *unbelievably* arrogant of you, when I have given an exact and precisely defined definition, to turn around and tell me I'm mislabeling. It is not I who is mislabeling - it is you.

Also - knowledge and belief are not only spelled differently, they are not synonyms.

In case you missed it or intentionally forgot:

I do not know, which makes me agnostic, and I do not believe, which makes me atheist.

Careby
02-07-2011, 09:27
Maybe you just can't understand the difference between a jolly old elf who brings kids toys, and the creator of the universe and life.

I guess if you don't look too deep, you might equate Santa with a Deity.

IF neither exists, then there is no difference. IF a person does not believe either exists, then to that person, there is no difference. IF a person believes in one but not the other, then to that person, they are quite different. A person who believes in a Deity may be able to look deeply into the nature and ramifications of that Deity, but a person who does not believe sees nothing deep to look into.

steveksux
02-07-2011, 18:13
Maybe you just can't understand the difference between a jolly old elf who brings kids toys, and the creator of the universe and life.

I guess if you don't look too deep, you might equate Santa with a Deity.According to you, religion doesn't require a deity, so what's the problem? Atheists don't believe in a creator of the universe and life. Yet you still cling to the crazy notion its a religion.

All you need is belief, remember? Your definition, you should be able to recognize it. Kids got belief regarding Santa in spades. Its a religion by your definition. Sorry. So's an ardent football fan, that's even an example listed in your favorite definition of religion that you keep applying to atheists to make your ill-fated comparison.

That's the problem when you play word games to try to manufacture a point. Don't like the rules? You made them. Live with them and their consequences.
:dunno::rofl:
Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 18:40
Why?



What "straw man"?



Really?


Were the parameters I set unclear?

No, the parameters you set were ridiculous, and would have not led to any greater understanding by either of us. It was an obvious and sophomoric trap. Not much unlike If I asked you to answer a question with only a date, nothing more, then asked when you stopped beating your wife.

Not that I would ever do that, because when I ask you a question, I'll be interested in your thoughts, not trying to trick you.

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 18:57
According to you, religion doesn't require a deity, so what's the problem? Atheists don't believe in a creator of the universe and life. Yet you still cling to the crazy notion its a religion.

All you need is belief, remember? Your definition, you should be able to recognize it. Kids got belief regarding Santa in spades. Its a religion by your definition. Sorry. So's an ardent football fan, that's even an example listed in your favorite definition of religion that you keep applying to atheists to make your ill-fated comparison.

That's the problem when you play word games to try to manufacture a point. Don't like the rules? You made them. Live with them and their consequences.
:dunno::rofl:
Randy

An ardent football fan is emotionally involved in a game. They may pay close attention, to even minute details. What belief does that describe that the fan holds with ardor and faith, other than that his team might do better next year.



In spirit and in word. By basic meaning, atheists have decided that they know a fundamental truth about the origins of the universe, whether a deity exists or not. The belief that none exist, does not require one to know how the Universe came into being, only that they have decided that deities were not involved, and that they have not existed.



It's a PROFOUND thing. I've done my best to explain that to you, but have evidently failed. I blame myself, and not your inability to understand plain English. Your attempts to misdirect and trivialize the matter at hand are not your fault, and are a normal response to your not being able to understand what it is that I thought I had quite clearly explained, repetitively, over and over, for a long time. I blame the department of education. They really need to abolish that agency. The damage they have done to the youth of our country is immeasurable.

So, I concede, I have given up trying to explain it to you.

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 19:06
IF neither exists, then there is no difference. IF a person does not believe either exists, then to that person, there is no difference. IF a person believes in one but not the other, then to that person, they are quite different. A person who believes in a Deity may be able to look deeply into the nature and ramifications of that Deity, but a person who does not believe sees nothing deep to look into.


Did your mommy buy the present, or did Santa bring it to you?


Was our universe created, or did it just happen?




If you can't see the difference, I'm not sure I can continue to try to help you.

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 19:12
Close to all the self-identified atheists in this discussion is telling you that is not the case.

It is *unbelievably* arrogant of you, when I have given an exact and precisely defined definition, to turn around and tell me I'm mislabeling. It is not I who is mislabeling - it is you.

Also - knowledge and belief are not only spelled differently, they are not synonyms.

In case you missed it or intentionally forgot:

I do not know, which makes me agnostic, and I do not believe, which makes me atheist.

If you're not sure whether a deity exists or not... That's AGNOSTICISM.

If you're sure that a deity exists, that's THEISM.

If you're sure no deity exists, that's ATHEISM.




Words. They mean things. And denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Dalton Wayne
02-07-2011, 19:23
http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/firstnew.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1282322) Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322)


BECAUSE IT'S NOT!!!

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 19:30
http://glocktalk.com/forums/images/buttons/firstnew.gif (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?goto=newpost&t=1282322) Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322)


BECAUSE IT'S NOT!!!

Don't take this personally, but it is.


It is the belief in a fundamental truth about our existence, arrived at not with facts and proof, but with faith.


You really don't know whether a deity exists or not. But you choose to believe.


Faith.

Emotional outbursts, even if they include bold or red characters in italics can't hide that fact.

:dunno:


Nothing personal. Just illustrating the truth.

You don't know the truth. None of us does. The religious ones have decided, and they have faith that they are correct.

There's noting wrong with that. I respect peoples faith. I think you can believe whatever you want, and if it makes you a better person, I'm all for it.

But it is what it is. A belief in something profound that cannot be proven.

void *
02-07-2011, 19:32
Words. They mean things. And denial is not just a river in Egypt.

Perhaps you should read the words people have written.

Instead of continually telling them they are mislabeling themselves, contintually telling them they are stating they know when they have told you they are not claiming that, etc.

Like I said - unbelievably arrogant. You claim words mean things - but ignore the words, which mean things, that other people write, despite the fact that they have given you the exact definition and context that they are referring to.

Please read the following words, and fully comprehend what they mean:

When I say I am atheist, I mean atheist in the completely acceptable and used in philosophy sense of not believing.

When I say I am agnostic, I mean agnostic in the completely acceptable used in philosophy sense of not knowing.

Given that the two words believe and know are not synonymous, and you've been told this multiple times, you should now comprehend what the words mean. I would expect it to be quite clear that those are the *exact* definitions I use, and they are *precisely* defined - so a person with reasonable intelligence and reasonable demeanor should get that I am not mislabeling.

Given that you keep coming back despite the plain reading of what the words mean, after it being pointed out to you multiple times, and keep saying that other people claim to know, and keep saying that other people are mislabeling -> I can only conclude that you either lack reasonable intelligence, or lack reasonable demeanor. I am leaning towards the latter (i.e., unbelievably arrogant, at least in this one respect, as I noted before), given that you ordinarily seem to exhibit intelligence.

(By reasonable demeanor here, I mean that most people, when it is pointed out that there are multiple acceptable definitions that all mean close to the same thing, but with distinctions that matter, and are shown that those definitions are documented in various places, and are shown that people actually use them - and then furthermore are told "this specific definition is *exactly what I mean* - would say "oh, ok" and get what the other person is trying to say, rather that stubbornly tell the other people that one specific definition is the only valid one - you are continually doing the latter. After 35 pages, you have apparently learned *nothing*, and fail to admit that anyone's use of a different accepted definition is valid, in the face of those people telling you exactly what definition they mean and showing that it is in common use and documented in philosophical contexts. Reasonable people don't do what you're doing.)

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 20:02
Perhaps you should read the words people have written.



1. If you're not sure whether a deity exists or not... That's AGNOSTICISM.

2. If you're sure that a deity exists, that's THEISM.

3. If you're sure no deity exists, that's ATHEISM.



Of the three above, which one does not require faith?

I know it's discomforting for people to find out that they cannot prove what they know to be true is really true.

I understand your discomfort. You have my sympathy.

steveksux
02-07-2011, 20:15
An ardent football fan is emotionally involved in a game. They may pay close attention, to even minute details. What belief does that describe that the fan holds with ardor and faith, other than that his team might do better next year.Listen, I think calling football a religion is at least as stupid as calling atheism a religion.

But its clearly one of the examples in YOUR approved definition of religion.

You can't avoid the implications of the choices you made here. Simple as that.


In spirit and in word. By basic meaning, atheists have decided that they know a fundamental truth about the origins of the universe, whether a deity exists or not. The belief that none exist, does not require one to know how the Universe came into being, only that they have decided that deities were not involved, and that they have not existed. That just tells them they do NOT know how the universe came to be. It tells them absolutely nothing about how it happened. Unfortunately, the difference between "I don't know" and " I think God did it" is not profound at all. Its kind of amazing you can't get that. I think you're being obtuse on purpose. Its not a hard concept to grasp.



It's a PROFOUND thing.Profoundly misguided, I'll grant you that... I've done my best to explain that to you, but have evidently failed. I blame myself, and not your inability to understand plain English. Your attempts to misdirect and trivialize the matter at hand are not your fault, and are a normal response to your not being able to understand what it is that I thought I had quite clearly explained, repetitively, over and over, for a long time. I blame the department of education. They really need to abolish that agency. The damage they have done to the youth of our country is immeasurable.

So, I concede, I have given up trying to explain it to you.I apologize if the very examples posted in the very definitions of religion that you use to make your point make your point look foolish, and you by association. :dunno:

I hope that's simple enough to understand. But you know how that deparment of education fails people... so it shouldn't come as a surprise to you if you still don't get it.

Maybe be more careful next time. You keep telling people that any definition of religion fits from the list in that definition. That's the basis of your comparison. So why do you suppose they have those examples there? They all refer to the various definitions of religion. You're the one that decided all the definitions are interchangeable. That makes the examples interchangeable too.

If all the examples can't be mixed to compare religion to football, that's your first clue that mixing definitions to make similar comparisons is just as foolish

There's a reason using the examples to compare apples and oranges sounds stupid. Same reason using the definitions to compare apples and oranges sounds stupid to everyone except you.
Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 20:22
Listen, I think calling football a religion is at least as stupid as calling atheism a religion.



Sorry, didn't bother to read the rest of your post. What you said right there explains it all.

You may not see it, but other thoughtful & honest people will.

steveksux
02-07-2011, 20:28
Sorry, didn't bother to read the rest of your post. What you said right there explains it all. yes it does. that's exactly your problem. You refuse to read. Too bad your unwilling or unable to grasp it.

Perhaps had you read the rest of the Miirriam Webster definitions and looked at the examples of those definitions you're using you wouldn't have been so quick to make such a silly conclusion.

How do you think the definitions apply, but the examples do not? Because the examples make it all too plain what a crazy notion this is. that's why.

If your interpretation of the definitions made any sense, the examples would have to make sense as well. They don't, and you don't.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 20:39
...



We've already discussed that you need to control your emotions more than once.

Stick to the subject. Learn to disagree politely.

We simply disagree. I've already apologized for being unable to make you see reason.

Don't know what I can do to help you see the truth.

:dunno:

Other than abandoning the truth, what would you have me do?






Atheists have decided to believe in a version of reality that they cannot prove exists.

Not any different than the Scientology guys in that. :dunno:

steveksux
02-07-2011, 21:00
We've already discussed that you need to control your emotions more than once.I merely respond in kind You should control your smarmy insults about educational systems if that style of discourse makes you uncomfortable If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out.

I merely point out uncomfortable facts. That's why you feel uncomfortable. Deep down you have no answer, and so avoid the issue.

The problem is simple. You stopped reading. My post, therefore skipped the answer. Afraid it would make you uncomfortable.

You stopped reading. The Mirriam-webster web page for Religion. Therefore you missed seeing the examples that amply demonstrate how wrong you are in your assumptions about the definitions. And continue to ignore the obvious implications of those examples.

That is the subject. Why don't the examples back you up? Why do the examples make your position sound ridiculous? The very examples presented to clarify the very definitions you so cavalierly choose and misuse? Why is that?

You simply declare any uncomfortable facts are "off-topic" rather than face the uncomfortable truth.

That's not my problem. We do disagree.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 21:06
I merely respond in kind You should control your smarmy insults about educational systems. If you can't take it, you shouldn't dish it out.

I merely point out uncomfortable facts. That's why you feel uncomfortable. Deep down you have no answer, and so avoid the issue.

The problem is simple. You stopped reading. My post, therefore skipped the answer. Afraid it would make you uncomfortable.

You stopped reading. The Mirriam-webster web page for Religion. Therefore you missed seeing the examples that amply demonstrate how wrong you are in your assumptions about the definitions.

That is the subject. Why don't the examples back you up? Why do the examples make your position sound ridiculous? The very examples presented to clarify the very definitions you so cavalierly choose and misuse? Why is that?

You simply declare any uncomfortable facts are "off-topic" rather than face the uncomfortable truth.

That's not my problem. We do disagree.

Randy


Steve,

:rofl: Projection noted.


Can athiests prove there is no god?
Can atheists prove there is a god?

Nope. Both believe as a matter of faith.



The Santa gambit is just a diversion. Duly noted, and dismissed.


By the way, my swipe at the educational system was not directed at you. You really do have my sympathy.

You will undoubtedly do a dozen or so victory laps, and claim that you have beaten me, but anyone that can read the thread will be able to notice, you have only detracted from the discussion, and not moved it forward.


I don't often do this, so you have my permission to feel special.
But I'll be placing you on my ignore list.

Have a real nice life. I hope that you will someday be comfortable with your choice of faith and find peace.

steveksux
02-07-2011, 21:08
Steve,

:rofl: Projection noted.


Can athiests prove there is no god?
Can atheists prove there is a god?

Nope. Both believe as a matter of faith.



The Santa gambit is just a diversion. Duly noted, and dismissed.


By the way, my swipe at the educational system was not directed at you. You really do have my sympathy.
Diversion noted.

You still are unable or unwilling to explain why the very examples used to clarify the very definitions you rely on to make your conclusion, make your conclusion look so foolish. That's what is known as a clue.

Apparently clarifying the definitions make it obvious that you're misusing the definitions to make your point. If there were no flaws in your conclusions, the examples would back you up.

By all means, then, ignore the clues. Enlightenment is often painful. Especially after wasting so much time and effort defending a losing proposition. Must be embarrassing. You have my sympathy.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 21:17
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.

So, back to the subject.


Atheists have made a choice, not unlike theists, to believe what they wish to believe, without proof.

A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism.

Sarge1400
02-07-2011, 21:28
CD, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can be so committed to trying to prove atheism is a religion, when you clearly cannot commit, by your own admission, to what you believe about deities.

You have been asked time and time again to tell what you BELIEVE, not what you know, and have yet to give an answer other than the wishy-washy reply about being unable to prove one way or another whether deities exist.

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 21:37
CD, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can be so committed to trying to prove atheism is a religion, when you clearly cannot commit, by your own admission, to what you believe about deities.


I'm not committed to proving anything. It is what it is. I'm just illuminating it.


You have been asked time and time again to tell what you BELIEVE, not what you know, and have yet to give an answer other than the wishy-washy reply about being unable to prove one way or another whether deities exist.

I believe that there might be a deity. I also believe there might not be a deity. If there is one, or more, I'm not sure which one or ones it is, or are, or are not.


It may be possible to prove whether a deity or deities exist, or don't.

I have not experienced or seen this proof, one way or the other, and so have reserved judgment, for the sake of honesty.


I waited until after the Superbowl was over to declare who would be the winner. When you don't know, it's OK to admit it, and go with it.

Sarge1400
02-07-2011, 21:54
CD, here's your sign:
http://www.cathedralwindchimes.com/Wishy%20washy.jpg

Juvenile? yes
do I care? no
do I think it fits you? to a 'T'

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 22:00
CD, here's your sign:
http://www.cathedralwindchimes.com/Wishy%20washy.jpg

Juvenile? yes
do I care? no
do I think it fits you? to a 'T'

That's cute.

Sarge1400.

398 posts in 8 years, and you hop into this one knowing the details of the entire thread? Mere minutes after I ignored Steve?


I was born on a Tuesday, but not last Tuesday. I'm gonna bet you are another screen name for Steve.

I may be wrong, and if I am, I apologize. But you'll be on my ignore list too, in just a moment.

have a nice life, steve/sarge.

weemsf50
02-07-2011, 22:02
CD, here's your sign:
http://www.cathedralwindchimes.com/Wishy%20washy.jpg

Juvenile? yes
do I care? no
do I think it fits you? to a 'T'

CD, you must enjoy the ad hominem attacks you are getting. I think it is the issue of faith that is part of "religion" that is driving the opposition you are receiving. I am satisfied with my faith in Christ, so it is not an issue for me.

Cavalry Doc
02-07-2011, 22:07
CD, you must enjoy the ad hominem attacks you are getting. I think it is the issue of faith that is part of "religion" that is driving the opposition you are receiving. I am satisfied with my faith in Christ, so it is not an issue for me.

I respect the religious beliefs of all of my fellow gentlemen and ladies.


I'm not a fan of religious beliefs that teach people to hurt one another, but other than that, I am supportive of religious beliefs, even atheism.

I think that people should feel free to believe what they do about the nature of the universe.




But pointing out that people that believe without proof, have faith, is not a bad thing.

You would not be able to tell it from some of my recent responses.

weemsf50
02-07-2011, 22:18
I respect the religious beliefs of all of my fellow gentlemen and ladies.


I'm not a fan of religious beliefs that teach people to hurt one another, but other than that, I am supportive of religious beliefs, even atheism.

I think that people should feel free to believe what they do about the nature of the universe.




But pointing out that people that believe without proof, have faith, is not a bad thing.

You would not be able to tell it from some of my recent responses.

I likewise agree that people should be free to believe what they will.

Louisville Glocker
02-07-2011, 22:26
Obviously, it is a matter of semantics. For me, religion involves a belief in some kind of higher power (some call it god).

Atheism doesn't have that belief. It believes there is no higher power. Quite different, and obviously NOT a relgion by the definition I use.

Oh, and no way I'm reading the 35 pages of posts leading up to this - yeah, I do have a life....

Peace...(former athiest, now a bit "spiritual" whatever the heck that is...)

void *
02-07-2011, 22:28
1. If you're not sure whether a deity exists or not... That's AGNOSTICISM.

2. If you're sure that a deity exists, that's THEISM.

3. If you're sure no deity exists, that's ATHEISM.



Of the three above, which one does not require faith?



Basically, you're just showing me yet again that you're unwilling to read what I wrote. Which is ironic given your statement about words meaning things. Apparently, only your words mean specific things, everyone else's mean what *you* want them to.

When you can admit that there are definitions of the words 'atheism', 'atheist', and 'agnostic' and 'agnosticism' that are other than the one single definition you want to use - you will move a long way towards understanding why many atheists do not consider their atheism a religion. (I have stated that there will be some that hold to it with religious fervor. Some is not all, and conditional rejection is not fervor).

Until then - you've made it quite clear that actually trying to get you to understand the point is useless.

Sarge1400
02-07-2011, 22:35
That's cute.

Thanks. Admittedly, sophomoric.

Sarge1400.

398 posts in 8 years, and you hop into this one knowing the details of the entire thread? Mere minutes after I ignored Steve?

One could also infer that I read more than I post, but I guess you'd rather believe it's a conspiracy against you. Got tinfoil inside that cavalry hat?

I was born on a Tuesday, but not last Tuesday. I'm gonna bet you are another screen name for Steve.

I'm gonna bet you're wrong.

I may be wrong, and if I am, I apologize. But you'll be on my ignore list too, in just a moment.

You can play "lalalalala I can't hear" you if you want. You know, I've had some disagreements on this forum, probably made some people mad, got pretty mad myself at times, but have never put someone on my ignore list. There are people I just don't reply to anymore, but I'm still interested in what they have to say. Never know, they just might say something that causes me to take another moment to ponder, maybe change how I think or feel about something, maybe open my eyes a little.

But I guess you can't read this now, can you?

have a nice life, steve/sarge.

You too, cupcake. I think Steve and I will be just fine.:rofl:

void *
02-07-2011, 22:37
CD, you must enjoy the ad hominem attacks you are getting.

I did call him arrogant. However, I don't mean that as an ad-hom. His apparent arrogance in this respect isn't anything that would make a particular argument invalid. His argument is not valid with respect to how I use the term athiesm - which is as a strict dichotomy with theism - whether he's arrogant or not. He's simply refusing to admit there's any other sense of the word than the single definition he wants. Maybe it's not actually arrogance - maybe it's stubbornness. Maybe he's having fun trolling. Point being, if someone told me that they were using a particular word in a particular sense, I wouldn't spend thirty pages effectively telling them they didn't mean exactly what they were saying - and to me, that comes across as arrogant. (There can be confusion and misunderstanding, of course, but once that's figured out, reasonable people get what the other person is intending to say and move on. He's not moving on).

I hold the philosophical position that it is not known, and may be impossible to know. That's gnostic/agnostic.
I do not believe. Unless someone can honestly say they believe, they don't believe. That's atheist/theist.
That exactly describes my position. I've stated it multiple times. If someone wants to repeatedly say that one sub-definition of an entry in one particular dictionary is the only one, despite being shown multiple times other documented usage and other documented definitions in other dictionaries - well, that person could be too dumb to get the point. I don't think that's applicable to CD, based on his posts. He might be trolling. He might really think that he gets to pick what other people mean when they write. I don't know - I just know that his definition of atheism requires that atheists make a posit that very few self-described atheists I've met in my life would actually make - and it ignores that it doesn't take faith to not believe something that requires faith to believe. Not believing something that requires faith is not faith, it's lack of faith.

steveksux
02-07-2011, 22:47
So, back to the subject.The subject is apparently ignoring anyone who exposes inconsistencies.



Atheists have made a choice, not unlike theists, to believe what they wish to believe, without proof.

A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism.And Football. From the examples used to illustrate the definitions you use to equate atheism with religion.

Randy

steveksux
02-07-2011, 22:57
That's cute.

Sarge1400.

398 posts in 8 years, and you hop into this one knowing the details of the entire thread? Mere minutes after I ignored Steve?


I was born on a Tuesday, but not last Tuesday. I'm gonna bet you are another screen name for Steve.

I may be wrong, and if I am, I apologize. But you'll be on my ignore list too, in just a moment.

have a nice life, steve/sarge.:rofl::rofl: That's pretty cute. Note to myself: Next time I start a thread that ends up embarrassing me, put anyone who bests me on my "ignore" list.

Works great. Kind of like ignoring the part about atheism being an antonym of religion in the same definition used to try to claim atheism IS a religion. And ignoring the examples of the definitions of religion that would explicitly make football a religion too. :rofl: And ignoring everyone demonstrating the flaws in the thread premise. And ignoring the fact my name is Randy, not Steve...

I think a tendency to ignore is exactly the source of the OP's problem.

But hey, what could go wrong with that?

Why wouldn't you think an antonym is a kind of synonym if you believe atheism is a kind of religion?

Makes perfect sense... :rofl::rofl::rofl:

Randy

steveksux
02-07-2011, 23:00
You too, cupcake. I think Steve and I will be just fine.:rofl:Sarge, I'm holding back the tears as we speak. :crying::crying: I hope you're holding up better than I am...

IF Sarge is actually your real screen name.... Steve... :rofl:

Don't know about you, but I suppose I'd be more sympathetic if I had a mangina too...

I just wonder.... did I get YOU on the ignore list, or did YOU get ME on the ignore list??? :rofl:

Randy

Sarge1400
02-07-2011, 23:31
I just wonder.... did I get YOU on the ignore list, or did YOU get ME on the ignore list??? :rofl:

Randy

Either way, it's funny as hell.:uglylol:

Dragoon44
02-07-2011, 23:45
At the basic level Religion is nothing more than a system of belief. Primarily about.

1. how we got here (origins)
2. what out purpose is.
3. where are we going after this life.

Christians believe the answers to the above are found in an Omnipotent, rational, and personal being referred to as God.

Atheists believe those questions are answered by science, particularly the doctrine of "naturalism".

Both represent a system of belief.

Both require an element of FAITH.

steveksux
02-07-2011, 23:47
Either way, it's funny as hell.:uglylol:
You got that right...

Wait.... Dude, did you just quote yourself???? :rofl: I mean, how do I know we're not really the same person.... :supergrin:

Randy

Sarge1400
02-08-2011, 00:04
I mean, how do I know we're not really the same person.... :supergrin:

Randy

:uglylol: <<<< well, we DO look alike!

steveksux
02-08-2011, 00:13
At the basic level Religion is nothing more than a system of belief. Primarily about.

1. how we got here (origins)
2. what out purpose is.
3. where are we going after this life.

Christians believe the answers to the above are found in an Omnipotent, rational, and personal being referred to as God.
I would agree with all the above.


Atheists believe those questions are answered by science, particularly the doctrine of "naturalism".

Both represent a system of belief.

Both require an element of FAITH.Pretty much agree with this also.

But do you really think that makes atheism a different flavor of religions, the premise of the thread? At a basic level, there are superficial similarities, but are really fundamentally different once you scratch the surface.

My point of disagreement with your statement above is I don't think science is mandated by atheistic beliefs, its more of a default position in the modern world. If you reject all the supernatural explanations, there's nothing left except the scientific or natural explanation. So its probably overwhelmingly true today. But if someone was an atheist before science really got going, there'd be no one belief system that would define atheists regarding creation theories, they'd be all over the map, whatever they imagined the beginning was like.

So from that perspective, atheism is different because it doesn't come with a pre-packaged set of stuff. Plus you've got morals, rules, rituals, worship, trying to curry favor with the Supreme Being to intercede on our behalf, all tied up in the religions belief system. Not so with atheism.

I think the faith aspect is also fundamentally different. One is faith in the unseen, the supernatural. There's no need to go out and prove anything, its already been accepted.

The other is faith in only what can be demonstrated, and only until it is contradicted by new evidence. Scientists faith in a theory extends up until experiments prove it was wrong. Those revelations where an existing theory is wrong are where the major breakthroughs come from, the really groundbreaking stuff. The guys that upset the applecart become the heroes of science, and the excommunicated in religions.

People are people, they are stubborn, hate to admit they were wrong, so old theories hang around longer than they should, but that forces the opponents to come up with ever more convincing experiments and arguments until the controversy is put to rest, and on to the next unanswered question.

Randy

void *
02-08-2011, 01:00
Atheists believe those questions are answered by science, particularly the doctrine of "naturalism".

Both represent a system of belief.

Both require an element of FAITH.

Philosophical naturalism may require faith - but methodological naturalism does not. There is a difference, and it is a very important one - the former claims that there is nothing other than nature. The latter just focuses on what can be examined because whether or not there is something beyond nature cannot be proven.

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 05:30
At the basic level Religion is nothing more than a system of belief. Primarily about.

1. how we got here (origins)
2. what out purpose is.
3. where are we going after this life.

Christians believe the answers to the above are found in an Omnipotent, rational, and personal being referred to as God.

Atheists believe those questions are answered by science, particularly the doctrine of "naturalism".

Both represent a system of belief.

Both require an element of FAITH.

exactly. Neither has proof, so choosing to believe either (or any) theory about the origins if the universe requires belief without proof.

There is nothing wrong with that. Still trying to find out why that is so hard to admit though.

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 05:34
Obviously, it is a matter of semantics. For me, religion involves a belief in some kind of higher power (some call it god).

Atheism doesn't have that belief. It believes there is no higher power. Quite different, and obviously NOT a relgion by the definition I use.

Oh, and no way I'm reading the 35 pages of posts leading up to this - yeah, I do have a life....

Peace...(former athiest, now a bit "spiritual" whatever the heck that is...)

But that's just it. To be a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, there is no requirement to believe in the supernatural.

Yes, it is semantics, but semantics are important if the meaning of words in a language is important.

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 05:38
Basically, you're just showing me yet again that you're unwilling to read what I wrote. Which is ironic given your statement about words meaning things. Apparently, only your words mean specific things, everyone else's mean what *you* want them to.

When you can admit that there are definitions of the words 'atheism', 'atheist', and 'agnostic' and 'agnosticism' that are other than the one single definition you want to use - you will move a long way towards understanding why many atheists do not consider their atheism a religion. (I have stated that there will be some that hold to it with religious fervor. Some is not all, and conditional rejection is not fervor).

Until then - you've made it quite clear that actually trying to get you to understand the point is useless.


There are definitions that are different, however, all apply within proper context.

Atheism is still a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, at least for those that are not actually atheistic agnostics.

ksg0245
02-08-2011, 05:56
Really?

Yes, really. Please state the straw man you think I've created or will create.

No, the parameters you set were ridiculous,

No, the parameters were designed to get you to answer questions you refuse to answer, answers that are directly pertinent to your claims that "atheism is a religion," "atheists have faith," and "atheists know there is no deity."

I got the expected result.

and would have not led to any greater understanding by either of us.

I have no doubt they wouldn't lead to greater understanding for you, since your mind appears firmly closed to the matter. Don't assume that isn't the case for everyone else.

It was an obvious and sophomoric trap.

Yes, I was trying to trap you into answering two of the many questions you've refused to answer because they apply directly to your claims. How devious of me.

Not much unlike If I asked you to answer a question with only a date, nothing more, then asked when you stopped beating your wife.

It's ironic you say that, given that you've claimed there's only one acceptable definition of the term "atheist," equivocate on the definition of religion, won't admit any evidence to the contrary, and then say, "See? I'm right, atheists can't admit atheism is a religion."

Not that I would ever do that, because when I ask you a question, I'll be interested in your thoughts, not trying to trick you.

More irony. You're obviously not interested in anyone's thoughts that disagree with yours, since you've rejected virtually every single atheist's thoughts regarding your ridiculous, sophomoric claims, and instead have resorted to the tricks of equivocation and dodging, among others.

ksg0245
02-08-2011, 06:00
exactly. Neither has proof, so choosing to believe either (or any) theory about the origins if the universe requires belief without proof.

There is nothing wrong with that. Still trying to find out why that is so hard to admit though.

At this point, I don't think you are.

ksg0245
02-08-2011, 06:07
If you're not sure whether a deity exists or not... That's AGNOSTICISM.

If you're sure that a deity exists, that's THEISM.

If you're sure no deity exists, that's ATHEISM.

Words. They mean things. And denial is not just a river in Egypt.

It isn't "know" any more?

Please provide your source for the definitions of the terms' 'theism' and 'atheism' that says anything about "sure."

Careby
02-08-2011, 07:47
At the basic level Religion is nothing more than a system of belief. Primarily about.

1. how we got here (origins)
2. what out purpose is.
3. where are we going after this life.

Christians believe the answers to the above are found in an Omnipotent, rational, and personal being referred to as God.

Atheists believe those questions are answered by science, particularly the doctrine of "naturalism"...
You were doing fine until you said, "Atheists believe those questions are answered by science..." That is an unfounded generalization. Atheists are not confined to science, and science is not restricted to atheists. Undoubtedly some atheists subscribe to scientific theories, but it isn't a prerequisite. No doubt some are so committed to science that they believe science either has or will eventually provide answers to all the hard questions. But not all atheists, and possibly not even most. Certainly it is not a requirement of atheism to embrace science. Conversely, belief in God is not an impediment to embracing science. After all, if science is truth and God exists, then science must eventually incorporate God, and many scientists have spent their lives attempting to do just that. Clarke's third law says, "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." Maybe what we currently consider supernatural will someday be explained.

Dragoon44
02-08-2011, 07:58
But do you really think that makes atheism a different flavor of religions

I think it makes it a different flavor of belief. And fundamentally that is what Religion is about isn't it? Belief.

My point of disagreement with your statement above is I don't think science is mandated by atheistic beliefs

While I do not think that Science is mandated by atheistic beliefs it is certainly obvious that militant atheism has chosen science as it's belief and it's weapon against other systems of belief.

its more of a default position in the modern world

Yet it was not the default position of those who kick started true science, strange huh?

If you reject all the supernatural explanations, there's nothing left except the scientific or natural explanation.

If science is an open minded quest for explanations why does it start by rejecting certain possibilities? Atheistic scientists have not been the least bit shy (at least the honest ones) in pointing out that any theory is better than one that includes intelligent design or God.

So from that perspective, atheism is different because it doesn't come with a pre-packaged set of stuff.

I am sorry could you repeat that? I am a bit fuzzy on how rejects something out of hand to begin with somehow does not come with a pre packedged set of stuff.

Plus you've got morals, rules, rituals, worship, trying to curry favor with the Supreme Being to intercede on our behalf, all tied up in the religions belief system. Not so with atheism.


Atheism attempts to replace a supreme being with man himself. And just as the man that acts as his own attorney has a fool for a client I think that the man that is his own God has a fool for a worshiper.

I think the faith aspect is also fundamentally different. One is faith in the unseen, the supernatural. There's no need to go out and prove anything, its already been accepted.


Really? then how is it that modern science as we know it is the product of men of faith? The great men that laid the foundations of true science as we know it were men of faith whose motivation was that since God was a all powerful, personal and rational being so his creation must operate according to rational, logical rules and that this being so men could discover those rules by studying His creation.

More than that Science believes that there is a unifying principle that governs the laws of the universe. They have not found it nor seen it, yet they BELIEVE it exists and obviously have hope that they can one day discover it.

Sounds a lot like FAITH doesn't it?.

Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Dragoon44
02-08-2011, 08:07
Philosophical naturalism may require faith - but methodological naturalism does not. There is a difference, and it is a very important one - the former claims that there is nothing other than nature. The latter just focuses on what can be examined because whether or not there is something beyond nature cannot be proven.

If science requires neither belief nor faith then what sustains the search for explanations? If Scientist BELIEVE that Naturalism holds the answers even though they have yet to prove it how is that not faith?

void *
02-08-2011, 09:55
If science requires neither belief nor faith then what sustains the search for explanations? If Scientist BELIEVE that Naturalism holds the answers even though they have yet to prove it how is that not faith?

Methodological naturalism is just a matter of saying 'this is what we can examine'. When you wake up in the morning and look at the ceiling, do you have faith that the ceiling is there? No, you are observing it. Science doesn't require faith. We have found out a lot of things through science, we directly observe the process working, and we can observe that the implications of what we have found through science lead to correct conclusions. People don't have faith that science works - they observe the fruits of science, and conclude that it is a good means of figuring things out.

For instance, without our basis of physics we could not design and engineer and build the computers we are using to talk to each other. When you put your fingers on the keyboard and type and hit post - you call that faith? If you require that science is faith based, that cascades all the way through to it being faith that you're typing on a computer.

Furthermore, science holds a base assumption that it could be wrong, and a mechanism to self-correct. Faith doesn't.

Dragoon44
02-08-2011, 12:04
Methodological naturalism is just a matter of saying 'this is what we can examine'. When you wake up in the morning and look at the ceiling, do you have faith that the ceiling is there? No, you are observing it.

IIRC Methodical naturalism as defined by it's adherents is,

" The view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events."

This is clearly a belief, Adherents to this clearly believe that things CAN be explained by this even though they do not have proof of it.


For instance, without our basis of physics we could not design and engineer and build the computers we are using to talk to each other. When you put your fingers on the keyboard and type and hit post - you call that faith? If you require that science is faith based, that cascades all the way through to it being faith that you're typing on a computer.

No it does not require faith for me to type I can see for myself that the science behind this type of communication is proven. But that really has nothing to do with my point does it?

So once again, science obviously has elements of faith and belief in it. Otherwise scientists would have no reason to theorize or attempt to prove their theories. in fact, without faith why would anyone even attempt to investigate and uncover the laws of nature unless they BELIEVED it was possible to do so?

void *
02-08-2011, 17:51
IIRC Methodical naturalism as defined by it's adherents is,

" The view that natural phenomena can be explained without reference to supernatural beings or events."

This is clearly a belief, Adherents to this clearly believe that things CAN be explained by this even though they do not have proof of it.

We have proof of it. For one, by definition, if it's natural, it's not supernatural. Second, we observe ourselves doing it all the time. Science doesn't explain natural events like lightning by resorting to supernatural explanations. We observed various methods of figuring out natural events - and the scientific method, which does not resort to referencing supernatural events, is quite observably the best one we've found so far. That's not faith, that's a simple matter of looking at how we've progressed since we started using the scientific method.

No it does not require faith for me to type I can see for myself that the science behind this type of communication is proven. But that really has nothing to do with my point does it?

It has everything to do with the point. Science does not magically say "Hi, we just believe stuff". You can go observe for yourself. That is *not* faith. Whether you have the resources or inclination to do so is up to you - but if you want to prove to yourself that, say, the physics models behind semiconducting materials actually are consistent what we observe - you can go look yourself.

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 18:39
Yes, really. Please state the straw man you think I've created or will create.



No, the parameters were designed to get you to answer questions you refuse to answer, answers that are directly pertinent to your claims that "atheism is a religion," "atheists have faith," and "atheists know there is no deity."

I got the expected result.



I have no doubt they wouldn't lead to greater understanding for you, since your mind appears firmly closed to the matter. Don't assume that isn't the case for everyone else.



Yes, I was trying to trap you into answering two of the many questions you've refused to answer because they apply directly to your claims. How devious of me.



It's ironic you say that, given that you've claimed there's only one acceptable definition of the term "atheist," equivocate on the definition of religion, won't admit any evidence to the contrary, and then say, "See? I'm right, atheists can't admit atheism is a religion."



More irony. You're obviously not interested in anyone's thoughts that disagree with yours, since you've rejected virtually every single atheist's thoughts regarding your ridiculous, sophomoric claims, and instead have resorted to the tricks of equivocation and dodging, among others.




Well, should we just agree to disagree? You seem more interested in traps than in offering insight. The fact is that atheism is a religion, and it's very hard to admit.

Just for the sake of argument, if it were proven to you that someone could accurately describe atheism as a religion, as in a set of beliefs that are held to with ardor and faith, why oh why is that so discomforting to you. What nerve does that strike in you?

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 18:43
We have proof of it. For one, by definition, if it's natural, it's not supernatural. Second, we observe ourselves doing it all the time. Science doesn't explain natural events like lightning by resorting to supernatural explanations. We observed various methods of figuring out natural events - and the scientific method, which does not resort to referencing supernatural events, is quite observably the best one we've found so far. That's not faith, that's a simple matter of looking at how we've progressed since we started using the scientific method.



It has everything to do with the point. Science does not magically say "Hi, we just believe stuff". You can go observe for yourself. That is *not* faith. Whether you have the resources or inclination to do so is up to you - but if you want to prove to yourself that, say, the physics models behind semiconducting materials actually are consistent what we observe - you can go look yourself.

How long did scientists believe in subatomic particles before they were proven to exist?

void *
02-08-2011, 19:11
How long did scientists believe in subatomic particles before they were proven to exist?

Ahh, so now presenting multiple possibilities, and suggesting ways to check them, all while noting that it could not be the case, and having debate and idea exchange between people - this is encompassed by your definition of 'belief', then?

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 19:57
Ahh, so now presenting multiple possibilities, and suggesting ways to check them, all while noting that it could not be the case, and having debate and idea exchange between people - this is encompassed by your definition of 'belief', then?

Try it this way. They imagine something, then see some convincing evidence without proof.......... That's when they believe.


Heck, look how many scientists believe in global warming. :rofl: And all evidence points toward global warming being a corrupted hoax, at least since 1998.

http://www.globalosophy.com/images/areligionofglobalwarming.gif

void *
02-08-2011, 20:44
Try it this way. They imagine something, then see some convincing evidence without proof.......... That's when they believe

If it's actually convincing evidence ... what, precisely, is the problem? There may be more evidence discovered later that contradicts, but how is "This looks like this is true based on available evidence, I could change my mind later" *at all* equivalent to faith or religion? Short answer: it isn't.

Cavalry Doc
02-08-2011, 20:53
If it's actually convincing evidence ... what, precisely, is the problem? There may be more evidence discovered later that contradicts, but how is "This looks like this is true based on available evidence, I could change my mind later" *at all* equivalent to faith or religion? Short answer: it isn't.

Why is it so hard to admit, that you will argue against the facts endlessly.


It must be something, I'm searching for the guy or gal that has the ability to honestly tell me what it is.

void *
02-08-2011, 20:56
Why is it so hard to admit, that you will argue against the facts endlessly.

I'm not arguing against the facts. I'm pointing them out.

Such as the fact that you just implied that conditionally believing something on the basis of convincing evidence is somehow equivalent to faith or religion.

If your definition is that broad, there is nothing that is *not* faith. Not even your repeated assertion that you don't know what you believe. I suppose that's *your* religion, then?

void *
02-08-2011, 21:18
Let me give an example.

Say I come home, I see a broken window, and a baseball on the floor. Based on that, I might at that moment conditionally accept the posit that someone threw the baseball through the window. I look around a little more, I see that the window broke from the inside, not the outside, because there's little glass on the inside of the house and a lot on the outside. At that moment - I change my assessment, and look further. I find quite a large brick outside, that I know was not there before. I will now conditionally accept the posit that someone threw the brick through the window from the inside. This has a *decidedly* different flavor that religious belief.

The same thing applies with respect to deities. Show me convincing evidence of a deity - I'll accept the posit that there's a deity. That's not faith, and it's not religion.

Dragoon44
02-08-2011, 22:26
We have proof of it. For one, by definition, if it's natural, it's not supernatural.

You have proof of what exactly? and by whose definition? you mean that if science declares all things have a natural explanation then all things do?

I am interested though in your claims of proof,

You have proof of where the universe as we know it came from and what caused it to come into existence?

You have proof of how and where life originated and it's source?

You have proof that there is an underlying unifying law that ties together all the loose ends of the various scientific theories?

When did this happen? and why is science keeping this proof a secret?


You apparently want to keep shifting the focus and reduce science to merely what can\has be "proven" by the scientific method. But how about the things that science currently cannot explain and does not have proof of?

void *
02-08-2011, 22:44
You have proof of what exactly? and by whose definition? you mean that if science declares all things have a natural explanation then all things do?

Wow. Way to put words into my mouth, there. I never said that.

What I was getting at is that we observe that science gets us answers - and better answers than other methods (such as just saying Zeus throws lightning bolts and leaving it at that). You can go look at the methods yourself if you like. There is no faith required.

As far as the definitions go - a supernatural creator creating a universe is not a natural event, it is supernatural. Natural and supernatural are a strict dichotomy. Since CD likes m-w so much:

1nat∑u∑ral
adj \ˈna-chə-rəl, ˈnach-rəl\
12b : of, relating to, or operating in the physical as opposed to the spiritual world <natural laws describe phenomena of the physical universe>

su∑per∑nat∑u∑ral
adj
\ˌsŁ-pər-ˈna-chə-rəl, -ˈnach-rəl\
Definition of SUPERNATURAL
1: of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; especially : of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil

So you can't claim that a posit of a supernatural being initiating a supernatural event (the creation of the universe, under the supernatural model) somehow contradicts science using natural laws and phenomenon to explain natural events.


You have proof of where the universe as we know it came from and what caused it to come into existence?

Nope. If you remember, I have stated previously that we observe data that shows the that the universe is expanding, and that if we rewind the rules of physics as we currently understand them, you get a very small universe with a lot of energy packed into it. Anything "before" that is speculation that we may or may not be able to test - and it is explicitly understood as such.

The idea that science says the universe popped into existence out of nothing is your strawman, remember?

You have proof of how and where life originated and it's source?

Nope. Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem - and freely admitted to be so. That said, we certainly observe things that make it look a whole lot like once life came into being, gradual changes resulted in what we see today. And if we find evidence tomorrow that indicates it was something else - models that better fit the data will be accepted. That's not faith.

You have proof that there is an underlying unifying law that ties together all the loose ends of the various scientific theories?

Nope. And while scientists are trying to figure out if there is - that is not a claim that it absulutely is so. That is attempting to determine *if* there is. Why am I not surprised that you are misrepresenting both what I said, the statements science makes, and how science goes about finding answers?

RC-RAMIE
02-08-2011, 22:49
But how about the things that science currently cannot explain and does not have proof of?

With all the stuff previously believed to be supernatural through out history, explained away by science. Its not hard to imagine the rest will follow.

And :agree:

Dragoon44
02-09-2011, 00:23
What I was getting at is that we observe that science gets us answers - and better answers than other methods (such as just saying Zeus throws lightning bolts and leaving it at that). You can go look at the methods yourself if you like. There is no faith required.


Yeah that is pretty much what I thought you meant, rather than answer the questions posed you drop back to some nonsense about zeus throwing lightning bolts. Something Christianity has never believed nor does the Judeo Christian religion has anything in it about God throwing lightning bolts.


So you can't claim that a posit of a supernatural being initiating a supernatural event (the creation of the universe, under the supernatural model) somehow contradicts science using natural laws and phenomenon to explain natural events.


I have not posited any contradictions at all between science and religion. But I have pointed out that a Creator God bringing the universe into being would mean those "Natural laws" as you and science understand them are His creation. Not just something that "happened all by itself.

But while we are on the subject where exactly did these "natural laws" come from? How did they come into being and why?

Nope. If you remember, I have stated previously that we observe data that shows the that the universe is expanding, and that if we rewind the rules of physics as we currently understand them, you get a very small universe with a lot of energy packed into it. Anything "before" that is speculation that we may or may not be able to test - and it is explicitly understood as such.


And like I said, Science cannot tell us where that "very small universe" came from or what brought it into existence in the first place.

Does that mean science has no theories? if it does what are those theories based on? are they based on Fact, proof, or an unproven belief?

Nope. Abiogenesis is an unsolved problem - and freely admitted to be so. That said, we certainly observe things that make it look a whole lot like once life came into being, gradual changes resulted in what we see today.

But that is not a fact or belief it's what exactly since you claim there is no belief in science. or is that simply because you seem hung up on defining belief solely in religious terms in relation to a deity?

And if we find evidence tomorrow that indicates it was something else - models that better fit the data will be accepted. That's not faith.

I am curious how do these theories and "models" come into being if scientist have no faith or belief in the scientific method?

You keep telling me there is no faith or belief involved in science.


Nope. And while scientists are trying to figure out if there is - that is not a claim that it absolutely is so. That is attempting to determine *if* there is. Why am I not surprised that you are misrepresenting both what I said, the statements science makes, and how science goes about finding answers?

I never said it was absolutely so, IIRC I said that science believes that such a unifying principle or law exists and believes it is possible to discover it.

But you keep denying that belief or faith has anything to do with science. so maybe the source of the problem is that scientists are different from other people and they spend their time searching for answers they don't believe they can ever actually find because they have no faith in the scientific method being able to accomplish this.

So end the end perhaps science is actually just some kind of welfare program for over educated people?

Personally though I am not convinced that science is an endeavor of the insane and I think that scientists actually believe\hope they can find the answers because of their belief\faith in the scientific method.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 05:30
Still, with all the searching, experimentation and research, no one really knows for sure whether a deity or deities exist or existed.

There is some pretty good evidence. Both ways on that one.

One has to have faith to think they know the answer. It's not a bad thing, unless you can't admit it.

void *
02-09-2011, 08:23
Yeah that is pretty much what I thought you meant, rather than answer the questions posed you drop back to some nonsense about zeus throwing lightning bolts. Something Christianity has never believed nor does the Judeo Christian religion has anything in it about God throwing lightning bolts.

Lighting bolts specifically, maybe not. Does Christianity not believe that fire and brimstone was rained down from the sky by a deity? Does it not believe that a deity flooded the entire world?


I have not posited any contradictions at all between science and religion. But I have pointed out that a Creator God bringing the universe into being would mean those "Natural laws" as you and science understand them are His creation. Not just something that "happened all by itself.

You're missing the point. The implication of methodological naturalism is that science can't examine non-natural phenomenon. Do you really, really disagree with that? We can examine natural phenomenon. If there even are supernatural phenomenon, science can't work on them because there can't be a consistent basis to examine. An omnipotent deity could just do whatever, there's no rules such a being couldn't break.

And like I said, Science cannot tell us where that "very small universe" came from or what brought it into existence in the first place.

And like I said - science explicitly states 'we trying to figure it out, but we can't look back beyond this at the moment. There's some math that may work implying this or that but we can't currently check'. That's not faith.


Does that mean science has no theories? if it does what are those theories based on? are they based on Fact, proof, or an unproven belief?

If you really think a theory is based on 'unproven belief', there's nothing I can say that will make you get the point. A scientific theory gets to having the title "theory" by having verification - and there is always the explicit understanding that we could learn more later and have to scrap the theory.

Compare that to religious belief, where the general position is 'this and this belief is absolutely true' and people will actually ignore contradictory evidence.



But that is not a fact or belief it's what exactly since you claim there is no belief in science. or is that simply because you seem hung up on defining belief solely in religious terms in relation to a deity?

If science is done right, there is no faith, because science is based on examination. I'm not hung up on defining belief solely in relation to a deity - the difference is whether or not a belief is based on *faith*, or based on 'Hey, we did a whole lot of looking and experimentation - and even so, we may find out more later'.

I am curious how do these theories and "models" come into being if scientist have no faith or belief in the scientific method?

Have you really honestly never asked a question, said to yourself 'It could be this, it could be that - or maybe it's something else I haven't thought of yet - let me look at x, y, z which might tell me if it's this or that'? Speculation, hypothesizing, etc. does not automatically imply faith or belief.

Are you *really* trying to call that faith?

I never said it was absolutely so, IIRC I said that science believes that such a unifying principle or law exists and believes it is possible to discover it.

You are saying science believes that such a unifying principle exists. I am saying no, the statement is that such a unifying principle *may* exist. There's a difference.

ksg0245
02-09-2011, 09:00
Well, should we just agree to disagree? You seem more interested in traps than in offering insight. The fact is that atheism is a religion, and it's very hard to admit.

Just for the sake of argument, if it were proven to you that someone could accurately describe atheism as a religion, as in a set of beliefs that are held to with ardor and faith, why oh why is that so discomforting to you. What nerve does that strike in you?

Please clarify:

You refuse to provide your source for the definition "atheists know deities don't exist."

You refuse to answer the question "Do you believe deities exist?"

You refuse to answer the question "Are belief and knowledge the exact same thing?"

You refuse to identify the strawman you claimed I'd resorted to or was going to resort to.

You refuse to accept any definition of "atheist" other than your own.

You aren't interested in anyone's opinion of your claim "Atheism is a religion" unless it agrees with yours.

You consider any attempt to get you to answer any of these "a trap."

Careby
02-09-2011, 10:09
Still, with all the searching, experimentation and research, no one really knows for sure whether a deity or deities exist or existed...
Well I guess that means it isn't just atheists that you want to re-educate. Now you're telling theists what they don't know. I think you'll find no shortage of people who DO know, for sure, that God exists.

weemsf50
02-09-2011, 10:18
An omnipotent deity could just do whatever, there's no rules such a being couldn't break.This is not a part of Christian theology, especially the last clause.

void *
02-09-2011, 10:29
This is not a part of Christian theology, especially the last clause.

The Christian God can't break the natural laws that under Christianity, it is posited that very deity created? (I know there are some Christian theologies - maybe even most - that say certain things just are as part of the attributes of the deity, and are therefore outside the scope of what is viewed as omnipotence. I'm not talking about that, I should have put 'natural' before 'rules' in what you quoted)

The point I am trying to get at is that if there is an event which was due to supernatural agency, it's a supernatural event, and natural laws therefore cannot be used to explain that event. That is the point of methodological naturalism - it is not stated that there is nothing supernatural, it is a statement about what can and cannot be examined. It's basically roughly along the lines of 'When we go to try and figure something out, we are going to assume there was no supernatural agency, as a pragmatic matter, because if there was, we won't be able to explain it anyway - and if there wasn't, if we can explain it, we will figure it out without having to resort to a supernatural posit'.

So if a deity decided to cure someone of cancer - science will not be able to explain that, because there is no natural process to examine there. The deity would have come in, sidestepping the natural processes, and just made it happen. That would be a supernatural event, and there would be no natural process by which that event could possibly be explained (or even shown that it was some particular deity, or source of the event - we might be able to say 'yes, this event happened', but beyond that, you wouldn't be able to use natural laws and rules to say 'this is *how* it happened')

weemsf50
02-09-2011, 10:50
The Christian God can't break the natural laws that under Christianity, it is posited that very deity created? (I know there are some Christian theologies - maybe even most - that say certain things just are as part of the attributes of the deity, and are therefore outside the scope of what is viewed as omnipotence. I'm not talking about that, I should have put 'natural' before 'rules' in what you quoted)
I took your post as saying that He could do anything with no preconditions. I probably should have explained myself further. For instance, He cannot lie, will not change the time of day to suit someone (though He once held time static), those types of things. God does not act willy-nilly or without order.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 12:52
Well I guess that means it isn't just atheists that you want to re-educate. Now you're telling theists what they don't know. I think you'll find no shortage of people who DO know, for sure, that God exists.

So far, the theists have freely admitted their beliefs are a matter of faith.

But there are an awful lot of people that have decided they know the truth, but refuse to admit their beliefs are also based on faith. Several of them have posted in this same thread.

The question is why is it so hard to admit that since you don't have any real proof one way or the other, that choosing to believe there is no deity, is no more intellectually honest than any theist.

I have respect for people believing what they want to believe, but why not be honest about how you arrived there. You examined the evidence available, and made a choice.

void *
02-09-2011, 12:58
I took your post as saying that He could do anything with no preconditions. I probably should have explained myself further. For instance, He cannot lie, will not change the time of day to suit someone (though He once held time static), those types of things. God does not act willy-nilly or without order.

The only ability a deity needs to have for the point I am trying to make to be valid is the ability to ignore natural laws. Whether that ability is used willy-nilly or with strict purpose, it's still going to be the case that if we go and look at the event, we will not find a natural explanation, because the event is not a natural event, it is a supernatural event.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 13:38
The only ability a deity needs to have for the point I am trying to make to be valid is the ability to ignore natural laws. Whether that ability is used willy-nilly or with strict purpose, it's still going to be the case that if we go and look at the event, we will not find a natural explanation, because the event is not a natural event, it is a supernatural event.

If a deity parted the sea, since the deity exists, and the sea was parted, wouldn't that be natural?

Just because it's surprising, wouldn't make it supernatural, just beyond human ability.

weemsf50
02-09-2011, 14:55
The only ability a deity needs to have for the point I am trying to make to be valid is the ability to ignore natural laws. Whether that ability is used willy-nilly or with strict purpose, it's still going to be the case that if we go and look at the event, we will not find a natural explanation, because the event is not a natural event, it is a supernatural event.

I would agree that He has all power to transcend natural laws. You have always been honest and straight up with me. Some non-theists, however, try to make omnipotence to be power without restraint or direction.

void *
02-09-2011, 14:57
If a deity parted the sea, since the deity exists, and the sea was parted, wouldn't that be natural?

Is the deity a part of the natural world and bound by the natural world's rules? Did the deity part the sea within the confines of natural law? If not, the deity is supernatural, and the action of parting the sea is a supernatural event.

Careby
02-09-2011, 14:57
...But there are an awful lot of people that have decided they know the truth, but refuse to admit their beliefs are also based on faith.
Chicken and egg. You say they think they know the truth BECAUSE they have faith, but they may have faith BECAUSE they know the truth. I have a sister-in-law who has daily two-way conversations with God about every mundane thing in her life. If I were her God, I would block her calls. But anyway, while she certainly has faith, she also has irrefutable proof (according to her own standard).

...The question is why is it so hard to admit that since you don't have any real proof one way or the other, that choosing to believe there is no deity, is no more intellectually honest than any theist.
First of all I wouldn't say theists are intellectually dishonest. But once again, having what one considers to be no proof is an honest reason for one to not believe. No faith, no certainty, no proof, no belief system - certainly no religion. Just simple, ordinary "LACK" of belief.

If a deity parted the sea, since the deity exists, and the sea was parted, wouldn't that be natural?

Just because it's surprising, wouldn't make it supernatural, just beyond human ability.
I actually agree with you on this (surprise). It's what I was alluding to with the quote about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. A deity might be a lot more skillful in the manipulation of matter and energy within the framework of natural laws, whether He created them or they predate His existence. (Of course this MAY also mean that His technology is so far advanced from our own that WE consider him a deity, while his friends back home think He's just a regular guy. Or perhaps the eccentric old man with the toy universe in his basement.)

void *
02-09-2011, 15:04
I actually agree with you on this (surprise). It's what I was alluding to with the quote about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic.

Such technology might be indistinguishable from magic, but if it works on natural principles there is the possibility of examining the effects and determining those principles. That is natural by definition, not supernatural. If we took a firearm into a culture that is primitive enough, they are going to see it as magic. That doesn't mean we're deities (which I think you agree with based on the rest of your post). The people who think it's magic could, if they got a hold of the firearm and some ammo, do things that would let them figure things out. If they managed to get a cartridge and bullet separated, they might find that if the apply fire to the powder inside - the powder burns. It might take quite a while, depending on their tech level, but knowing it's possible to make such a device could go a long way towards them figuring out how to make one.

If our understanding of the laws of thermodynamics is correct, if some deity came in and took action that broke those laws - that would be a supernatural event. If it's the case that our understanding is incorrect, and some other set of natural laws actually hold - and the entity in question has determined them and built some tech using them - that's a natural event, and we ought to be able to eventually determine that we are wrong and figure out how to replicate it. (which doesn't automatically mean we would - just that it would be possible).

gpo1956
02-09-2011, 15:31
I really classify these type people the same as the current gay movement. Its not enough that the mainstream accept them and their agenda as their right to believe and act as they want. No, they want us to exalt their actions and beliefs and to admire them for having the "courage" to be different. The above is, of course, assuming he nots just an ass trying to stir up controversy. I personally would have a little respect for you having the courage to hold these beliefs if you weren't spending so much time and effort trying to broadcast it like this. What, exactly, is the point of starting this trhead anyway? To win converts? To poke Christians? To draw attention to yourself? Knowing the type of responses you would get on here, I would have to guess the latter two.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 15:41
Chicken and egg. You say they think they know the truth BECAUSE they have faith, but they may have faith BECAUSE they know the truth. I have a sister-in-law who has daily two-way conversations with God about every mundane thing in her life. If I were her God, I would block her calls. But anyway, while she certainly has faith, she also has irrefutable proof (according to her own standard).


Some people believe they have irrefutable proof, but if that were the case, they'd have convinced us all, and we would all know the truth. But all offered proof has been refuted.



First of all I wouldn't say theists are intellectually dishonest. But once again, having what one considers to be no proof is an honest reason for one to not believe. No faith, no certainty, no proof, no belief system - certainly no religion. Just simple, ordinary "LACK" of belief.


I actually agree with you on this (surprise). It's what I was alluding to with the quote about any sufficiently advanced technology being indistinguishable from magic. A deity might be a lot more skillful in the manipulation of matter and energy within the framework of natural laws, whether He created them or they predate His existence. (Of course this MAY also mean that His technology is so far advanced from our own that WE consider him a deity, while his friends back home think He's just a regular guy. Or perhaps the eccentric old man with the toy galaxy in his basement.)

Once we figure out the truth, we'll all know.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 15:42
I really classify these type people the same as the current gay movement. Its not enough that the mainstream accept them and their agenda as their right to believe and act as they want. No, they want us to exalt their actions and beliefs and to admire them for having the "courage" to be different. The above is, of course, assuming he nots just an ass trying to stir up controversy. I personally would have a little respect for you having the courage to hold these beliefs if you weren't spending so much time and effort trying to broadcast it like this. What, exactly, is the point of starting this trhead anyway? To win converts? To poke Christians? To draw attention to yourself? Knowing the type of responses you would get on here, I would have to guess the latter two.

You have obviously not read the whole thread.

void *
02-09-2011, 15:47
Some people believe they have irrefutable proof, but if that were the case, they'd have convinced us all, and we would all know the truth.

I think you're missing a basic bit of human nature here. There are a lot of people that believe a lot of things in the face of direct, contradictory evidence.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 16:13
I think you're missing a basic bit of human nature here. There are a lot of people that believe a lot of things in the face of direct, contradictory evidence.

Irrefutable has a definition too.

But in the question of whether a deity exists or existed, there is no evidence that rises to the level of proof.

Maybe a deity exists or existed.
Maybe no deity exists or existed.

People have very strong beliefs on the subject.

void *
02-09-2011, 16:23
Irrefutable has a definition too.

Yep. And people ignore irrefutable evidence, too.

Edited to add example: Thimerosal and autism. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, autism rates did *not* change - Without the thimerosal in the vaccines, it simply cannot be the thimerosal. Yet when this is pointed out to people who advocate a link between thimerosal and autism, they do not automatically go "Oh, ok. It's not that then". So while yes, irrefutable means "cannot be refuted", that does not mean people will not just ignore it.

Careby
02-09-2011, 17:08
Some people believe they have irrefutable proof, but if that were the case, they'd have convinced us all, and we would all know the truth. But all offered proof has been refuted.
Many of us know things that others know are wrong. This "proves" that we don't all accept the same evidence as proof. For that matter, strictly speaking, proof does not even have to be true. Many "facts" once "proven" to be true, according to general consensus, have later been disproved. When I speak of proof, I speak of evidence which will convince ME something is true. The law has varying standards of proof for different occasions, i.e. criminal vs. civil trials. Even the highest legal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, leaves room for error and of course many verdicts based on such proof have been found to be false. Irrefutability is in the eye of the beholder.

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 17:22
Yep. And people ignore irrefutable evidence, too.

Edited to add example: Thimerosal and autism. Thimerosal was removed from vaccines, autism rates did *not* change - Without the thimerosal in the vaccines, it simply cannot be the thimerosal. Yet when this is pointed out to people who advocate a link between thimerosal and autism, they do not automatically go "Oh, ok. It's not that then". So while yes, irrefutable means "cannot be refuted", that does not mean people will not just ignore it.

Are you alluding to some sort of proof that all theists are wrong, and atheists are right?

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 17:28
Many of us know things that others know are wrong. This "proves" that we don't all accept the same evidence as proof. For that matter, strictly speaking, proof does not even have to be true. Many "facts" once "proven" to be true, according to general consensus, have later been disproved. When I speak of proof, I speak of evidence which will convince ME something is true. The law has varying standards of proof for different occasions, i.e. criminal vs. civil trials. Even the highest legal standard, proof beyond a reasonable doubt, leaves room for error and of course many verdicts based on such proof have been found to be false. Irrefutability is in the eye of the beholder.

I agree, as any lawyer will tell you, proof and truth are two entirely separate things.

Personally, I've looked at both sides of the argument on the existence, and carefully considered both sides of the argument. I concluded that no conclusion is readily apparent to me. Maybe yes, maybe no.

I'm OK with that too. But I'm also OK with someone else having a different opinion on the origins of the universe. I've not tried to convince theists or atheists that they are wrong. I respect their beliefs about the origins of the universe and the nature of reality.

Still, both have chosen to believe, and that belief is based in faith that their choice is the correct one. At the root of my question is not whether theists or atheists are right, but why it's so hard for atheists to admit that they have made a choice to believe what they believe base on faith.


It's never been about changing one's belief system, but in recognizing it as what it is.

void *
02-09-2011, 19:59
Are you alluding to some sort of proof that all theists are wrong, and atheists are right?

No, I'm presenting an argument against your statement "Some people believe they have irrefutable proof, but if that were the case, they'd have convinced us all, and we would all know the truth."

Your statement is not valid, because we can directly observe instances where the matter is clear (Thimerosal removed from vaccines, but no impact to autism rates) yet people still aren't convinced. Like I said earlier, I think that statement misses a basic bit of human nature.

As I've said *multiple* times, the existence of a deity is not a provable posit (it's fundamentally not falsifiable).

Cavalry Doc
02-09-2011, 21:41
No, I'm presenting an argument against your statement "Some people believe they have irrefutable proof, but if that were the case, they'd have convinced us all, and we would all know the truth."

Your statement is not valid, because we can directly observe instances where the matter is clear (Thimerosal removed from vaccines, but no impact to autism rates) yet people still aren't convinced. Like I said earlier, I think that statement misses a basic bit of human nature.

What you are describing is not a controlled study. You've posited that the removal of thimerosol did not reduce the incidence of autism, there are a lot of variables undisclosed.

Do you have a link to a double blind placebo controlled study on the issue?




As I've said *multiple* times, the existence of a deity is not a provable posit (it's fundamentally not falsifiable).

So, to get back to it, irrefutable proof does not exist, right?

If he truth cannot be proven, one can withhold judgment until proof becomes available, or choose to believe one way or the other without proof.

Smacktard
02-10-2011, 04:08
Lets put it this way: It takes a boat load of faith to believe in God, only a speck of faith to believe there is no God.

Any fool can see that God is only wishful thinking.

The book of Smacktard 3:17:27


.............

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 05:43
Lets put it this way: It takes a boat load of faith to believe in God, only a speck of faith to believe there is no God.

Any fool can see that God is only wishful thinking.

The book of Smacktard 3:17:27


.............

Smack,

We are having an adult conversation. That means no disrespecting people by implying they are fools because they have a different opinion.

From a small seed of faith, a way of life grows. You seem to have an abundance of faith in thinking that you know the truth of the ultimate question, but there is no proof, and yet you are so very sure. Sure enough to try to belittle those that looked at the evidence, and chose another way.

In my humble opinion, that takes a lot of faith, unless you are only trying to get under peoples skin and trolling for negative responses.

void *
02-10-2011, 07:55
What you are describing is not a controlled study.

You might want to do a little research before saying things like that.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/13/1763.full
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604/Aut_Tech_Report_Vol1_090310.pdf
http://abtassociates.com/reports/Aut_Tech_Report_Vol2_090310.pdf

etc. I'm not just making stuff up. The studies have been done. They control for other factors. they show no link. The parents who still want to believe allege a massive government and pharmaceutical company conspiracy.

If that's not enough for you - consider that there are still people who reject that the world is round, despite the the fact that anyone who wants to and has a few hundred dollars to spare can send a balloon up with a camera attached and take pictures that directly show the curve of the earth.

Careby
02-10-2011, 08:17
...I've not tried to convince theists or atheists that they are wrong. I respect their beliefs about the origins of the universe and the nature of reality...

...It's never been about changing one's belief system, but in recognizing it as what it is.
I find it odd that you respect other people's thoughts on deities, the origin of the universe, and the nature of reality, but not their thoughts on what labels they choose for themselves and whether or not they think they are religious.

From what you have posted of your own views, I would conclude you're an atheist. I don't insist that you call yourself that, and if you think agnostic, or undecided, is a better fit, then by golly that's what you should be. As Abe Lincoln said, "Whatever you are, be a good one." Of course, if the Bible is the Truth, you'll burn in hell along with all the atheists (and the faithless people who go through the motions of their chosen religion "just in case").

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 09:03
I find it odd that you respect other people's thoughts on deities, the origin of the universe, and the nature of reality, but not their thoughts on what labels they choose for themselves and whether or not they think they are religious.

From what you have posted of your own views, I would conclude you're an atheist. I don't insist that you call yourself that, and if you think agnostic, or undecided, is a better fit, then by golly that's what you should be. As Abe Lincoln said, "Whatever you are, be a good one." Of course, if the Bible is the Truth, you'll burn in hell along with all the atheists (and the faithless people who go through the motions of their chosen religion "just in case").

Well what can I say. I'm a complicated guy.

The point is Atheists have a view of the universe that they choose to believe in, and some of them tend to give grief to people that choose another path. Usually complaining about fairy tales and magic. I'm only pointing out that Atheists have their own made up belief system. Both sides of the argument can point to "evidence" that they are right. But neither has proof.

The theists tend to admit they have faith, but the Atheists tend to claim intellectual superiority (see smacktards post above).

Smacktard has a religion too, but won't admit it.

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 09:11
You might want to do a little research before saying things like that.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/290/13/1763.full
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/112/3/604/Aut_Tech_Report_Vol1_090310.pdf
http://abtassociates.com/reports/Aut_Tech_Report_Vol2_090310.pdf

etc. I'm not just making stuff up. The studies have been done. They control for other factors. they show no link. The parents who still want to believe allege a massive government and pharmaceutical company conspiracy.

If that's not enough for you - consider that there are still people who reject that the world is round, despite the the fact that anyone who wants to and has a few hundred dollars to spare can send a balloon up with a camera attached and take pictures that directly show the curve of the earth.

Ok, then what evidence do you have that you personally consider as irrefutable proof that no deities exist, or have existed.

RC-RAMIE
02-10-2011, 09:23
Ok, then what evidence do you have that you personally consider as irrefutable proof that no deities exist, or have existed.

Why do I even need to consider deities when there is NO reason to?

Why does atheism require faith?

I admit that I do not know how the universe or life started. I also know billions have died before me and billions will die after me and never know the answer to that question.

Please point out what faith is involved in that.

ksg0245
02-10-2011, 09:41
Well what can I say. I'm a complicated guy.

And stubborn.

The point is Atheists have a view of the universe that they choose to believe in,

You are wrong. Atheists, or at least the majority of them, have examined the evidence presented regarding the existence of deities, AND ARE NOT CONVINCED. We don't "choose" to not be convinced, we are not convinced because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion "deities exist." If we are not convinced deities exist, we don't believe they exist.

Do you "choose" to believe in gravity, for example, or do you accept it based on evidence? How about, say, fairies? Do you have evidence fairies don't exist?

and some of them tend to give grief to people that choose another path.

Some of them do. And some of them just get tired and frustrated by others insisting atheists are lying or confused about what they believe, even after repeatedly explaining it as clearly as possible.

Usually complaining about fairy tales and magic.

Not "complaining," trying to make a point with uncomfortable parallels. Upon what evidence do you base your (I assume) non-belief in fairies?

I'm only pointing out that Atheists have their own made up belief system.

And you're wrong about it; it isn't a "made up belief system," it's the rejection of a positive claim based on an unbiased examination of the evidence that's been presented. In what way is that "made up"?

Both sides of the argument can point to "evidence" that they are right. But neither has proof.

Most atheists don't claim to have proof; I can't think of any that do. And many atheists can point out the logical flaws in the evidence presented by theists.

The theists tend to admit they have faith,

Not in my experience; most emphatically claim to know their deity exists. I've seen quite a few equate faith and knowledge.

but the Atheists tend to claim intellectual superiority (see smacktards post above).

It's difficult to not claim intellectual superiority in the matter when the arguments for the atheist position are misunderstood at the most basic level.

Smacktard has a religion too, but won't admit it.

Not a unique situation.

void *
02-10-2011, 10:23
Ok, then what evidence do you have that you personally consider as irrefutable proof that no deities exist, or have existed.

Do you remember that tirade you made about how words have meaning, and how I responded along the lines of "Yes, I know, and you are not reading the words that I am writing, and those words have meaning"?

Let me quote myself again:

As I've said *multiple* times, the existence of a deity is not a provable posit (it's fundamentally not falsifiable).

Perhaps this time you can read what I wrote, understand it, and then perhaps ask a question that has neither been answered (multiple times) nor implies that I think something that is directly contradicted by what I have already said.

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 18:05
dbl post

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 18:34
Why do I even need to consider deities when there is NO reason to?

Why does atheism require faith?

I admit that I do not know how the universe or life started. I also know billions have died before me and billions will die after me and never know the answer to that question.

Please point out what faith is involved in that.

The amazing complexity of life should give one reason to at least consider the possibility that an intelligent design was possible.

http://www.expasy.ch/cgi-bin/show_thumbnails.pl

The amazing complexity of individual atoms to coalesce into molecules, and those to coalesce into compounds, then to structures, then to those that would be useful to cells, then to cells that form structural tissues, then to organs, then to beings....


The inter-dependability of structures within cells, cells within tissues, tissues within an organism, and organisms within an eco system is truly amazing. Accidental happenstance is questionable, considering that several intermediate structures of several organs would not have been functional. That begins with the simplest of structures, and ends in complex organs and organism.




I admit that I do not know how the universe or life started...

No faith is involved, unless you claim that a deity exists, or that one does not exist.



It's really rather simple.

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 18:38
Do you remember that tirade you made about how words have meaning, and how I responded along the lines of "Yes, I know, and you are not reading the words that I am writing, and those words have meaning"?

Let me quote myself again:



Perhaps this time you can read what I wrote, understand it, and then perhaps ask a question that has neither been answered (multiple times) nor implies that I think something that is directly contradicted by what I have already said.

Well? Do you believe that a deity exists, or that none exists? If you do have a belief on the subject, how did you arrive at that belief.

Was it a choice?

Cavalry Doc
02-10-2011, 18:42
And stubborn.



You are wrong. Atheists, or at least the majority of them, have examined the evidence presented regarding the existence of deities, AND ARE NOT CONVINCED. We don't "choose" to not be convinced, we are not convinced because the evidence does not lead to the conclusion "deities exist." If we are not convinced deities exist, we don't believe they exist.

Do you "choose" to believe in gravity, for example, or do you accept it based on evidence? How about, say, fairies? Do you have evidence fairies don't exist?



Some of them do. And some of them just get tired and frustrated by others insisting atheists are lying or confused about what they believe, even after repeatedly explaining it as clearly as possible.



Not "complaining," trying to make a point with uncomfortable parallels. Upon what evidence do you base your (I assume) non-belief in fairies?



And you're wrong about it; it isn't a "made up belief system," it's the rejection of a positive claim based on an unbiased examination of the evidence that's been presented. In what way is that "made up"?



Most atheists don't claim to have proof; I can't think of any that do. And many atheists can point out the logical flaws in the evidence presented by theists.



Not in my experience; most emphatically claim to know their deity exists. I've seen quite a few equate faith and knowledge.



It's difficult to not claim intellectual superiority in the matter when the arguments for the atheist position are misunderstood at the most basic level.



Not a unique situation.



The fact is that we were created, or just happened.


Either choice is a matter of faith. Those that are committed to their faith enough to try to refute the faith of others are committed, or dishonest.

:dunno:

void *
02-10-2011, 23:28
Well? Do you believe that a deity exists, or that none exists?

I tell you what - you want the answer to that question, go read the thread again, because I'm done repeating myself. Give me a yell when you're willing to not completely ignore what I've already written.

Sarge1400
02-11-2011, 00:15
Well? Do you believe that a deity exists, or that none exists?

The fact that he would even ask this, in light of the fact that he has steadfastly refused to answer it himself, after being asked to innumerable times,
is unbelievably ph%*ing hilarious.:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

ftw13
02-11-2011, 02:06
religion is the source of soooooo much comedy:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
02-11-2011, 05:34
religion is the source of soooooo much comedy:rofl:

It's more basic than that. People are funny, even when religion is not the subject.

ksg0245
02-11-2011, 08:57
The fact is that we were created, or just happened.

Those are essentially the two possibilities, yes.

Either choice is a matter of faith.

You are wrong. It does not take faith to reject the unsupported assertion that "we were created;" all it takes is unconvincing evidence or lack of evidence. What faith does it take to reject the assertion of fairies? What faith does it take to accept that gravity is real?

Those that are committed to their faith enough to try to refute the faith of others are committed, or dishonest.

:dunno:

Refuting unsupported assertions isn't refuting faith; it's refuting unsupported assertions.

weemsf50
02-11-2011, 09:10
It is one thing to say "we were not created," and offer an alternative. Not having an alternative theory of origination is, well, I guess it is what some are calling here "atheism." So the evidence must be that we don't have a clue about how we got here?

void *
02-11-2011, 09:35
It is one thing to say "we were not created," and offer an alternative. Not having an alternative theory of origination is, well, I guess it is what some are calling here "atheism." So the evidence must be that we don't have a clue about how we got here?

I don't see why not having an alternative theory means a model (*whatever* model - supernatural, natural, whatever) that doesn't have sufficient supporting empirical evidence has to be pushed up to being a default position. (I am not saying that you are implying this, I'm just writing up what I'm thinking here)

If abiogenesis, for example (to pick something for which there is currently no model that has convincing evidence) occurred naturally, it occurred naturally, whether or not we have alternative theories, and whether or not any of the possibilities that people are investigating are correct. (I.E., even if we haven't even thought up the correct model, or even a 'close to right' model, yet).

Cavalry Doc
02-11-2011, 10:09
Those are essentially the two possibilities, yes.



You are wrong. It does not take faith to reject the unsupported assertion that "we were created;" all it takes is unconvincing evidence or lack of evidence. What faith does it take to reject the assertion of fairies? What faith does it take to accept that gravity is real?



Refuting unsupported assertions isn't refuting faith; it's refuting unsupported assertions.

It is a matter o faith to assert we were not created.

ksg0245
02-11-2011, 10:19
It is a matter o faith to assert we were not created.

Does it take to reject the unsupported assertion of fairies?

Cavalry Doc
02-11-2011, 18:34
Does it take to reject the unsupported assertion of fairies?

Does it take faith to believe the assertion that all of "this", just happened?


Yes, yes it does.




Stating it in a passive way, doesn't change the destination.

A disbelief in deities based on lack of evidence leads one to question their existence.

That's agnosticism. I am one, and I'm not sure a deity or deities exist or ever existed. That position makes it hard for me to criticize people for choosing to believe one way or the other.

A BELIEF that no deity(s) exist(ed) takes faith. As in belief without proof. Faith.

Atheism is a religion, only mildly different from most others in that it does not include the existence of a deity, or deities, or believe that they may have been involved in out creation.



Some atheists are almost, if not more, persistent as Jehovah's Witness' . So sure that their unsupported view of the universe is correct, that they feel a need to convince all others, even those that clearly state that they don't agree.


Atheists proselytize.



The truth may be uncomfortable, but it's still the truth.

Atheism is a religion. It is.


But why does it aggravate those that are sure that no intelligent design was involved in our existence to admit that they are religious?


Maybe radicals do not see their views as radical???????

Cavalry Doc
02-11-2011, 18:35
Does it take to reject the unsupported assertion of fairies?

Try typing in complete sentences. :supergrin::wavey::cool::whistling:


It will be easier to respond to you then.

RC-RAMIE
02-11-2011, 19:59
I need faith to not believe in a unsupported believe system?

steveksux
02-11-2011, 20:15
a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
This is interesting.

The belief that atheism is a religion, is obviously held with ardor and faith.

According to the OP, thats enough to be a religion right there.

But wait!!! There's more!!!

You have a Holy Book that the belief is based on : Merriam-Websters dictionary.

You have fanciful interpretations of the Holy Book:. You have to ignore the actual definition of religion to compare it with atheism, cause that one clearly doesn't fit. You take the alternate definition for religion, that doesn't fit actual religions very well, its ridiculously incomplete, but its necessary in order to include atheism. Problem is, the examples that apply to that definition quote "Hockey is a religion in Canada"... Oops. Now you have more semantic shuffling going around to say no, that's not the same thing. For that matter, belief with ardor and faith covers Santa Claus pretty well too, there's no more ardor and faith than a 6 year old on Christmas eve, certain that Santa is on the way.

Then you even have contradictions in the Holy Book: Further down the page it says that atheism is the antonym of religion, its the OPPOSITE of religion.

Wait, how can Merriam-Webster claim religion is the opposite of Atheism while the OP claims Merriam-Webster's definitions proves they are different examples of the same thing??

Its a MIRACLE! That's gotta be it!

Lastly, I suppose Merriam is God, and Webster is the Holy Father, or is it the other way around? So you don't quite have a Trinity yet, but you're WELL on your way to one! Two down, one to go!

What other conclusion can we come to
So its pretty clear that the only religious belief being discussed here is the belief that atheism is a religion.

/thread. Next words to investigate:
Hoist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hoist) and Petard (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/petard)

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-11-2011, 21:16
I need faith to not believe in a[sic] unsupported believe system?

No, you need FAITH to believe in an unproven belief system.


Atheism is unproven. :wavey:

ksg0245
02-14-2011, 08:52
Try typing in complete sentences. :supergrin::wavey::cool::whistling:


It will be easier to respond to you then.

So you've refused to answer the questions multiple times because I left out a word the last time I asked it?

Okay.

Does it take FAITH to reject the unsupported assertion of fairies?

ksg0245
02-14-2011, 09:26
Does it take faith to believe the assertion that all of "this", just happened?

Yes, yes it does.

Your claiming it does, doesn't make it so.

There is evidence our present Universe started with what's called "the Big Bang."

There is evidence species evolve.

There is evidence life can arise from non-life.

Rejecting the unsupported assertion of deities isn't faith. Until evidence of deities is presented, the default assumption is that they do not.

Stating it in a passive way, doesn't change the destination.

Apparently not for you, anyway.

A disbelief in deities based on lack of evidence leads one to question their existence.

Uh, who wrote that rule?

That's agnosticism. I am one, and I'm not sure a deity or deities exist or ever existed. That position makes it hard for me to criticize people for choosing to believe one way or the other.

Belief isn't something one chooses to do or not do. In light of that, it isn't surprising you refuse to answer direct questions about your belief.

A BELIEF that no deity(s) exist(ed) takes faith. As in belief without proof. Faith.

Despite the impressive use of size and color, you are wrong. It is the rejection of the assertion of deities. It is a disbelief in deities. Hey, another question you've refused to answer: are belief and disbelief equivalent?

Atheism is a religion, only mildly different from most others in that it does not include the existence of a deity, or deities, or believe that they may have been involved in out creation.

Hey, just like football. Oh, wait, the definition of religion only applies to those concepts you need it to when you need it to apply.

Some atheists are almost, if not more, persistent as Jehovah's Witness' . So sure that their unsupported view of the universe is correct, that they feel a need to convince all others, even those that clearly state that they don't agree.

What "unsupported view of the universe" are you referring to?

Atheists proselytize.

You might want to look up the meaning of that word; supporting one's assertions, asking for evidence to support claims, and rejecting unsupported assertions isn't proselytizing.

The truth may be uncomfortable, but it's still the truth.

Which explains your discomfort.

Atheism is a religion. It is.

Wrong. But it is clear your belief that it is, is your religion.

But why does it aggravate those that are sure that no intelligent design was involved in our existence to admit that they are religious?

Because they understand the meaning of words, and don't appreciate being mischaracterized as something they aren't to fulfill someone's agenda.

Maybe radicals do not see their views as radical???????

Yeah, it's pretty radical to reject an unsupported assertion.

Smacktard
02-14-2011, 10:37
Cavalry Doc has faith in Atheism being a religion, that's all the proof he needs. After all faith is the only proof of Gods existence.



...

Cavalry Doc
02-14-2011, 20:45
Cavalry Doc has faith in Atheism being a religion, that's all the proof he needs. After all faith is the only proof of Gods existence.



...



Open up a dictionary some day.



Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (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
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>
ó on faith
: without question <took everything he said on faith>
See faith defined for English-language learners (http://www.learnersdictionary.com/search/faith) Ľ


:dunno: English is my first language, but not my last. Makes sense to me. Check out the red text above. It fits.


Why doesn't it make sense to you?

Cavalry Doc
02-14-2011, 20:49
So you've refused to answer the questions multiple times because I left out a word the last time I asked it?

Okay.

Does it take FAITH to reject the unsupported assertion of fairies?

Who said anything about fairies? If fairies exist, or don't, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is what you believe about how you got here, not just through intercourse between your parents, but how our world and life on it came into being.

Wondering whether FERN GULLEY is possible or not is really a diversion.

It takes faith to believe that there is no intelligent design within the universe, just as much as it takes faith to believe that there is intelligent design within the universe.

Really, it's very similar, if not exactly the same.

NMG26
02-14-2011, 21:40
It is the rejection of the assertion of deities. It is a disbelief in deities. Hey, another question you've refused to answer: are belief and disbelief equivalent?
.

Yes belief and disbelief are both belief.

Good question by the way.

I don't think that Atheism is a religion, but a lot of atheists are religious about their atheism.

Maybe they can start a religion some day. It would be kind of zen.

RC-RAMIE
02-15-2011, 00:43
I don't think that Atheism is a religion, but a lot of atheists are religious about their atheism.


That I can go with.

Smacktard
02-15-2011, 08:18
Yes belief and disbelief are both belief.

Good question by the way.

I don't think that Atheism is a religion, but a lot of atheists are religious about their atheism.

Maybe they can start a religion some day. It would be kind of zen.



You don't know about "The First Church Of Independent Atheists" ( A Smacktard Corporation) as seen on TV ?



...

ksg0245
02-15-2011, 08:24
Who said anything about fairies? If fairies exist, or don't, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is what you believe about how you got here, not just through intercourse between your parents, but how our world and life on it came into being.

Wondering whether FERN GULLEY is possible or not is really a diversion.

It takes faith to believe that there is no intelligent design within the universe, just as much as it takes faith to believe that there is intelligent design within the universe.

Really, it's very similar, if not exactly the same.

It is not a diversion, and you know it; it is directly relevant to your assertions regarding belief, faith, and knowledge. You refuse to answer such questions because you're smart enough to recognize that once you do, your entire argument falls apart. Not that it hasn't already.

But as long as we're on the subject of diversion, bravo on dodging once again.

Smacktard
02-15-2011, 08:28
Open up a dictionary some day.






:dunno: English is my first language, but not my last. Makes sense to me. Check out the red text above. It fits.


Why doesn't it make sense to you?



Are you saying faith and Religion are the same?


......

Lotiki
02-15-2011, 08:49
I have faith that my alarm clock will go off when I set it to, that is not a religion.
I have faith that my car will start when I turn the key, again, not even remotely religious.
I have faith that when I take some asprin, my headache will die down, thank you Jesus?

Faith, while a part of religion, is not religion itself. You can not call a bag of flour a cake and you cant call a pile of brake lines a car.

steveksux
02-15-2011, 18:03
Who said anything about fairies? If fairies exist, or don't, is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, which is what you believe about how you got here, not just through intercourse between your parents, but how our world and life on it came into being.
As always, ignore points that expose the flaws in your reasoning.

Belief in fairies IN SPITE of no solid evidence that they exist is worlds apart from DISbelieving in fairies BECAUSE there's no solid evidence they exist. Brilliantly illustrates the difference between belief and disbelief once you substitute a subject that has no emotional attachment. Nobody believes in fairies, so the statement can be evaluated honestly without the emotional baggage connected when people talk about their deities.

Clearly demonstrates the sophistry you've been engaging in throughout the thread.. So just as clearly, it must be ignored.

Randy

NMG26
02-15-2011, 20:01
You don't know about "The First Church Of Independent Atheists" ( A Smacktard Corporation) as seen on TV ?



...

Wow, that could like be a church of one person!

Anyhows not all churches become religions.

I go to a church that is devoted to the teachings of "Science of Mind". It is a philosophy, spirituality, peace love and all that stuff..........but not a religion.

Cavalry Doc
02-15-2011, 20:38
Are you saying faith and Religion are the same?


......

Nope. But faith is included in the definition of religion.

Cavalry Doc
02-15-2011, 20:43
I have faith that my alarm clock will go off when I set it to, that is not a religion.
I have faith that my car will start when I turn the key, again, not even remotely religious.
I have faith that when I take some asprin, my headache will die down, thank you Jesus?

Faith, while a part of religion, is not religion itself. You can not call a bag of flour a cake and you cant call a pile of brake lines a car.

Maybe you'd consider the entire definition?


A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS held to with ARDOR and FAITH.

It fits.

Taking swipes at a particular religion is wasted on a committed agnostic, but it is still considered rude and thoughtless. I'm just sayin' :tongueout:

I think Atheism is a reasonable belief system, it's just not the only reasonable one.

Cavalry Doc
02-15-2011, 20:44
Wow, that could like be a church of one person!

Anyhows not all churches become religions.

I go to a church that is devoted to the teachings of "Science of Mind". It is a philosophy, spirituality, peace love and all that stuff..........but not a religion.

Does it support a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith?:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
02-15-2011, 20:45
Sorry Bro.

I can't hear you. :dunno:


This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.

Cavalry Doc
02-15-2011, 20:49
It is not a diversion, and you know it; it is directly relevant to your assertions regarding belief, faith, and knowledge. You refuse to answer such questions because you're smart enough to recognize that once you do, your entire argument falls apart. Not that it hasn't already.

But as long as we're on the subject of diversion, bravo on dodging once again.

You're missing the point. Fairies do not mean squat about the origins of our existence. At best, they would be a previously undiscovered species of primates. Believe in fairies, or not, it matters not.



But a belief, held to with ardor and faith, that purports to make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet......

Well, yeah, that's a religion.


:dunno: It's not a hard point to understand.

NMG26
02-15-2011, 21:02
But a belief, held to with ardor and faith, that purports to make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet......

Well, yeah, that's a religion.


:dunno: It's not a hard point to understand.

So every belief that differs from a the religion that a person is affiliated with makes another religion. We don't all have the same beliefs about the origin of Earth, and all life on this planet even within our own religions. There are as many religions as there are people.

Sarge1400
02-15-2011, 21:18
Sorry Bro.

I can't hear you. :dunno:

:notlistening: Lalalalalala, I'm not listening! Sigh, I remember when I was eight, too. Good times.

Honestly, I only visit this thread any more for the entertainment value provided by reading CD's responses. With all the ducking, dodging, and redirecting, he's just a cartoonish blur most of the time. It's become very apparent that the reason he started this thread was merely to stroke his own ego. He's made it quite clear that his mind is firmly closed on the matter.

steveksux
02-15-2011, 21:28
:notlistening: Lalalalalala, I'm not listening! Sigh, I remember when I was eight, too. Good times.

Honestly, I only visit this thread any more for the entertainment value provided by reading CD's responses. With all the ducking, dodging, and redirecting, he's just a cartoonish blur most of the time. It's become very apparent that the reason he started this thread was merely to stroke his own ego. He's made it quite clear that his mind is firmly closed on the matter.At least he's finally being honest about ignoring stuff for the first time since the thread started. Its uncharacteristic, but refreshing nonetheless. :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
02-15-2011, 21:30
Maybe you'd consider the entire definition?


A SYSTEM OF BELIEFS held to with ARDOR and FAITH.

It fits.
Just like Santa Clause, and hockey in Canada! :rofl:

Randy

NMG26
02-15-2011, 22:29
At least he's finally being honest about ignoring stuff for the first time since the thread started. Its uncharacteristic, but refreshing nonetheless. :rofl:

Randy


We evolve in our beliefs whether we want to or not. I think CD is learning something here. Can't be helped.

void *
02-16-2011, 00:29
You're missing the point. Fairies do not mean squat about the origins of our existence. At best, they would be a previously undiscovered species of primates. Believe in fairies, or not, it matters not.

What evidence do you have that fairies did not bring us into existence?

If you don't have any (which, if you are being intellectually honest - you cannot possibly have, for all you know there are incorporeal fairies following you around giggling all day long, and they *made you*, and will punish you for your insolence in not believing in them once you shuffle off your mortal coil), how can you possibly make the statement that they "don't mean squat about the origins of our existence" as though it were a plain fact?

Sounds to me like you're actually conditionally rejecting a posit - that these fairies exist - because there is no evidence for it. Which is something that you've argued the entire thread is somehow a religion. Now, ask yourself, if someone came up to you and said 'why is it so hard for you to admit that you not believing fairies created you is your religion', what you'd think about that.

ksg0245
02-16-2011, 09:18
You're missing the point.

Not at all; you're trying to divert attention from your refusal to answer questions directly relevant to your claims about faith, belief, knowledge, and religion.

Fairies do not mean squat about the origins of our existence.

Which is both a blatant red herring and an unsupported assertion.

At best, they would be a previously undiscovered species of primates. Believe in fairies, or not, it matters not.

Why not just say "I refuse to answer direct questions about faith, belief, knowledge, and religion, on the grounds they will incriminate me?"

But a belief, held to with ardor and faith, that purports to make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet......

Well, yeah, that's a religion.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, that disqualifies atheism as a religion since it isn't "a belief, held to with ardor and faith," because if objective verifiable evidence were presented, most atheists would believe, and since atheism doesn't "make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet," Not surprisingly, you agreed with that second point, then ignored the point, and are now disputing it again.

It's interesting that you've modified your original definition of the term religion to exclude things like football. Do you have a cite for that new definition with the "make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet" clause?

:dunno: It's not a hard point to understand.

It isn't hard to clearly answer direction questions, either.

steveksux
02-16-2011, 18:33
We evolve in our beliefs whether we want to or not. I think CD is learning something here. Can't be helped.Yeah, trolling is hard work.. :rofl: Harder than he anticipated, perhaps... Except for that, I disagree, was not asking to find an answer. Its been a troll thread from the word go. Nothing more.

He's obviously been proven wrong all kinds of different ways. He persists because he thinks it annoys atheists. It would be no different than if someone started a thread "Why is it so hard to admit Christianity is a superstition?".

It exists simply to annoy people. There's no intention of discussion. He just didn't expect to be bested so badly that he'd have to resort to these transparent dodges.

Randy

Japle
02-16-2011, 18:56
I have to agree with you, Randy.
I also think he's trying to set a record for "Longest Thread That Went Nowhere".

Cavalry Doc
02-16-2011, 18:57
So every belief that differs from a the religion that a person is affiliated with makes another religion. We don't all have the same beliefs about the origin of Earth, and all life on this planet even within our own religions. There are as many religions as there are people.

If a person makes a decision to believe in a system of beliefs about the origins of the universe, our world, and life on it, and they knowingly make that choice without absolute proof, but make the decision based on faith, then it is a religion.

Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam.... None has absolute proof, but all have strong beliefs on the origins of our existence.

Me personally, I don't know, and I'm cool with that. I think that a deity or deities may or may not have existed. The evidence available could be used to argue either way.

So, I've simply reserved personal judgment. I do respect the beliefs of others though. Heck, I have no proof that they are wrong, so I let them be.



But whether atheism is or not a religion, is a matter of fact that can be rightfully and honestly supported.

It is one. It's a fact.


The question that no one has yet been able to answer, is why is it so hard to admit?

Cavalry Doc
02-16-2011, 18:59
I have to agree with you, Randy.
I also think he's trying to set a record for "Longest Thread That Went Nowhere".

Steve has earned a rare honor, to be placed on my ignore list.

He's not able to discuss the issue without losing his ability to remain civil.


It's not about the person, it's about the question.

Cavalry Doc
02-16-2011, 19:03
Not at all; you're trying to divert attention from your refusal to answer questions directly relevant to your claims about faith, belief, knowledge, and religion.



Which is both a blatant red herring and an unsupported assertion.



Why not just say "I refuse to answer direct questions about faith, belief, knowledge, and religion, on the grounds they will incriminate me?"



As has been repeatedly pointed out, that disqualifies atheism as a religion since it isn't "a belief, held to with ardor and faith," because if objective verifiable evidence were presented, most atheists would believe, and since atheism doesn't "make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet," Not surprisingly, you agreed with that second point, then ignored the point, and are now disputing it again.

It's interesting that you've modified your original definition of the term religion to exclude things like football. Do you have a cite for that new definition with the "make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet" clause?



It isn't hard to clearly answer direction questions, either.

I've never stated that football was a religion. Not sure where you got that.

Football is a sport, not quite a system of beliefs.

If you can compose a question you would like answered, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

I've been quite clear that I do not have the answers as to how we came to be. Neither do the Atheists, but they claim to know.

Is it really that hard to see?

NMG26
02-16-2011, 19:07
Yeah, trolling is hard work.. :rofl: Harder than he anticipated, perhaps... Except for that, I disagree, was not asking to find an answer. Its been a troll thread from the word go. Nothing more.

He's obviously been proven wrong all kinds of different ways. He persists because he thinks it annoys atheists. It would be no different than if someone started a thread "Why is it so hard to admit Christianity is a superstition?".

It exists simply to annoy people. There's no intention of discussion. He just didn't expect to be bested so badly that he'd have to resort to these transparent dodges.

Randy

Maybe he will end it after post 1000?

Cavalry Doc
02-16-2011, 19:23
What evidence do you have that fairies did not bring us into existence?

If you don't have any (which, if you are being intellectually honest - you cannot possibly have, for all you know there are incorporeal fairies following you around giggling all day long, and they *made you*, and will punish you for your insolence in not believing in them once you shuffle off your mortal coil), how can you possibly make the statement that they "don't mean squat about the origins of our existence" as though it were a plain fact?

Sounds to me like you're actually conditionally rejecting a posit - that these fairies exist - because there is no evidence for it. Which is something that you've argued the entire thread is somehow a religion. Now, ask yourself, if someone came up to you and said 'why is it so hard for you to admit that you not believing fairies created you is your religion', what you'd think about that.

Excellent point. If someone believed that fairies created the universe, and the planet, and prepared it for our life forms, then created us, well that would be a religion too.

I am not rejecting the existence of fairies. I haven't met someone that actually believes in fairies, so have yet to hear any arguments or see any presented evidence of their existence. Fern Gully was a laugh, I really like Robin Williams. Remade into Avatar, which was also visually cool, 'cept the fairies were MUCH taller, and more lethal. So, I don't even have a superficial opinion on the subject. I have not had need to even consider it seriously.

I'm just pointing out that whether one simply believes fairies exist or not would not be as profound as a belief as whether our existence was a matter of happenstance, or by design.

Honestly, is there anything more basic than that? Are you here just because of physics and chemistry, or are you here because you were designed, made, created.


It is a profound question. I'll admit I don't know the answer. But there are a lot of religions that have theories about that answer, including atheism.

Cavalry Doc
02-16-2011, 19:28
Maybe he will end it after post 1000?

Still waiting for a straight answer to the question.


Once I get that from a person that is willing to discuss the reason it is hard to admit, then I'll have my answer.


I doubt that a single post would fully answer the question. Perhaps we could wrap it up in 30 or fewer posts.

:dunno: