Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 5 - 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
02-16-2011, 18:40
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.Its really interesting and amusing that he is so utterrly not paying attention to anything anyone else says that exposes his chicanery he can't even get my name right. :rofl: Anyone that makes him look foolish with his own definitions is "uncivil".

Randy

steveksux
02-16-2011, 18:46
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. Its actually hockey that is a religion. From his own definitions of religion he's relying on to compare religion to atheism. Since the actual defnition of religions doesn't work, he has to resort to the secondary definitions, the examples of which include "hockey is a religion in canada". Of course, that is ignored since it exposes the foolishness of his assertion. He's afraid he wouldn't annoy people comparing atheism to sport enthusiasts. He has to conflate atheists with the very religion they dismiss in order to be annoying. Hence my assertion that its a troll thread. Also ignored from the very definitions in merriam-webster is the fact that atheism is listed as an antonym of religion. An example of the opposite of religion. Even more hilarious than merely ignoring that uncomfortable development, he asserted that it can be an antonym AND a synonym at the same time. Kind of like a millionaire with no money could still be a millionaire. Of course, it makes no sense. But admitting his premise is wrong is apparently more embarrassing than looking silly.

Randy

NMG26
02-16-2011, 19:08
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?

OK doc I'll give you the answer.
Just because you feel that atheism can be called a religion, rightfully and honestly supported, does not mean that anyone else agrees with you. Few do.

It is hard, if not impossible, for people to admit to something they don't hold to be true.

I think that all will gladly admit that you feel it is true, that "atheism is a religion", and simple to see and suppportable. I admit this. You see "atheism being a religion" as a fact.

Others do not, so they won't "admit" to it.

I'm thinking though that your real goal is to convince others to which you are failing at miserably.

Game over?

void *
02-16-2011, 19:57
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.

While true, that has nothing to do with the point under discussion - which is the fact that you are making statements about fairies that are unprovable.

I am not rejecting the existence of fairies.

You're rejecting that fairies could have had anything to do with origins. This is still a rejection of a claim. I suspect it is conditional, just like my rejection of the claim that deities exist.

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.

You claim you don't have a superficial opinion on the subject - yet you made claims about fairies as though they are hard fact. You contradict yourself (which is not the first time this has occurred in this thread).

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.

For that to be true, you need to prove that it is impossible for fairies to have done any kind of creation.

Please present your proof of this statement:

Fairies do not mean squat about the origins of our existence.

Please present your proof of this statement:

At best, they would be a previously undiscovered species of primates.

If you cannot present proof, then by your own arguments throughout the thread, afairy-ism is your religion. Or, perhaps, fairy-primate-ism.

The point here is that I *seriously* doubt that you view your position towards fairies as a religion, even though you cannot prove they have nothing to do with origins. Yet you want to tell other people that their position towards the existence of deities is a religion, when they are holding that position using the exact same criteria you are towards fairies (except, for instance, I'm not trying to make up arbitrary unprovable criteria, like fairies having nothing to do with origins, to justify it - and you are).

steveksux
02-16-2011, 20:17
The point here is that I *seriously* doubt that you view your position towards fairies as a religion, even though you cannot prove they have nothing to do with origins. .Not to mention that atheism tells you nothing about the origins of the universe.

And of course, there's no rituals, no deities, no worship, no hymns, no mythology, no holy books, no prayers, no churches/temples, no leaders, no hierarchy, none of the trappings of genuine religions which he studiously avoids in order to water down the definition of religion to the point that Santa Clause, Fairies, the Easter Bunny, Hockey, the Heaven's Gate clowns, Birthers, UFO believers, Sasquatch aficionados, GunManOnTheGrassyKnollians, the washouts from American Idol that ardently believe they can sing, and "AtheismIsAReligionism" are all religions. :rofl: That's the problem with dropping your standards so low to admit something that doesn't belong. You let in a lot of other riff-raff in the process.

Randy

MaxxAction
02-16-2011, 20:20
Not to mention that atheism tells you nothing about the origins of the universe.

No rituals, no deities, no worship, no hymns, no mythology, no holy books, none of the trappings of genuine religions which he studiously avoids in order to water down the definition of religion to the point that Santa Clause, Fairies, the Easter Bunny, Hockey, the Heaven's Gate clowns and "AtheismIsAReligionism" are all religions. :rofl: That's the problem with dropping your standards so low to admit something that doesn't belong. You let in a lot of other riff-raff in the process.

Randy

Hey Randy...

do Jesus a favor man, stop trying to move the kingdom forward. He does have a reputation to uphold ya know??:upeyes:

steveksux
02-16-2011, 20:22
Hey Randy...

do Jesus a favor man, stop trying to move the kingdom forward. He does have a reputation to uphold ya know??:upeyes:Hey, I'm the one arguing all that stuff does NOT constitute religions on a par with Christianity, because I REJECT the crazy definitions in play for the premise of this thread.

I'm merely illustrating how ridiculous the line of reasoning is and where the definition chosen in lieu of the ACTUAL definition of religion from Merriam-Webster inevitably leads.

Randy

MaxxAction
02-16-2011, 22:58
Hey, I'm the one arguing all that stuff does NOT constitute religions on a par with Christianity, because I REJECT the crazy definitions in play for the premise of this thread.

I'm merely illustrating how ridiculous the line of reasoning is and where the definition chosen in lieu of the ACTUAL definition of religion from Merriam-Webster inevitably leads.

Randy

Look...

just let people be who they are. Quit jousting windmills and worry about your own beliefs, not the beliefs of someone else that are some sort of perceived threat...

Smacktard
02-17-2011, 01:44
I guess Cavalry Doc is right, this thread has convinced me, I do believe in fairies! There for I do have a religion.























:rofl:

Smacktard
02-17-2011, 01:52
Look...

just let people be who they are. Quit jousting windmills and worry about your own beliefs, not the beliefs of someone else that are some sort of perceived threat...




Yes it is a perceived threat until you find yourself being stoned or burned at the stake, The windmills have teeth in this case.

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 04:35
While true, that has nothing to do with the point under discussion - which is the fact that you are making statements about fairies that are unprovable.



You're rejecting that fairies could have had anything to do with origins. This is still a rejection of a claim. I suspect it is conditional, just like my rejection of the claim that deities exist.



You claim you don't have a superficial opinion on the subject - yet you made claims about fairies as though they are hard fact. You contradict yourself (which is not the first time this has occurred in this thread).



For that to be true, you need to prove that it is impossible for fairies to have done any kind of creation.

Please present your proof of this statement:



Please present your proof of this statement:



If you cannot present proof, then by your own arguments throughout the thread, afairy-ism is your religion. Or, perhaps, fairy-primate-ism.

The point here is that I *seriously* doubt that you view your position towards fairies as a religion, even though you cannot prove they have nothing to do with origins. Yet you want to tell other people that their position towards the existence of deities is a religion, when they are holding that position using the exact same criteria you are towards fairies (except, for instance, I'm not trying to make up arbitrary unprovable criteria, like fairies having nothing to do with origins, to justify it - and you are).


A very thorough diversionary attempt. My compliments.

However, the way that fairies became a matter for discussion. Was that many in the thread equated belief in a deity. Which is another common jab at theists.

After some careful consideration and thought, (I'd call it soul searching, but that is probably its own thread) I have no proof one way or the other whether fairies exist or not. I will respect your belief in them if you do, and respect your belief if you don't believe in them.

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 04:39
I guess Cavalry Doc is right, this thread has convinced me, I do believe in fairies! There for I do have a religion.


:rofl:

Good for you.

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 04:45
Look...

just let people be who they are. Quit jousting windmills and worry about your own beliefs, not the beliefs of someone else that are some sort of perceived threat...

I'm finding most of the posters comments enlightening.

Absolutely nonone has been forced to post or comment.

I've ignored a couple that feel personal attacks are the way to go on this subject. I've ignored Steve/Randy. I'd like to respectfully request that everyone not quote his posts, but feel free to respond to him youself in any way you feel you need to.

ksg0245
02-17-2011, 07:53
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:

You've gotten straight, clear, concise answers, with supporting cites. You've rejected them because they don't agree with you. Therefore, you hold to your belief (that atheism is a religion) with ardor and faith. Therefore, according to the definitions you insist everyone must use, your belief that atheism is a religion, is your religion.

ksg0245
02-17-2011, 08:13
I've never stated that football was a religion. Not sure where you got that.

As several people have pointed out, it came from your definition of what constitutes a religion. Now that you don't want it included, you've added the clause "make claims about the facts surrounding the origin of the Earth, and all life on the planet." And of course, you're dodging my request for you to provide a source for your new, more narrow definition of the term "religion."

Football is a sport, not quite a system of beliefs.

Atheism is a disbelief, "not quite a system of beliefs." The belief that football is the best is "held to with ardor and faith," which fits your definition of religion.

It's too bad nobody will let you have it both ways.

If you can compose a question you would like answered, I'd be willing to give it a shot.

You're now blatantly lying; I've composed several clear, direct questions to you, and you've dodged every single one, demonstrating that you're not "willing to give it a shot." The most immediate example is "Does it take FAITH to reject the unsupported assertion of fairies?" which you've dodged several times. Another is "Are belief and knowledge the exact same things?" which you also dodged several times. A third is "Without discussing the possibility of knowledge, do you believe deities exist?" Again, lots of dodging with no actual answer. Additionally, you've repeated this behavior with others; void, for example, has asked you several direct, relevant questions, which you have diligently failed to answer.

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.

Again, another blatant lie on your part that has been directly contradicted with supporting evidence by several atheists in this thread, and which you are unable to support with any evidence even when directly asked.

Is it really that hard to see?

Is it really that hard to not lie about things?

I predict that now I've called you a liar for lying, you'll feel the need to ignore me.

ksg0245
02-17-2011, 08:23
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.

Are you trying to make the Big Bang theory into a religion? Do you have "absolute proof" fairies don't exist, or is it merely your religion that they don't?

Atheism, Buddhism, Christianity, Islam.... None has absolute proof, but all have strong beliefs on the origins of our existence.

So do scientists. Does that make science a religion? I shudder to think what your answer will be.

I've asked you this question a couple of times before, you've always dodged it before, and I have faith you'll dodge it now: what is a purely atheist belief on the origins of our existence that isn't shared by at least some theists?

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.

That you keep insisting atheism is a religion and that "atheists claim to know deities don't exist" is evidence you don't respect the beliefs of others.

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.

It is your opinion. It is not a fact, and equivocation isn't honest support.

The question that no one has yet been able to answer, is why is it so hard to admit?

It's hard to admit because it isn't true, and it's a lie that no one has yet be able to answer it.

void *
02-17-2011, 08:25
A very thorough diversionary attempt. My compliments.

Well, since I'm applying your own argument to your own statements, if it's a diversionary attempt, the source is effectively you.

I have no proof one way or the other whether fairies exist or not.

Right. So, are you formally admitting that you do not know whether or not the existence of fairies has an impact on origins, and therefore, your objection on that basis is a red herring?

Or are you going to continue to claim that fairies have no relation to origins and admit that you are an afairy-originist by your own arguments?

ksg0245
02-17-2011, 08:32
A very thorough diversionary attempt. My compliments.

I wonder how many agree asking you direct questions about unevidenced beliefs are "diversionary attempts," and how many see them as getting to the heart of the matter.

However, the way that fairies became a matter for discussion. Was that many in the thread equated belief in a deity. Which is another common jab at theists.

No. Wrong. Fairies became a matter for discussion as a way to address unsupported beliefs. You only perceive it as a jab at theists because you think a belief in fairies doesn't deserve respect, but that a belief in deities does.

After some careful consideration and thought, (I'd call it soul searching, but that is probably its own thread) I have no proof one way or the other whether fairies exist or not. I will respect your belief in them if you do, and respect your belief if you don't believe in them.

Which, again, completely dodges the question of YOUR belief regarding fairies.

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 18:16
You've gotten straight, clear, concise answers, with supporting cites. You've rejected them because they don't agree with you. Therefore, you hold to your belief (that atheism is a religion) with ardor and faith. Therefore, according to the definitions you insist everyone must use, your belief that atheism is a religion, is your religion.

I'm not bothered in the least in being labeled as religious. My personal belief about our origins is I really don't know. Nor do I need to know. I am what I am, and we are what we are.

I do not insist on the definitions. The accepted definitions of the words involved actually support the fact that atheism is a religion.

It's not just the definitions, it's the spirit of the argument. Atheists have no more convincing proof that they are any more right than the theists.

Both choose to believe one way or the other. In some cases, both groups have members that are a little too zealous in their beliefs. They cross the lines of polite conversation and etiquette.

:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 18:30
I wonder how many agree asking you direct questions about unevidenced beliefs are "diversionary attempts," and how many see them as getting to the heart of the matter.



No. Wrong. Fairies became a matter for discussion as a way to address unsupported beliefs. You only perceive it as a jab at theists because you think a belief in fairies doesn't deserve respect, but that a belief in deities does.



Which, again, completely dodges the question of YOUR belief regarding fairies.


Then let me be direct. I have no evidence that supports the existence of fairies, except that they have appeared in many stories and a few movies.

If someone came to me and demanded that fairies do indeed exist, I have no evidence to refute his claim. While I may reserve absolute judgment on the issue, I have no reason to ridicule the man for his beliefs.

That's a bit different than some of the atheists on this forum. They ridicule and berate the theists for their made up belief system. But theists are no more creative in their beliefs of intelligent design than atheists are creative in their beliefs of our existence being explained by an uncoordinated coalescence of matter, energy and happenstance.

If you have convincing proof of the origins of the planet, and of our species, and exactly how it came to be in existence today, please share it with me.

I don't think you have any irrefutable evidence one way or the other, and neither do I.

I have examined the arguments and evidence closely, and decided that I don't know. I'm very comfortable with not knowing everything. I work in a field of study where the more you know, the more you realize what is unknown.

So, in essence, as well as literally, Atheism is a religion. You can't say that no deity(s) exist(ed) without making a leap of faith.

It's a simple truth. But it is hard to admit.

My question has been.... Why is it so hard to admit?





Logical evaluation of the evidence that is available does not lead to atheism. Faith does.


Nothing personal. It's just an honest statement of fact.

NMG26
02-17-2011, 18:53
My question has been.... Why is it so hard to admit?
.

That has been answered.

post #1003

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 18:55
Well, since I'm applying your own argument to your own statements, if it's a diversionary attempt, the source is effectively you.



Right. So, are you formally admitting that you do not know whether or not the existence of fairies has an impact on origins, and therefore, your objection on that basis is a red herring?

Or are you going to continue to claim that fairies have no relation to origins and admit that you are an afairy-originist by your own arguments?
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkHRyxzcWM9tEQ5lf0oa-S84R9j9RQIjhAAcqRZ1ErFqbVgPUreA&t=1


I think I stated that the issue of fairies itself was a red herring.

However, if anyone chooses to believe in fairies, I have no reason to ridicule or berate them.

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 19:05
Are you trying to make the Big Bang theory into a religion?


The "how" does not really explain the "by who".


Is it impossible to imagine that an intelligent being lit the fuse for the big bang?



It is after all, a theory. A supposition by man, created after only an infinitesimal period of observation based on the proposed time line of existence.


But the question is not whether Atheism is based on faith, and therefore no more valid than any other religion, it is why is it so hard to admit?

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 19:11
Yes it is a perceived threat until you find yourself being stoned or burned at the stake, The windmills have teeth in this case.

I agree, the religions of the world, INCLUDING atheism have ended a lot of life.


We should all learn to be more tolerant.

void *
02-17-2011, 19:28
The "how" does not really explain the "by who".


Is it impossible to imagine that an intelligent being lit the fuse for the big bang?

No. If it were, we wouldn't have nearly as many religions believing in different dieties as we do.

However, there is a presumption in your statement - without evidence there was a who, what justification do you have to make a statement that there is a who that needs explaining?

void *
02-17-2011, 19:31
I think I stated that the issue of fairies itself was a red herring.

Yes, and you justified that by claiming the existence of fairies could not have any impact on answers to questions about origins.

Yet we have shown that you cannot say that the existence of fairies can have no impact on the questions of origins, you have no proof of that statement.

Therefore, your claim that fairies are a red herring is the red herring. You are basing your dismissal of the example on a statement you cannot prove.

However, if anyone chooses to believe in fairies, I have no reason to ridicule or berate them.

Nobody said you did. You were asked directly, and I will ask again, since you're avoiding it:

So, are you formally admitting that you do not know whether or not the existence of fairies has an impact on origins, and therefore, your objection on that basis is a red herring?

Or are you going to continue to claim that fairies have no relation to origins and admit that you are an afairy-originist by your own arguments?

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 19:39
No. If it were, we wouldn't have nearly as many religions believing in different dieties as we do.

However, there is a presumption in your statement - without evidence there was a who, what justification do you have to make a statement that there is a who that needs explaining?

One could easily answer the question "By who" with "No one".

Lets just say the universe was created by a big bang.

Did that happen by itself, or was it initiated by an intelligence?



You don't really know do you?

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 19:41
Yes, and you justified that by claiming the existence of fairies could not have any impact on answers to questions about origins.

Yet we have shown that you cannot say that the existence of fairies can have no impact on the questions of origins, you have no proof of that statement.

Therefore, your claim that fairies are a red herring is the red herring.



Nobody said you did. You were asked directly, and I will ask again, since you're avoiding it:

So, are you formally admitting that you do not know whether or not the existence of fairies has an impact on origins, and therefore, your objection on that basis is a red herring?

Or are you going to continue to claim that fairies have no relation to origins and admit that you are an afairy-originist by your own arguments?

I have further clarified my position on the existence of fairies.


:dunno: I'm OK with not knowing everything.

However, if anyone chooses to believe in fairies, I have no reason to ridicule or berate them.

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 19:43
That has been answered.

post #1003

Yeah, I read that. But it's still lacking something.

NMG26
02-17-2011, 20:17
Yeah, I read that. But it's still lacking something.


What is it lacking?

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 20:28
What is it lacking?

Try reading it in context. It may yet jump out at your.


If it doesn't, read the title of the thread, it might help.

steveksux
02-17-2011, 20:33
I do not insist on the definitions. The accepted definitions of the words involved actually support the fact that atheism is a religion.And the definition of religion you use to base that on makes belief in Santa Clause and the Loch Ness Monster religions as well. The very examples of the definition you use equates Hockey to a religion. And the icing on the cake specifically lists atheism as the antonym of religion. Antonym means atheism is the opposite of religion, not another religion. ( I suppose antonym=synonym is the "Virgin Birth" of your "AtheismIsAReligionism" religion. ) All embarrassing facts you continue to try to hide from. I respectfully request that someone quote me so that the truth reaches those who need it most.... :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
02-17-2011, 20:39
Look...

just let people be who they are. Quit jousting windmills and worry about your own beliefs, not the beliefs of someone else that are some sort of perceived threat...
Perhaps you are right. From now on I'll restrict my comments to internet boards specifically designed for people to post topics intended for discussion.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 20:47
Sorry, still can't hear you.

This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.


Maybe in a couple of weeks or so, if you'll refrain from personal attacks and stick to the topic.

NMG26
02-17-2011, 20:57
Try reading it in context. It may yet jump out at your.


If it doesn't, read the title of the thread, it might help.

OK.



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?

OK doc I'll give you the answer.
Just because you feel that atheism can be called a religion, rightfully and honestly supported, does not mean that anyone else agrees with you. Few do.

It is hard, if not impossible, for people to admit to something they don't hold to be true.

I think that all will gladly admit that you feel it is true, that "atheism is a religion", and simple to see and suppportable. I admit this. You see "atheism being a religion" as a fact.

Others do not, so they won't "admit" to it.

I'm thinking though that your real goal is to convince others, to which you are failing at miserably.

Game over?

OK.....context is why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion..........which is also the title of the thread.

I answer you perfectly.

You say "something is lacking."

I say "What?"

You tell me to reread in context...................I do......still don't see what is lacking.

What is lacking?

Cavalry Doc
02-17-2011, 21:03
OK.





OK.....context is why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion..........which is also the title of the thread.

I answer you perfectly.

You say "something is lacking."

I say "What?"

You tell me to reread in context...................I do......still don't see what is lacking.

What is lacking?

"It is hard, if not impossible, for people to admit to something they don't hold to be true."


So, is it an inability to see the truth, or an inability to admit it?

NMG26
02-17-2011, 21:17
"It is hard, if not impossible, for people to admit to something they don't hold to be true."


So, is it an inability to see the truth, or an inability to admit it?

The topic is "why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion".

People won't admit to somehting that they do not see as being true.

"
So, is it an inability to see the truth, or an inability to admit it?

It is both. People do not see it as being true and people won't admit to somehting they do not hold to be true.

Simple right?

game over?

Sarge1400
02-17-2011, 22:45
I respectfully request that someone quote me so that the truth reaches those who need it most.... :rofl:

Randy

I'd do it for you Randy, but I'm on his list too.

Sorry, still can't hear you.
Maybe in a couple of weeks or so, if you'll refrain from personal attacks and stick to the topic.

On the bright side, if you behave, CD will let you out of your 'time out'.:rofl:

void *
02-18-2011, 07:40
I have further clarified my position on the existence of fairies.

In other words, you're not going to answer the questions I asked.

I have no reason to ridicule or berate them.

Please find a post of mind where I've ridiculed or berated a believer simply because they believe. You won't find one that meets that criteria.

Then look at the posts between myself and members like weemsf50 or berniew (although I haven't seen berniew around in a while - so those posts may have been cleaned up due to age). Civil, good interactions.

Do you remember stating you were going to go find posts where I had been rude to believers ... and then not ever responding on that again? This is another red herring.

ksg0245
02-18-2011, 07:41
I'm not bothered in the least in being labeled as religious. My personal belief about our origins is I really don't know. Nor do I need to know. I am what I am, and we are what we are.

So you define "I don't know" as a belief?

I do not insist on the definitions. The accepted definitions of the words involved actually support the fact that atheism is a religion.

And using your first stated definition of "religion," things like football are also religions. You then modified your definition to exclude football (because it doesn't fit your agenda), but have yet to provide any cites to back up your new definition. Instead, you dodge.

You're equivocating: you insisting that an absurdly broad definition must be applied to one term, but can't be applied others if it doesn't support your claims.

It's not just the definitions, it's the spirit of the argument. Atheists have no more convincing proof that they are any more right than the theists.

Both choose to believe one way or the other. In some cases, both groups have members that are a little too zealous in their beliefs. They cross the lines of polite conversation and etiquette.

:dunno:

Again, belief is not a choice. I've asked you several direct questions regarding your beliefs to get you to recognize that, all of which you've dodged. Which suggests you do in fact recognize it, but can't admit it.

ksg0245
02-18-2011, 08:08
Then let me be direct. I have no evidence that supports the existence of fairies, except that they have appeared in many stories and a few movies.

Another dodge. Do you consider dodging being direct?

My question regarding your belief in fairies was clearly stated several times, and not once was it "Do you have evidence supporting the existence of fairies?" As you've previously advised, maybe you should re-read the thread.

If someone came to me and demanded that fairies do indeed exist, I have no evidence to refute his claim. While I may reserve absolute judgment on the issue, I have no reason to ridicule the man for his beliefs.

That's a bit different than some of the atheists on this forum. They ridicule and berate the theists for their made up belief system. But theists are no more creative in their beliefs of intelligent design than atheists are creative in their beliefs of our existence being explained by an uncoordinated coalescence of matter, energy and happenstance.

If you have convincing proof of the origins of the planet, and of our species, and exactly how it came to be in existence today, please share it with me.

Ah, more of your straw men; claim the Big Bang and evolution are exclusively atheist theories, for which atheists claim to have "proof." And when asked to provide evidence for these straw men, dodge.

Or are you trying to introduce a red herring?

I don't think you have any irrefutable evidence one way or the other, and neither do I.

The funny thing is, not one single atheist here (or anywhere, as far as I know) has claimed to have "irrefutable evidence," and yet you keep bringing up the unsupported assertion of atheists claiming irrefutable proof (and it's interesting you use those terms interchangeably as you do so many others that aren't interchangeable) as if it somehow supports your assertion that atheism is a religion.

I have examined the arguments and evidence closely, and decided that I don't know. I'm very comfortable with not knowing everything. I work in a field of study where the more you know, the more you realize what is unknown.

So, in essence, as well as literally, Atheism is a religion. You can't say that no deity(s) exist(ed) without making a leap of faith.

In fact, you can; you can say "there is no objective, verifiable evidence of deities. Until there is, I don't believe they exist." Presto! No faith involved.

Kind of like you personally do with fairies.

It's a simple truth. But it is hard to admit.

My question has been.... Why is it so hard to admit?

And the simple answer, which you've gotten dozens of times in this thread, is "Because it isn't true, and here's why." Why is that so hard for you to admit?

Logical evaluation of the evidence that is available does not lead to atheism. Faith does.


Nothing personal. It's just an honest statement of fact.

No, it's a lie, and it's been explained to you why it's a lie. For some reason, you chose to lie about it.

ksg0245
02-18-2011, 08:10
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSkHRyxzcWM9tEQ5lf0oa-S84R9j9RQIjhAAcqRZ1ErFqbVgPUreA&t=1


I think I stated that the issue of fairies itself was a red herring.

You did, but you were wrong.

However, if anyone chooses to believe in fairies, I have no reason to ridicule or berate them.

No, you just berate atheists for choosing to reject your claims.

ksg0245
02-18-2011, 08:20
The "how" does not really explain the "by who".

Non sequitur.

Are the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution purely atheist theories?

Is it impossible to imagine that an intelligent being lit the fuse for the big bang?

Nope. But there's no evidence for it.

Are the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution purely atheist theories?

It is after all, a theory. A supposition by man, created after only an infinitesimal period of observation based on the proposed time line of existence.

A theory that fits all the observed facts. That's kind of what scientists mean when they use the term "theory."

Are the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution purely atheist theories?

But the question is not whether Atheism is based on faith, and therefore no more valid than any other religion, it is why is it so hard to admit?

Because it isn't true, and won't become true no matter how many times you ask the question. Why should anyone admit to something that isn't true just because you want them to?

void *
02-18-2011, 10:09
One could easily answer the question "By who" with "No one".

Lets just say the universe was created by a big bang.

Did that happen by itself, or was it initiated by an intelligence?



You don't really know do you?

And again, you ask a question that has been answered multiple times, if you'd only read what people post. Since I've said multiple times in the thread that science does not make statements about what happened "before" the initial singularity, I'm baffled as to why you think posting this question as though I'd never thought about it and it hadn't been stated multiple times makes any kind of point at all.

Please find a post where I've ever stated that I *do* know. You can't, because I haven't, in fact, I've stated the opposite. It's logically possible that a deity created the singularity. It's logically possible that a deity set up conditions in which evolution occurred. There is no convincing evidence that this occurred, therefore, I do not have a reason to accept them as posits. As others have noted, you're the guy pretending that those are exclusively atheist explanations.

magpie maniac
02-18-2011, 16:13
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Cavalry Doc
02-18-2011, 20:14
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

And collecting stamps answers profound questions about the origins of the universe, our planet, and life as we know it?

Nope.


Atheism is a religion, because it proposes an answer to a question that there simply is no proof of, and although many atheists are not organized, there is a large organization of atheists that seeks to proselytize. They have a strong system of beliefs that is held to with ardor and faith.

http://www.infidels.org/
http://www.atheists.org/


:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
02-18-2011, 20:16
You did, but you were wrong.



No, you just berate atheists for choosing to reject your claims.

I certainly did not mean to.

So far, I have attempted to politely disagree.

Cavalry Doc
02-18-2011, 20:21
Another dodge. Do you consider dodging being direct?

My question regarding your belief in fairies was clearly stated several times, and not once was it "Do you have evidence supporting the existence of fairies?" As you've previously advised, maybe you should re-read the thread.



Ah, more of your straw men; claim the Big Bang and evolution are exclusively atheist theories, for which atheists claim to have "proof." And when asked to provide evidence for these straw men, dodge.

Or are you trying to introduce a red herring?



The funny thing is, not one single atheist here (or anywhere, as far as I know) has claimed to have "irrefutable evidence," and yet you keep bringing up the unsupported assertion of atheists claiming irrefutable proof (and it's interesting you use those terms interchangeably as you do so many others that aren't interchangeable) as if it somehow supports your assertion that atheism is a religion.



In fact, you can; you can say "there is no objective, verifiable evidence of deities. Until there is, I don't believe they exist." Presto! No faith involved.

Kind of like you personally do with fairies.



And the simple answer, which you've gotten dozens of times in this thread, is "Because it isn't true, and here's why." Why is that so hard for you to admit?



No, it's a lie, and it's been explained to you why it's a lie. For some reason, you chose to lie about it.



I'm not one of those deprogrammers that can get cult members to snap out of it.

All I can do is point out that atheism is a religion, specifically because it attempts to answer a profound matter about the origins of our existence, without any more proof than any of the theists theories.

It's a matter of faith. Sorry. :dunno:

I'm truly sorry that I have not been able to help you see that.


Disagreeing with your position is not a matter of disrespect, just a disagreement.

:wavey:

magpie maniac
02-18-2011, 21:16
Calvary Doc, I realize that you're pretty set in your misconceptions and misunderstandings about people who differ on matters of religion from you, and that probably won't change no matter what anyone tells you. I am what you'd call an atheist, but what I'd call "nothing". So-called atheism does not seek answers concerning the origins of humans. That's what science and religion do. Atheism is neither.

Sam Harris has written about this topic at length and I suggest that you read his work if you're truly interested in the subject instead of just trolling. The word "atheist" is about as necessary and useful as using the word "non-astrologer" for people who don't follow astrology. Assuming you don't follow astrology, do you call yourself a non-astrologer? If not, what term or phrase do you use instead?

steveksux
02-18-2011, 22:11
And collecting stamps answers profound questions about the origins of the universe, our planet, and life as we know it?

Nope.Of course, honest people realize atheism does not answer any questions about the origins of the universe, the planet, and life as we know it.

Of course, we all know this information has been repeatedly ignored. Which is what trolls do when they're backed into a corner with nowhere to turn.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-19-2011, 04:24
Calvary Doc, I realize that you're pretty set in your misconceptions and misunderstandings about people who differ on matters of religion from you, and that probably won't change no matter what anyone tells you. I am what you'd call an atheist, but what I'd call "nothing". So-called atheism does not seek answers concerning the origins of humans. That's what science and religion do. Atheism is neither.

Sam Harris has written about this topic at length and I suggest that you read his work if you're truly interested in the subject instead of just trolling. The word "atheist" is about as necessary and useful as using the word "non-astrologer" for people who don't follow astrology. Assuming you don't follow astrology, do you call yourself a non-astrologer? If not, what term or phrase do you use instead?


But atheism is a belief system where one rather fundamental decision has been made. Stating it in a passive way doesn't change the fact that the decision has been made about whether or not what exists now was made or not.

There is nothing insulting in that, it's just a belief. It's just as valid as any other.


I don't pay much attention to astrology, and I call myself an agnostic. Maybe there is an intelligent design, which would mean that there either is or was an intelligent designer. Maybe not.

But I've never engaged an astrology believer in an attempt to undermine their faith in it. Neither have I tried to convince any atheist here that a deity exists. I'd consider that bad manners.

All we are debating is the fact when objectively considered, atheism is a religion, by definition and in essence.

The question is, why is that a problem?

magpie maniac
02-19-2011, 08:28
I propose a new title to this thread: Why is it so hard for Calvary Doc to grasp a basic comprehension of standard English? You're trying to parse words here and think you're being clever, but you're really just demonstrating your ability to troll for forty-three pages of a thread.

It's pretty simple really. According to M-W, religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." Atheism is "a disbelief in the existence of a deity."

Atheism is obviously a [dis]belief system. A religion is also a belief system, but a belief system is not necessarily a religion. I think that you're getting confused between the two. Religion is a type of belief system. So is Existentialism, but no one could argue that Existentialism is a religion.

If you'd rather visualize this, see the attached diagram. It's not an exhaustive diagram, but it should make the point clear. As for you, you're trying to draw a huge circle called religion and then put all philosophies and belief systems inside it. You're mistaken. You refuse to accept this fact, but you're nevertheless mistaken.

steveksux
02-19-2011, 09:54
One (of many) problems with the concept is that atheism does NOT tell you anything substantial about philosophical concepts such as how life, the universe, began.

It says I'm ruling out anything without any substantive evidence to back it up.. Eliminate the Loch Ness Monster, the Tooth Fairy, Santa Clause, various established/popular deities, etc.

What you're left is unknown. Belief systems require belief in something.

Of course this concept must be covered up with every fibre of CDs being like all the other contrary facts to his little theory.

Randy

steveksux
02-19-2011, 11:53
Bizarro Superman agrees!

If atheism is antonym of religion, and means the opposite, of course they must be same thing!

http://cache.io9.com/assets/resources/2008/02/Bizarro.jpg

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-19-2011, 20:51
I propose a new title to this thread: Why is it so hard for Calvary Doc to grasp a basic comprehension of standard English? You're trying to parse words here and think you're being clever, but you're really just demonstrating your ability to troll for forty-three pages of a thread.

It's pretty simple really. According to M-W, religion is "the service and worship of God or the supernatural." Atheism is "a disbelief in the existence of a deity."

Atheism is obviously a [dis]belief system. A religion is also a belief system, but a belief system is not necessarily a religion. I think that you're getting confused between the two. Religion is a type of belief system. So is Existentialism, but no one could argue that Existentialism is a religion.

If you'd rather visualize this, see the attached diagram. It's not an exhaustive diagram, but it should make the point clear. As for you, you're trying to draw a huge circle called religion and then put all philosophies and belief systems inside it. You're mistaken. You refuse to accept this fact, but you're nevertheless mistaken.

A picture is usually worth a thousand words.... but this one is incorrect.


How many details are required for a belief system to be a system?



You could start another thread, instead of trolling this one partaking in ad homs.


It's just a suggestion. :whistling:


If you'd like to get back on topic, I'd welcome your insight.


All we are debating is the fact when objectively considered, atheism is a religion, by definition and in essence.

The question is, why is that a problem?

steveksux
02-20-2011, 05:57
If you'd like to get back on topic, I'd welcome your insight.


All we are debating is the fact when objectively considered, atheism is a religion, by definition and in essence.

The question is, why is that a problem? Mainly there's a problem because there's no agreement that it is in fact, a fact. That's pretty obvious. Which is why this entire thread is a troll thread. Also pretty obvious. Why is THAT so hard to admit? :rofl:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 07:21
I guess I should drop a reminder at least once per page in case others are having a hard time following who I am conversing with.


w Post Today, 06:57

This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.


The reasons are explained earlier in the thread.

weemsf50
02-20-2011, 07:22
I have been reading a book lately entitled, A Doubter's Doubts, by Sir Robert Anderson. He was a skeptic who was converted by trying to prove the Bible false. The book dates from about 1905. It was very common then for atheism to be considered a religion. In fact, Anderson makes the point, quoting Huxley and others, that a true seeker of truth would be a skeptic instead of an atheist. His point was that the atheist had already made up his mind about something he could not possibly prove.

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 07:39
I have been reading a book lately entitled, A Doubter's Doubts, by Sir Robert Anderson. He was a skeptic who was converted by trying to prove the Bible false. The book dates from about 1905. It was very common then for atheism to be considered a religion. In fact, Anderson makes the point, quoting Huxley and others, that a true seeker of truth would be a skeptic instead of an atheist. His point was that the atheist had already made up his mind about something he could not possibly prove.

That's a very smart and reasonable gentleman. I may have to pick up his book.

magpie maniac
02-20-2011, 08:33
All we are debating is the fact when objectively considered, atheism is a religion, by definition and in essence.

The question is, why is that a problem?

Oh, screw it. You're like talking to a brick wall. People give you reasoned explanations about why you're mistaken and each time you just come back with, "Atheism is a religion. Why is that a problem?"

You presuppose the question and therefore really aren't looking for a debate. You're trolling.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232550426_worf%20face%20palm.gif

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 09:43
Oh, screw it. You're like talking to a brick wall. People give you reasoned explanations about why you're mistaken and each time you just come back with, "Atheism is a religion. Why is that a problem?"

You presuppose the question and therefore really aren't looking for a debate. You're trolling.



The definition fits. It is not an absence of belief, it is a belief that there is no god. An absence of belief does not make one an atheist, it makes one an agnostic.

Atheism is a system of beliefs based on the foundation that there is no such thing as intelligent design of the planet or the life on it.

With that as a foundation, it has an effect on how they view the world and interact with others. Some are good, some are bad, just like everyone else.

There is no requirement to meet and discuss atheism, however it happens, and there are organizations that preach and proselytize for atheism. On internet forums, they tend to harass those that have different belief systems, it's almost like a jihad. A struggle to form an atheist caliphate, where all other religions are nonexistent. Almost anyway.


I have no problem with atheism itself, it's just as valid a belief system as any other.



Passing on the word religion, would you at least admit that atheism is a system of belief, that is based on a premise that is, so far, unproven?

void *
02-20-2011, 10:10
In fact, Anderson makes the point, quoting Huxley and others, that a true seeker of truth would be a skeptic instead of an atheist. His point was that the atheist had already made up his mind about something he could not possibly prove.

"Skeptic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive conditions, and, again, since it's a conditional rejection of a positive claim, there's no 'already made up his mind' about it. If you gave me evidence that's sufficient to convince that deities exist, I would accept that deities exist.

Until then, I do not accept those claims, that means I do not believe those claims, and that makes me an atheist. That's what the a- prefix does to the word theist. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. If you're not a gnostic (in the philosophical sense, not in the sense of the group of believers known as gnostics), you're an agnostic. If you're not a skeptic, you'd be "askeptic". That's the context I'm coming from.

And when you consider that the term "atheist" would be thrown at agnostics, it's not necessarily a good argument even as the terms were used back then.

Read http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm -> Russell is known as an atheist. Does what he wrote there sound like he's absolutely decided that it's impossible that deities exist? (The 'difficulty' he speaks of is why I think it's important to define things in terms of two strict dichotomies)

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 11:05
"Skeptic" and "atheist" are not mutually exclusive conditions, and, again, since it's a conditional rejection of a positive claim, there's no 'already made up his mind' about it. If you gave me evidence that's sufficient to convince that deities exist, I would accept that deities exist.

Until then, I do not accept those claims, that means I do not believe those claims, and that makes me an atheist. That's what the a- prefix does to the word theist. If you're not a theist, you're an atheist. If you're not a gnostic (in the philosophical sense, not in the sense of the group of believers known as gnostics), you're an agnostic. If you're not a skeptic, you'd be "askeptic". That's the context I'm coming from.

And when you consider that the term "atheist" would be thrown at agnostics, it's not necessarily a good argument even as the terms were used back then.

Read http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/russell8.htm -> Russell is known as an atheist. Does what he wrote there sound like he's absolutely decided that it's impossible that deities exist? (The 'difficulty' he speaks of is why I think it's important to define things in terms of two strict dichotomies)

So, the question is, are there gods or not?

If you answer yes or no, you've pretty much made a decision.

If you answer "I don't know", you haven't.


Atheists, according to definition, know & or believe. And in essence they know & or believe too.



It's not a bad thing, not at all, but why is it so hard for the gnostic atheists to admit they've made a decision about what to believe on a subject that they could not possibly know the truth about? It's a small leap of faith, but a leap nonetheless. That's not a bad thing either. Lot's of people believe things they choose to believe.



But the true conundrum here, is why is that so hard to admit? It's as if they are fully committed that their choice can be the only possible correct choice, due to a "lack of evidence" that they are wrong. Heck, if you believe anything else, you're likely to be called names on the interwebs by atheists.

Faith. Ardor. System of beliefs. It fits.

steveksux
02-20-2011, 12:27
I guess I should drop a reminder at least once per page in case others are having a hard time following who I am conversing with.


.


The reasons are explained earlier in the thread.

Oh, screw it. You're like talking to a brick wall. People give you reasoned explanations about why you're mistaken and each time you just come back with, "Atheism is a religion. Why is that a problem?"

You presuppose the question and therefore really aren't looking for a debate. You're trolling.

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/1232550426_worf%20face%20palm.gifBingo. I think its actually quite amusing that he's got me on ignore. I don't see what difference that makes, as you and I, among many others, have been pointing out, he's been ignoring any and every point that demonstrates he's wrong about atheism being a religion.

So I'm not sure I understand why me being on his ignore list should change me posting in the thread. Its always been for everyone ELSE's benefit but his, since he's been unwilling to listen all along. Putting me on ignore is just a formality. :rofl:

Its amusing, once it was patently obvious I had backed him into a corner with no means of escape, "I was uncivil". Classic troll behavior. CD actually posted a "Contrarian Troll" guide in another thread, which hilariously fits him to a tee here. I already linked to it earlier in this thread, need to find it again and quote for truth.

Randy

steveksux
02-20-2011, 12:34
I'd accept any of the definitions of "believe". One may apply, even in the absence of others.

I still believe that atheism is a religion, in it's own fashion.
Here, in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty and untrolliness.....

What, I wonder, is that fashion he is talking about there... must be in the fashion of "Hockey is a religion in Canada?", taken from the very M-W definition he is misusing to make his point? Or is it in the fashion of atheism being an antonym of religion, also from the same M-W definition.

It clearly and obviously states that atheism is NOT a religion in the fashion of.... well, RELIGIONS.... in the OP's own words yet.:rofl:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 13:05
A collection of interesting reading........



Atheism: A religion

by Daniel Smartt
Published: 4 May 2010(GMT+10)

....


Conclusion

Atheists often claim that their belief is not a religion. This allows them to propagate their beliefs in settings where other religions are banned, but this should not be so.

Contemporary Western Atheism unquestionably has six of the seven dimensions of religion set forth by Smart, and the remaining dimension, ritual, has also started to develop. Thus it’s fallacious to assert, “Calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour”. Perhaps a better analogy would be calling a shaved head a “hairstyle”. Other than the denial of the divine, there is little difference between Atheism and other worldviews typically labelled as religions.

The dichotomy that Atheists try to create between science and religion is false. The conflict is between interpretations of science coming from different religious worldviews.

Atheism shouldn’t be taught or enforced in settings where other religions are banned and shouldn’t be favoured by laws which imply a religiously neutral government. (http://creation.com/atheism-a-religion)


Atheism is a religion.

Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)

A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this: (http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2010/07/atheism-is-religion.html)


much more followed, click the link above.


LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895)





So, why is the concept of Atheism being based on a decision to believe something that there is no proof of, so painful to admit?

steveksux
02-20-2011, 13:35
I wonder, does this mean he's finally abandoning his reliance on M-W dictionary definitions to support his claim?

May I suggest we pin him down on that issue before moving on to another.

Someone else will have to ask him. I'm on ignore... :rofl:

Who would know more about atheism than self proclaimed "apologists for Christianity". :rofl:

That would fit better into my thread about "what's up with the obsession regarding comparing atheism to a religion" than it does here.

Lenin and Marx are their prophets?? :rofl: WTF is this guy thinking? Where does THAT come from? All atheists hold Lenin and Marx in high regard as "prophets"??? That's news to me. That's merely a cheap shot, attempted character assassination of atheists, guilt by association. What's the rationale, because those guys were atheists? Gives you great insight into the agenda of the author. Its like impugning Christians by comparing them with the Westboro Baptist bozos. Why the ardor for comparing oneself (Christians) to Leninists and Marxists? Its very strange and confusing as to what the motivation could possibly be.

Darwin is a Messiah? :rofl: Just like Ben Franklin is the Messiah for electricians. Ardent belief in unseen electromagnetic fields!!! Is the study of electricity a religion also? Henry Ford is the Messiah of automotionists. Einstein must be the Messiah of relativists.

Doesn't this merely serve to demean the real meaning of Messiah? I wouldn't be so quick to go down that road if I were them.

Randy

void *
02-20-2011, 13:42
So, the question is, are there gods or not?

If you answer yes or no, you've pretty much made a decision.

My answer is I do not believe there are gods, but I do not know one way or the other.
That does not mean I am certain.
That does not mean I hold the position 'I do not believe' with any kind of ardor or faith. You tell me there's a deity and can bring convincing evidence - I'll accept the posit. If I had ardor or faith, there would be no possibility of accepting the posit.

You show me a deity exists, I'll believe it. That's not ardor or faith - in fact, it's the opposite.

Atheists, according to definition, know & or believe. And in essence they know & or believe too.

No, according to the definition in m-w, it is 'one who believes there is no deity'. You are adding 'know' to the definition you subscribe to with no justification whatsoever.

They mean different things, as has been pointed out to you multiple times. If you know something, you have either directly experienced it (and even then, I would argue it's not knowledge, as perception can be incorrect - which is why if I suddenly started hearing gods/demons talking to me I would try to find a way to verify that they were *real* before I would accept that gods/demons were talking to me) or can give a formal logical/mathematical proof. If you believe something, you accept it as true. There is nothing stopping anyone who hold a belief from deciding they were wrong based on new evidence, etc - unless they are holding that belief solely through ardor and faith. However, believing something can be conditional - ardor and faith are not mandatory to hold a belief.

I have been telling you since the start of the thread that I do not hold my belief that there is no god with ardor or faith. It is a conditional belief that would quite easily change were new evidence to present itself - and I have also been asked and answered questions as to exactly *what* kind of evidence/experience it would take for me to change my assessment. Yet, you keep turning around and saying that I must have made a decision that is somehow irrevocable.

Do you understand that you are treating people with disrespect when you refuse to accept that their statements on their own views are true? When I say I hold that position without faith, and I have in various places in this thread stated exactly what it would take for me to not conditionally reject the posit - and you consistently ignore that, you are telling me you don't respect me enough to even bother reading what I'm writing. You then turn around and complain that people aren't giving you respect, you ignore them (and then *post* about how you're ignoring them, which means you're using the ignore as a debating tool rather than just actually ignoring the person), etc - if you won't give people the respect of actually listening to what they are saying, why should they bother according you the respect you won't give them? Does this really surprise you? Honestly, I expect not, because I suspect you never meant to try to understand in the first place.

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 13:51
My answer is I do not believe there are gods, but I do not know one way or the other.
That does not mean I am certain.
That does not mean I hold the position 'I do not believe' with any kind of ardor or faith. You tell me there's a deity and can bring convincing evidence - I'll accept the posit. If I had ardor or faith, there would be no possibility of accepting the posit.

You show me a deity exists, I'll believe it. That's not ardor or faith - in fact, it's the opposite.



I think we've covered this before. IIRC, you describe yourself as an agnostic atheist, and to me it seems more like an atheistic agnostic.

void *
02-20-2011, 14:15
I think we've covered this before. IIRC, you describe yourself as an agnostic atheist, and to me it seems more like an atheistic agnostic.

I'd like to point out here that it doesn't matter which word you put first. There's no distinction. I am still *both* an atheist and an agnostic, whichever question you ask first (do you know / do you believe). You're making a distinction without a difference.

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 14:36
I'd like to point out here that it doesn't matter which word you put first. There's no distinction. I am still *both* an atheist and an agnostic, whichever question you ask first (do you know / do you believe). You're making a distinction without a difference.

It would be a minor matter of semantics, but the placement denotes which is the adjective, and which is the noun.

But if you don't know, then you are not who I have been speaking about in this thread. Because clearly, the atheist being discussed in this thread believes that there is no deity.


No offense, but you really do sound more like an agnostic than and atheist.

Maybe if I look at some of your remote posts, that might help me understand.

steveksux
02-20-2011, 14:46
A collection of interesting reading........


Court rules atheism a religion
So, why is the concept of Atheism being based on a decision to believe something that there is no proof of, so painful to admit?

Interesting perspective. Why is it so hard for the pro-life folks to admit abortion is a right? The courts have ruled it so...



Randy

Smacktard
02-20-2011, 14:49
Doc, you sound much more like a Christan than an agnostic.


...

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 14:50
Doc, you sound much more like a Christan than an agnostic.


...

:wavey:

steveksux
02-20-2011, 16:39
So, why is the concept of Atheism being based on a decision to believe something that there is no proof of, so painful to admit?Even this is wrong. Why is it so hard to admit that Atheism is based on a decision NOT to believe something that there is no proof of?

Interestingly enough, its also exactly, totally backwards. Kind of like believing atheism, the antonym of religion, IS a religion.

Randy

void *
02-20-2011, 19:14
It would be a minor matter of semantics, but the placement denotes which is the adjective, and which is the noun.

I do not view it in terms of an adjective and a noun.

It is true I hold the position that it cannot be known whether or not gods exist. That makes me an agnostic.

It is also true that I do not believe that gods exist. That makes me an atheist.

That's two nouns - two truth variables, each a strict dichotomy. The same way that I am both a father and a brother, not a 'brotherly father' or a 'fatherly brother'. No adjective about it. You have been given plenty of references to show that this way of viewing it is fairly common, and also one of the ways in which various philosophers view it. If you can't accept that those terms are valid, then I would argue that you are not doing atheists the courtesy of attempting to view it from their perspective. You are trying to force a term on me, when I have never viewed my views in that way - and you are refusing to recognize that I do not view things in the manner you are trying to force upon me. Like I said earlier - that tells me you don't respect what I am saying. Instead, you're telling me that I have to view my own thoughts/beliefs etc. in just the way you want to define - and FWIW, I think that's a ridiculous position for you to hold. I don't try to tell Roering or Schabesbert how they view Catholicism, for instance - despite the fact that at least one of them (Roering) has at times tried to tell me what I do and don't know about atheism.

Cavalry Doc
02-20-2011, 19:32
I do not view it in terms of an adjective and a noun.

It is true I hold the position that it cannot be known whether or not gods exist. That makes me an agnostic.

It is also true that I do not believe that gods exist. That makes me an atheist.

That's two nouns - two truth variables, each a strict dichotomy. No adjective about it. You have been given plenty of references to show that this way of viewing it is fairly common, and also one of the ways in which various philosophers view it. If you can't accept that those terms are valid, then I would argue that you are not doing atheists the courtesy of attempting to view it from their perspective.

OK, a duality of man thing. I get it now. Of two minds about the same subject.



As far as courtesy goes, I have attempted to be firm, yet polite, and stick to the topic.

A courtesy that was not always returned. Present company excluded of course.



I think I understand the perspective. And for some, even the motivation behind it better now than when we started.

But from my perspective, it is very clear. By definition, and in essence, the definition fits.

I speculate that the reason it is so hard to admit, is that atheist dogma states that they are superior, because they have rejected belief in the metaphysical, magic and deities, and in their minds, religion too.

Noticing that they have also created an origin story of their own, albeit without many details, must be a little disconcerting. After all, how can they pick on people for believing in made up stories about our origins, when they realize that they also believe in a made up story about our origin, with a more superficial and less detailed plot.

It is possible they are right. That all of this happened without any intelligent design or manipulation, but they can't prove it.



The amount of squirming is what is interesting to me. Why worry about it? Some people like vegetarianism. Some people like to hunt for their meat.

Which approach is intellectually superior?

Neither is. Same goes for Theism and Atheism. Agnosticism isn't intellectually superior either. That's the point that probably ruins it for the committed atheist. of course, that's just my opinion.

weemsf50
02-20-2011, 20:50
Interesting perspective. Why is it so hard for the pro-life folks to admit abortion is a right? The courts have ruled it so...



Randy

There really is no moral equivalence here. I see the argument, but the issue of when life begins goes far beyond a philosophical debate over whether one has a belief system or not.

Most legal scholars that I have heard address Roe v. Wade have admitted that it was a bad decision. But, this is digressing too much from the OP so I will not pursue it here.

steveksux
02-20-2011, 21:24
There really is no moral equivalence here. Certainly not, I agree with that, but I'm not attempting to make any such moral equivalence.

The point being made was simply that relying on a court decision (especially a lower court) to bolster an argument is not much of an argument. Lower courts are overruled all the time, even SCOTUS has reversed itself as well on more than a few issues.

Randy

weemsf50
02-20-2011, 21:31
Certainly not, I agree with that, but I'm not attempting to make any such moral equivalence.

The point being made was simply that relying on a court decision (especially a lower court) to bolster an argument is not much of an argument. Lower courts are overruled all the time, even SCOTUS has reversed itself as well on more than a few issues.

Randy

+1, I am with you on this.

void *
02-21-2011, 09:20
OK, a duality of man thing. I get it now. Of two minds about the same subject.

You say you get it, but your answer tells me you don't get it. It's not the same subject. It's not duality of man. It's not 'of two minds on the same subject'.

It is two questions. Two answers.

Am I a father? Yes.
Am I a brother? Yes.

Is that being of two minds on the same subject? No, it's answering two different questions that have different meaning.

Do I know whether deities exist? No. I hold the position that the existence of deities is fundamentally unknowable. That is the answer to one question.

Do I believe deities exist? No. That is the answer to a different question. No duality, the words mean different things, and they are two different questions.

I speculate that the reason it is so hard to admit, is that atheist dogma states that they are superior, because they have rejected belief in the metaphysical, magic and deities, and in their minds, religion too.

Please quote where this atheist 'dogma' is mandated by *anyone*. There is no atheist dogma. You are arguing against a strawman here.

Methodological naturalism may be the best method we have of determining the truth value of certain statements, but the fact that people use it doesn't make them automatically a better person than anyone who doesn't, in the same way that the fact that Michael Vick uses better football methods than most of the world doesn't automatically make him a better person than most of the world.

Noticing that they have also created an origin story of their own, albeit without many details, must be a little disconcerting.

Looking at evidence and hypothesizing, and ruling out particular hypotheses, and going with the ones that appear to be true based on what we observe, while explicitly noting what we do and don't know, and explicitly stating that future evidence might change assessments, isn't just making stuff up, which seems to be what you want to imply here.

And, I don't recall your answer to ksg's question about whether or not BBT and evolutionary theory were solely atheist theories. They are not.

Which approach is intellectually superior?

Neither is. Same goes for Theism and Atheism. Agnosticism isn't intellectually superior either.

Methadological naturalism lets us test and say 'this posit in the natural world is correct'. If it didn't, we wouldn't be talking to each other through our respective computers, because we wouldn't have the knowledge it takes to engineer them. In that particular aspect, methodological naturalism is in fact the most consistent method to find things out. If people want to believe things based on faith, that's fine with me - as long as they know they take it on faith and don't try to argue it as fact when getting into discussions where it matters. (and methodological naturalism is likewise a tool that doesn't care whether or not the person using it is atheist or theist).

steveksux
02-21-2011, 09:56
You say you get it, but your answer tells me you don't get it. It's not the same subject. It's not duality of man. It's not 'of two minds on the same subject'.

It is two questions. Two answers.

Am I a father? Yes.
Am I a brother? Yes.

Is that being of two minds on the same subject? No, it's answering two different questions that have different meaning.Two positions that may be simultaneously held, because they are not mutually exclusive.

Do I know whether deities exist? No. I hold the position that the existence of deities is fundamentally unknowable. That is the answer to one question.

Do I believe deities exist? No. That is the answer to a different question. No duality, the words mean different things, and they are two different questions.And both positions are not mutually exclusive.

I think part of the problem is the sheer number of definitions being played with fast and loose here. Not just the definition of "religion" it appears, but also the definition of atheist. Or various flavors of atheists, seems like there's a different flavor of atheist for every day of the month in this hypothetical alternate universe we've been discussing for 44 pages and counting.

Atheists do not believe in deities because there is no evidence they exist. This process of being driven by evidence leads to the inevitable conclusion that you cannot prove that deities do not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot prove something does not exist (unless you can prove it is impossible for it to exist). You can only say it hasn't been proven to exist yet, as far as we know. How many times have you heard an atheist say, well, then show me evidence of deities, and I'll change my mind. Its the classic essential atheist statement of belief. Hardly the sort of "religious zeal" posited by the OP.

Therefore I propose the entire premise that there is a type of atheist that "knows" there are no deities is in essense merely a strawman.

Given a world where natural laws account for known phenomenon, you could posit that there are deities that set in motion the natural laws, and now sit observing, not interfering with the way the universe unfolds. Or only interfere while respecting and utilizing the natural laws of the universe to influence events, such that no violations of natural laws will ever be observable. This is and entirely possible scenario for a deity to exist. However, Occam's Razor would oblige us to assume in that case that no deities exist. If natural laws are sufficient to account for all observable phenomenon, adding an unseen undetectable supernatural force into the mix is not logical.

That is as close to "atheists KNOW there are no deities" as atheists get. It still falls short of the so-called "religious zeal" of these mythical atheists he keeps referring to.

However that doesn't fit the agenda, so make up strawman definitions of atheists, of religion, make faulty assumptions based on those flawed definitions, assume them true a priori even though they are obviously dubious at best, and you have the ingredients for a fine troll stew.

Do these atheists he posits really exist? Of course! They must because he says so! Is atheism a religion, Of course! It must be, because he says so! :rofl: Well why didn't he just say so in the first place and save us 44 pages of arguing! :dunno:

We really need a circular argument subforum, where someone can post a thread, and no one else can reply to it. That would save a lot of headaches such as this thread.

Randy

void *
02-21-2011, 13:54
Therefore I propose the entire premise that there is a type of atheist that "knows" there are no deities is in essense merely a strawman.

I would agree that there are very, very few of them. However, I have met people who think it is provable that no deities exist. They are wrong, of course, but we are not talking about what is actual, here, we are talking about positions people hold. (Edit: and, to be honest, in general, when I've run into someone like that it's generally because they haven't thought about it a whole heck of a lot. When I was, say, 16 or so I would have been one of them - until I really thought about it. Point it out to someone clearly and concisely and generally, they will get it. There might be a couple here and there that wouldn't and will go on thinking they've got it proven).

Likewise, there are theists who hold the position that it is known that deities exist. Again, I think they are wrong, but some do in fact hold that position.

Of course, the argument that just because some atheist somewhere makes an argument stating that it is known that deities, that all do, is a fallacy, and is directly contradicted by the statements of many self-identified atheists in this thread.

void *
02-21-2011, 14:14
Atheists do not believe in deities because there is no evidence they exist. This process of being driven by evidence leads to the inevitable conclusion that you cannot prove that deities do not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You cannot prove something does not exist (unless you can prove it is impossible for it to exist). You can only say it hasn't been proven to exist yet, as far as we know. How many times have you heard an atheist say, well, then show me evidence of deities, and I'll change my mind. Its the classic essential atheist statement of belief. Hardly the sort of "religious zeal" posited by the OP.

I completely agree with this, by the way.

RC-RAMIE
02-21-2011, 14:34
you cannot prove that deities do not exist.

Randy

I completely agree with this, by the way.

True but I also feel no need to try and disprove something that the other person can not prove to start with, and I think asking for atheist to try weakens the argument.

void *
02-21-2011, 14:39
True but I also feel no need to try and disprove something that the other person can not prove to start with, and I think asking for atheist to try weakens the argument.

It's not needed to try, and pointing out that it's an unprovable doesn't give an obligation to try. I'm not positing that an unprovable is true. It's on the guy making the posit to show the truth of the posit.

steveksux
02-21-2011, 15:01
True but I also feel no need to try and disprove something that the other person can not prove to start with, and I think asking for atheist to try weakens the argument.I don't disagree. Someone expecting you to disprove what they cannot prove is a sure sign you're about to start a logical debate with someone without a clue as to what logical debate actually is.

So you're really just better of walking away and trying something easier, more likely to be productive, like teaching your cat algebra... :tongueout::supergrin:
Cat will at least give some indication that he's paying attention.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-21-2011, 15:02
You say you get it, but your answer tells me you don't get it. It's not the same subject. It's not duality of man. It's not 'of two minds on the same subject'.

It is two questions. Two answers.

Am I a father? Yes.
Am I a brother? Yes.

Is that being of two minds on the same subject? No, it's answering two different questions that have different meaning.

Do I know whether deities exist? No. I hold the position that the existence of deities is fundamentally unknowable. That is the answer to one question.

Do I believe deities exist? No. That is the answer to a different question. No duality, the words mean different things, and they are two different questions.

...

I'm a little hesitant to point this out, but isn't that the same as making a choice to believe something you admit you have no proof of?

steveksux
02-21-2011, 15:04
It's on the guy making the posit to show the truth of the posit.Are you sure that's true? Seems more like the exception than the rule around here.. :supergrin:

Wait, so who's responsibility is it to prove atheism IS a religion before they can get an answer to why its so hard to admit???? Isn't "It just is, I'm sorry you don't get it" isn't sufficient??? :rofl:

Randy

void *
02-21-2011, 15:48
I'm a little hesitant to point this out, but isn't that the same as making a choice to believe something you admit you have no proof of?

No, it's not believing the posit that theists make that they don't have proof of. As has been explained more than once within this thread.

If some guy shows up at your door and says the leader of their church is the second incarnation of Christ and you should totally come meet him at the service next Sunday (and this has actually happened to me, btw), it is not "faith" for you to say "Umm, yeah ... prove it, or I'm not going to believe that". In fact, saying "prove it, or I have no reason to believe that" is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. This is the case for *any* posit that doesn't have sufficient evidence. (not necessarily using those specific words. What I told the people who knocked on my door was, I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that deities exist, and without that belief, there was no reason to believe that the leaders of their church were the second coming of Christ and the Holy Ghost, respectively. I said this politely). For all I (or anyone else) knows their church leader and his wife *are* the second coming of Christ and the Holy Ghost - but if they can't support the posit with evidence, there's no reason for anyone to believe them. It's the same with the posit of 'deities exist'. A lot of people say it is true. A lot of people believe it is true. However, without sufficient evidence supporting the claim, it's no different than the claim of two random people who knocked on my door and said the founder of their church was the second coming.

Cavalry Doc
02-21-2011, 21:35
No, it's not believing the posit that theists make that they don't have proof of. As has been explained more than once within this thread.

If some guy shows up at your door and says the leader of their church is the second incarnation of Christ and you should totally come meet him at the service next Sunday (and this has actually happened to me, btw), it is not "faith" for you to say "Umm, yeah ... prove it, or I'm not going to believe that". In fact, saying "prove it, or I have no reason to believe that" is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. This is the case for *any* posit that doesn't have sufficient evidence. (not necessarily using those specific words. What I told the people who knocked on my door was, I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that deities exist, and without that belief, there was no reason to believe that the leaders of their church were the second coming of Christ and the Holy Ghost, respectively. I said this politely). For all I (or anyone else) knows their church leader and his wife *are* the second coming of Christ and the Holy Ghost - but if they can't support the posit with evidence, there's no reason for anyone to believe them. It's the same with the posit of 'deities exist'. A lot of people say it is true. A lot of people believe it is true. However, without sufficient evidence supporting the claim, it's no different than the claim of two random people who knocked on my door and said the founder of their church was the second coming.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_urMaQ5o3ZUY/TR5nSey6SaI/AAAAAAAAAP4/lfW9Ax4HOIA/s400/Split+Ends+Chart.gif


:dunno:

weemsf50
02-22-2011, 08:24
No, it's not believing the posit that theists make that they don't have proof of. As has been explained more than once within this thread.

If some guy shows up at your door and says the leader of their church is the second incarnation of Christ and you should totally come meet him at the service next Sunday (and this has actually happened to me, btw), it is not "faith" for you to say "Umm, yeah ... prove it, or I'm not going to believe that". In fact, saying "prove it, or I have no reason to believe that" is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. This is the case for *any* posit that doesn't have sufficient evidence. (not necessarily using those specific words. What I told the people who knocked on my door was, I don't see sufficient evidence to believe that deities exist, and without that belief, there was no reason to believe that the leaders of their church were the second coming of Christ and the Holy Ghost, respectively. I said this politely). For all I (or anyone else) knows their church leader and his wife *are* the second coming of Christ and the Holy Ghost - but if they can't support the posit with evidence, there's no reason for anyone to believe them. It's the same with the posit of 'deities exist'. A lot of people say it is true. A lot of people believe it is true. However, without sufficient evidence supporting the claim, it's no different than the claim of two random people who knocked on my door and said the founder of their church was the second coming.

What is the standard for evidence that you accept? (I seriously would like to know.)

void *
02-23-2011, 12:28
What is the standard for evidence that you accept? (I seriously would like to know.)

If it were observable that events like those that were common in the bible were common, and weren't faked, I would believe.

If prophecies were specific and not self-fulfilling, rather than being vague (and thus applicable to a lot of events, depending on interpretation) and/or self-fulfilling, I would believe.

If a deity appeared in the sky and said 'Hi, I'm the deity', and started doing things that deities are posited to have the power to do - I would believe that entity was either actually a deity or at least some kind of being with sufficient technology that it could appear as a deity to us.

If I started hearing a god and his adversary audibly speaking to me, and I could find a means of confirming I wasn't just hallucinating, I would believe.

If what we saw in the geological record were consistent with a worldwide flood, and enough other things were consistent, I would believe. But they're not. (burrows in certain layers would require that the creature that made those burrows dig impossibly fast under various flood hypotheses, for example).

There are plenty of things.

What would make you *not* believe?

void *
02-23-2011, 12:30
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_urMaQ5o3ZUY/TR5nSey6SaI/AAAAAAAAAP4/lfW9Ax4HOIA/s400/Split+Ends+Chart.gif


:dunno:

Whatever. Seriously. This is not you conversing, this is you just throwing junk out there. Like I said - you are telling me you don't respect me enough to have a real conversation. You are telling others that as well, with your actions towards them. Why should anyone bother to take you seriously?

weemsf50
02-23-2011, 13:47
What would make you *not* believe?

Interesting question. Since my faith is not based on observable events, (Deity in the sky) it is not subject to the same standards as say mathematics. It is just that, faith in the God who changed my life from what it was and gave me a new direction.

I would guess I would have to say that there is nothing you nor any other human could do or say that would cause me "not to believe." I know why I believe and how my life is different. If you are interested, I can discuss that. 1Peter 3:15 But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear:

gpo1956
02-23-2011, 17:11
Interesting question. Since my faith is not based on observable events, (Deity in the sky) it is not subject to the same standards as say mathematics. It is just that, faith in the God who changed my life from what it was and gave me a new direction.

I would guess I would have to say that there is nothing you nor any other human could do or say that would cause me "not to believe." I know why I believe and how my life is different. If you are interested, I can discuss that.

Well said, sir.

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2011, 17:22
Whatever. Seriously. This is not you conversing, this is you just throwing junk out there. Like I said - you are telling me you don't respect me enough to have a real conversation. You are telling others that as well, with your actions towards them. Why should anyone bother to take you seriously?

I'll admit you're right about that.

But if you have two different answers to the same question, you are of two minds on the issue.

Internal conflict is not a sign of weakness, it's just admitting that you don't really know for sure, but have made a choice on an answer, that will lead to how you will base your personal philosophy.

Fair enough?

void *
02-23-2011, 17:27
I would guess I would have to say that there is nothing you nor any other human could do or say that would cause me "not to believe." I know why I believe and how my life is different. If you are interested, I can discuss that.

Well - is there any evidence you could posit that would make you change your mind? Not necessarily other people, but if some hypothetical event happened, etc.

What I'm getting at here is that this is the difference. I'd change my mind, and there are plenty of examples I can give. You appear to be in a position where you can't think of anything that would change your mind (please correct if I am getting the wrong impression).

void *
02-23-2011, 19:00
But if you have two different answers to the same question, you are of two minds on the issue.

And, again, you are not listening. I am not answering the same question differently. I am answering two *different* questions. I strongly suspect you understand this and are just being stubborn for giggles. Like I said - at this point, why should anyone take you seriously?

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2011, 20:17
And, again, you are not listening. I am not answering the same question differently. I am answering two *different* questions. I strongly suspect you understand this and are just being stubborn for giggles. Like I said - at this point, why should anyone take you seriously?

Do I know whether deities exist? No. I hold the position that the existence of deities is fundamentally unknowable. That is the answer to one question.

Do I believe deities exist? No. That is the answer to a different question. No duality, the words mean different things, and they are two different questions.


First, you admit you don't know.

Second, you admit that you believe that no deity exists.



:dunno: That's kind of what I've been pointing out since the beginning of the thread.

A system of beliefs based on faith.

steveksux
02-23-2011, 20:23
And, again, you are not listening... I strongly suspect you understand this and are just being stubborn for giggles. Like I said - at this point, why should anyone take you seriously?That's the story of the entire thread. It's not an attempt to gain understanding of the question. Its to use the question to attempt to irritate atheists.

Why is it hard to admit? They don't think its true. That's been answered 44 pages ago. Its pretty obvious, no need to ask, really.

Why isn't it true? That's been demonstrated for 44 pages.

Why is anyone insisting it's still true? Once the premise is proven false, the thread is over and will have to come up with another method to annoy people.

Troll thread.

Randy

weemsf50
02-23-2011, 20:27
Well - is there any evidence you could posit that would make you change your mind? Not necessarily other people, but if some hypothetical event happened, etc.

What I'm getting at here is that this is the difference. I'd change my mind, and there are plenty of examples I can give. You appear to be in a position where you can't think of anything that would change your mind (please correct if I am getting the wrong impression).

I would have to say that the nature of faith precludes me having a list of things that would cause me "not to believe." I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but it appears that you do not have a good grasp on the nature of biblical faith.

steveksux
02-23-2011, 20:31
I would have to say that the nature of faith precludes me having a list of things that would cause me "not to believe." I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but it appears that you do not have a good grasp on the nature of biblical faith.I can see that faith would be hard to shake. Its the same problem of proving a negative. You already believe without seeing, so you'd have to see there's no God for proof to sway your faith.

How can you see evidence something doesn't exist?

On the other hand, say you saw Zeus, doing a bunch of deity like stuff. Now faced with eyewitness evidence of a DIFFERENT God, would you consider abandoning your current faith-based faith to worship Zeus based on eyewitness observation of a genuine apparent deity? A lot easier to prove something exists than proving the something doesn't exist.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2011, 20:38
I would have to say that the nature of faith precludes me having a list of things that would cause me "not to believe." I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but it appears that you do not have a good grasp on the nature of biblical faith.

I'd have to disagree. It just appears that he has a different faith.

weemsf50
02-23-2011, 20:39
I can see that faith would be hard to shake. Its the same problem of proving a negative. You already believe without seeing, so you'd have to see there's no God for proof to sway your faith.

How can you see evidence something doesn't exist?

On the other hand, say you saw Zeus, doing a bunch of deity like stuff. Now faced with eyewitness evidence of a DIFFERENT God, would you consider abandoning your current faith-based faith to worship Zeus based on eyewitness observation of a genuine apparent deity?

Randy

Based on the Word of God, no, if I saw something that was identified as Zeus, I would not worship it. The Bible warns us about the devil and his angels being turned into deceptive ministers of light. 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.

weemsf50
02-23-2011, 20:41
I'd have to disagree. It just appears that he has a different faith.

Not just believing different things, but a different kind of faith. The Greek terms would be "allos" and "heteros."

steveksux
02-23-2011, 20:46
Based on the Word of God, no, if I saw something that was identified as Zeus, I would not worship it. The Bible warns us about the devil and his angels being turned into deceptive ministers of light. 2 Corinthians 11:13 For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ. 14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
15 Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.Thanks, nice to see an adult discussion with straight answers emerge from the smoldering wreckage of a thread.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-23-2011, 20:53
steveksux
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.


Almost forgot to remind the casual readers of the thread who I was still conversing with.

I should probably continue to remind them once per page, No?

steveksux
02-23-2011, 21:17
Thanks, nice to see an adult discussion with straight answers emerge from the smoldering wreckage of a thread.

Randy
steveksux
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.
Almost forgot to remind the casual readers of the thread who I was still conversing with.

I should probably continue to remind them once per page, No?

Irony at its finest. Just when the adults were starting to have an adult convesation. :rofl:

Randy

void *
02-24-2011, 00:38
I don't mean to sound sanctimonious, but it appears that you do not have a good grasp on the nature of biblical faith.

I'm not precisely sure what you mean there, since my point is precisely to contrast your position of not having things that would cause you to not believe with my position.

Also, it's not a list, really. You asked for examples, I gave some. It's basically anything that I could look at/test/etc and say with sufficient confidence that the posit of a deity existing is sufficiently supported. (And even that would likely be conditional acceptance, which is why I worded some of them as 'either a deity, or something with sufficient technology to appear to us as a deity', etc).

void *
02-24-2011, 00:42
First, you admit you don't know.

Yep. I also don't know whether or not Russell's teapot orbits the sun, and I don't know whether or not faires created the universe, or whether or not man's invention of the flying spaghetti monster caused a supernatural flying spaghetti monster to exist ... who, being unbound by time, then went and created the universe. I don't know any of that - but I also don't believe any of it.

Second, you admit that you believe that no deity exists.


I admit that I do not believe any deity exists. At the current time, based on current information. Conditionally. I could change my mind tomorrow. You show me one exists, I'll believe it.

Contrast that to weems50's statement that the nature of his faith precludes him from a situation in which he would change his belief (assuming I understand him correctly).

That is the difference, CD, and if you don't get it with it stated that plainly - you will never get it.

But then again, like I said, I think this thread is more about you getting some giggles than any real attempt to understand anything.

Smacktard
02-24-2011, 01:52
I believe that a Christan is trying to make a belief in God equal to Atheism, and claim that Atheists are just as crazy as believers.

Of course there is no God, there is only the need to believe.


...

ksg0245
02-24-2011, 05:02
Almost forgot to remind the casual readers of the thread who I was still conversing with.

I should probably continue to remind them once per page, No?

I think that's a GREAT idea.

ksg0245
02-24-2011, 05:08
I'll admit you're right about that.

But if you have two different answers to the same question, you are of two minds on the issue.

So your secret answer to one of the questions you never answered, "are belief and knowledge the exact same thing," is yes. Why didn't you just say that?

Internal conflict is not a sign of weakness, it's just admitting that you don't really know for sure, but have made a choice on an answer, that will lead to how you will base your personal philosophy.

Fair enough?

For you it is.

ksg0245
02-24-2011, 05:16
First, you admit you don't know.

Second, you admit that you believe that no deity exists.

Huh. What I saw him write was "No, it's not believing the posit that theists make that they don't have proof of. As has been explained more than once within this thread." (http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16919597&postcount=1090)

:dunno: That's kind of what I've been pointing out since the beginning of the thread.

A system of beliefs based on faith.

Oops, still pretending not to get it.

Snapper2
02-24-2011, 12:40
I'd have to disagree. It just appears that he has a different faith.
I agree.
If someone has been to every" corner of the universe":whistling: and has not seen God he can say there is no God. This is not faith but fact because he's been there. If he hasnt, but only taken anothers word that they've been there, thats faith in anothers word and knowledge from another's experience. If we are looking for God,thats one thing. But only looking for facts about Him is a whole different story. Its personal.

Cavalry Doc
02-24-2011, 19:29
I believe that a Christan is trying to make a belief in God equal to Atheism, and claim that Atheists are just as crazy as believers.

Of course there is no God, there is only the need to believe.


...

Smak,

I'm an agnostic. I have learned the more I learn, the more I can see that I do not know. I'm comfortable not knowing everything.

One of the things I do not know, is whether or not there is an intelligence responsible for our current state of being.

I have seen both sides of the arguments from many religions, and have decided that I don't know the answer. That didn't lead me to hate people that believe or don't believe in deities.


I just pointed out a simple fact, that is provable using standard word usage in America, and asked why it's so hard to admit.

It even drives people like you to build straw men. Odd, no?

Cavalry Doc
02-24-2011, 19:32
So your secret answer to one of the questions you never answered, "are belief and knowledge the exact same thing," is yes. Why didn't you just say that?



For you it is.

Edited, or more precicy, deleted, as I believe I initially misunderstood your response. My apologies, I'll pay better attention and try not to rush when posting.

steveksux
02-25-2011, 01:05
I just pointed out a simple fact, that is provable using standard word usage in America, and asked why it's so hard to admit.you "prove" it by ignoring standard word usage from the same definitions you use to "prove" it. Your preferred dictionary lists atheism as an antonym of religion in the same page as the defintion you misuse. Talk about building a strawman! http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Definition of RELIGION

1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion>
b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observanceThat sounds exactly like religion. Sounds NOTHING like atheism.

Solution? IGNORE THIS DEFINITION!!!! NOTHING TO SEE HERE!!!! LALALALALA!!!

That's the first symptom of Trollitis. If you were really interested in an honest debate, you wouldn't ignore the best definition of genuine religions. You wouldn't have to. You don't have to in order to claim Christianity is a religion.

Let move on to other definitions. Here are other connotations or colloquialisms of "religion"

2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practicesNope, not atheism, specifying "religious" attitudes doesn't match atheism. Clearly referring to the first definition.

3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousnessnope, haven't seen him try to use this.


So here's the one he keeps pointing to.

4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
Atheists always point to "lack of evidence" to justify their belief. That simply rules out "ardor and faith". Don't need ardor and faith when you have perfectly legitimate justification.

So he makes up a hypothetical type of atheist that "knows" there's no deities and somehow doesn't rely on "lack of evidence" to base that on. Talk about strawman, but pretend that could be true. Lets go on to the examples.

Examples of RELIGION

Many people turn to religion for comfort in a time of crisis.
There are many religions, such as Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, and Judaism.
Shinto is a religion that is unique to Japan.these obviously refer to def 1 or 2 above.

Hockey is a religion in Canada.
Politics are a religion to him.
Where I live, high school football is religion.
Food is religion in this house.These can't refer to 1 or 2, even 3.

They must refer to definition 4 its the only one that fits. Yet every time anyone points out that his definition of religion therefore must include these, he goes on a faux rampage claiming people are trivializing religion by comparing it to football or hockey.

Unfortunately, its unavoidable if you attempt to claim atheism fits definition 4, and that makes atheism a religion. Then so so hockey, football. Any belief held with ardor or faith, such as Santa Clause, the Loch Ness believers, birthers, 9/11 conspiracy theorists, Tooth Fairy believers.... all religions.

The belief that atheism is a religion? Its a religion! Not a fact after all.

The final nail in the coffin? Also from the same definition:
Antonyms: atheism, godlessness

So atheism is not the same as religion, its the opposite. Antonym... hmm

It even drives people like you to build straw men. Odd, no?Almost a classic case of projection.

He's building a straw man to base the entire thread on. the premise is obviously stupid, and obviously manufactured from thin air and denial. It is a strawman.

Only thing is instead of using it like a strawman, and knocking it down after it was carefully constructed, he does the opposite, he refuses to admit that its been proven false, and instead uses it to troll with. For 45 pages.

And counting.

The interesting question is then obviously: why the obsession to conflate atheism with religion? And why is THAT so hard to admit?

Personally I think he's answered that, he thinks it annoys atheists when he makes that claim. Thus its fun to make, that's what trolls do. :dunno: Its annoying because atheists, like most normal people, do not suffer fools gladly. Trolls annoy pretty much everybody. That explains why they're annoyed.

If he's being honest at least with himself, he knows the obvious answer to why they "refuse to admit it", already provided in the thread, is atheists obviously do not believe its a religion. They made that pretty clear. they also proved they are correct, using the OPs definitions against him. They reject the premise of the thread as it makes no sense whatsoever. They see the sophistry involved in selectively manipulating the definitions to attempt to portray atheism as a religion through deception, as well as ignoring all the obvious and numerous ways the definition disproves the supposition.

Why is it so hard for them to admit? They don't believe its true, there's nothing to admit. They don't want to go along with the OP's lies, distortions and deceptions necessary to pretend that it is true.

Why is it so hard to admit the question has been asked and answered, and debunked?

So there in a nutshell, for anyone who's watching, is the answer. And a far more interesting question. One not based on a disengenuos and poorly concealed lie.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
02-28-2011, 20:38
Looks like it's time to interject some non-GTRI logic.


Is Atheism a Religion?



One of the issues that arises at times is the question of Atheism as a religion. Many adamantly oppose that classification, arguing that Atheism is an explicit denial of religion. Others claim Atheism should be considered as a religion just like Christianity, Judaism, Islam and the rest. Upon reflection, it would appear that the difficulty lies not in what the various camps believe about Atheism, but in the definitions used when referring to “religion.”



In the dictionary, the most common definition of religion is something like, “the service and worship of God or the supernatural.” By this definition, Atheism is clearly not a religion. However, the United States Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that Atheism warrants the same protection as all other religions, and has spoken of “religions based on a belief in the existence of God [and] religions founded on different beliefs." This, obviously, contradicts the main dictionary definition.



Additionally, there is “religion” as a sense of morality, as in “ree has religion.” This is similar to the use of the adjective form of the word: religious. If someone is described as “religious,” one usually thinks of erm as a person who goes to church to worship some almighty power. But “religious” also has the definition of “passionate” or “zealous,” and “scrupulous,” as well. This variability in definitions is the problem in the “Is Atheism a religion?” question.



To clarify this issue, these three different definitions must be carefully kept in mind as the matter is discussed, since any lack of rigor in maintaining them as separate entities will lead to confusion and disagreement. Additionally, under the American Constitution, failing to strictly segregate these definitions may result in the loss of basic legal protections. Finally, if ending the prejudices that exist against Atheists is a goal, the sliding between definitions (which occurs quite often) must be avoided.



As just recognized, Atheism is obviously not a religion under Definition #1 (“D1”), i.e., where “religion” requires worship of God. Thus, those who wish to specifically highlight the fact that they place no credence in unproven notions of supernatural forces are somewhat offended – and rightfully so – when others classify them as “religious” under this definition. “Atheism is not a religion, and we are not religious!” they emphasize. But that sets them up for denigration, as D3 is unwittingly brought in by those raised to believe that Atheists are “bad.” “Look – they have no religion.” (D1). So they’re clearly evil (since “they have no religion.” (D3)).” This is a very real problem, often exacerbated by the “morality comes from God” dogma of many Monotheists. It’s bad enough that those people think that theirs is the only plausible view. When the Atheists admit they have no religion (D3), it makes it worse.



Of course, Atheists are not admitting they have no D3-religion. On the contrary, Atheists – like (all) “religious” individuals – believe their morality is superior. In the Atheist’s view, they have the “truth” that the D1-religious lack. But by using the same word, “religion,” to represent these two very different ideas – i.e., morality as opposed to belief in God – the debate goes nowhere.



The same confusion arises in the legal context. This was readily seen during the oral argument in Locke v. Davey, the Supreme Court case heard in the Court’s 2003-2004 term. That case involved the State of Washington’s decision to prohibit disbursement of state scholarship moneys to students who choose theology majors, while funding everyone else. The Court seemed to struggle with the fact that it has already decided that the government is forbidden from treating people differently on the basis of religion … including religion versus non-religion. The problem is that the “religion versus non-religion” distinction is prohibited only in D1-religion. In D2-religion, the exact opposite is the case; government is required to discriminate between religion and non-religion.



D2-religion is that realm of opinion and knowledge that has to do with D1-religion, regardless of whether or not there is a belief in some deity. In other words, anything that has to do with basic questions of human relations, the meaning of life, the beginning of the universe, etc. – when related to the concept of some higher power (whether or not that higher power is believed in) – is D2-religion. And this entire subject is what the United States Constitution sets apart in its First Amendment. Thus, whereas James Madison successfully blocked Patrick Henry’s Bill for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion, he wouldn’t have blocked a Bill for Establishing a Provision for Teachers of Mathematics, of Art History, of Geology or of any other non-“religious” topic.



This may be elucidated best with set theory. There is the big set - all human opinion and knowledge. Within that, there is a subset of opinion and knowledge that is related to the supernatural … whether it is believed or not. This subset (D2-religion) is what the Religion Clauses require the government to treat differently from all other opinion and knowledge matters. However, within that subset are sub-subsets, including the one that accepts the existence of an “Almighty” (D1-religion), and the one that denies such an entity. It is the differential treatment (by government) of those sub-subsets that the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses forbid.


















Thus, Locke v. Davey is really an easy case. Treating theology majors differently from non-theology majors is precisely what the First Amendment presupposes, just as Madison treated Teachers of the Christian Religion in a manner unlike teachers of any non-D2-religion subject. Washington State may not give money to majors in Atheism while denying money to majors in Monotheism. That would be a D1-religion problem, where government is prohibited from making distinctions. But Washington not only can – but must (under the Federal Constitution) – discriminate in terms of D2-religion.



In summary, then, if one is asking if Atheists believe in supernatural powers, the answer is, “No – Atheism is not a D1-religion.” If one is asking if Atheists should be protected by the Constitution, the answer is, “Yes, Atheism is a D2-religion.” And if one is asking whether Atheists can be moral, the answer will depend upon the participants’ D1-religious views. If an individual contends that belief in God is a requirement for a person to have D3-religion, the answer will be “no.” If that person accepts that morality is a human quality, that needs no supernatural approval, the answer is “yes.”

Cavalry Doc
02-28-2011, 20:51
This one is copyrighted, so will only post a bit, and a link.

Okay, so the title of this article is a bit provocative. But, I wanted to get your attention. You see, I got the idea for this article after attending the 33rd annual atheist convention in Seattle, Washington, in April of 2007. It was a very interesting experience and I learned things I did not expect to learn. While sitting in the crowd, listening to speakers, and watching the atheists' reactions, it dawned on me how utterly religious they seemed to be. No, I'm not saying they believe in a God, and I'm not saying atheism is a religion. But, they sure acted as though it were. Let me explain.

As I sat there watching, taking notes, and listening, I formulated a list that I think is accurate and representative of what I saw at the convention. Please take a look.

1. Creed
1. No God, anti-God, Pro-homosexuality, anti-Christianity.
2. Atheism is a belief. I know that many atheists will disagree with this, but the atheists gathered around a common belief of no God, or lack of God, and the need to increase what they perceive as separation of church and state in America.
2. Crisis
1. Created a problem and offered a solution. The problem was religious oppression in society with atheistic ideals as the solution.


LINK TO SOURCE (http://carm.org/religion-of-atheism)




Sounds like he ran into what I've run into here. The debate is not whether atheism is intellectually superior, it's just one of many points of view, without any real proof. It does remind me of a picture I saw once.



http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/atheism1.jpg

steveksux
02-28-2011, 22:02
:rofl:and I'm not saying atheism is a religion. :rofl: Gee, kind of a strange article to quote for someone trying to "prove" atheism is a religion.

Once again, the very stuff he quotes to make his point, proves him wrong.

This is getting rather pathetic.

Is the new play to backpedal and say atheism is merely LIKE a religion now, after 45 pages of saying it IS a religion? Sort of like hockey is a religion in Canada? :rofl:

Couldn't have been my post that caused this sudden change of heart, I'm on ignore! :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
02-28-2011, 22:09
Looks like it's time to interject some non-GTRI logic.Bad enough violating the ban on quoting articles, but not even including a link to allow proper attribution?

Must be REALLY embarrassed of the source of that quote to try to hide it.

Randy

apacheaws
03-06-2011, 22:15
:wavey:

Interesting thread. I'm an atheist. Although I realize that nothing I say will sway anybody's opinion, I'm going to throw my $.02 in on this issue anyways.

Much of the justification I've seen here for calling atheism a religion revolves around the idea that atheists believe that there is no god. I'm not going to speak for all atheists here, only myself and my personal theories on god and religion. I call myself an atheist; some of you might call me agnostic, or an agnostic atheist, or a soft atheist.

I'll be using dictionary.com's #2 definition of the word "belief," which reads as follows: "confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief."

The existence (or non-existence) of god or any supernatural power is not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. Using that definition, I do not believe that a god exists. However, my disbelief does not come from any kind of faith that there isn't a god. It is because I have seen no tangible proof of the existence of any kind of higher power that I do not believe in religion.

I heard an interesting idea last week from a christian co-worker of mine... He said that some people are starting to call atheism a religion. According to him, since there is no religion in schools (my understanding is that really it's just no prayer during class time... but I didn't feel like starting an argument) then atheism should no longer be allowed at school. That's a pretty scary idea.

I guess I just don't really see the point in people telling me that I am a member of a religion, when the reality is that I'm just not. I don't go to meetings with other atheists, I don't go door to door and try to convert people on Saturday mornings (although I used to... as a Jehovah's Witness until age ~13)...

Would you help me understand the purpose of declaring atheism a religion, anybody? Let's assume for this sidebar conversation that atheism is a religion. What then? Can I say that my home is my place of religious non-worship and get a non-religious religious tax exemption? If that's the case, then by all means tell me that atheism is a religion. :tongueout:

Smacktard
03-06-2011, 22:44
I believe that a Christan is trying to make a belief in God equal to Atheism, and claim that Atheists are just as crazy as believers.

Of course there is no God, there is only the need to believe.


...


Apacheaws, see quote above. I'm thinking about including that quote in "The Book Of Smacktard" the holiest of holy books and the newest testament.

(Beat the rush, reserve your copy today!)


...

apacheaws
03-06-2011, 22:56
Apacheaws, see quote above. I'm thinking about including that quote in "The Book Of Smacktard" the holiest of holy books and the newest testament.

(Beat the rush, reserve your copy today!)


...

Once we're officially a religion, I guess I'll have to buy a few hundred copies and start going door to door!

ArtificialGrape
03-07-2011, 00:43
Even this is wrong. Why is it so hard to admit that Atheism is based on a decision NOT to believe something that there is no proof of?

Interestingly enough, its also exactly, totally backwards. Kind of like believing atheism, the antonym of religion, IS a religion.

Randy

I really, really don't see what is so hard to grasp with this concept.

Is not holding racist beliefs just another form of racism?

It's odd that there even needs to be a word "atheist". There's not a word for a person that doesn't believe in Santa.

Cavalry Doc
03-21-2011, 18:52
I really, really don't see what is so hard to grasp with this concept.

Is not holding racist beliefs just another form of racism?

It's odd that there even needs to be a word "atheist". There's not a word for a person that doesn't believe in Santa.

Refusing to punish guilty people because they are a certain race is racism.
Voting for a person because of their race is racism, even if they are a minority.


Santa does not explain the origins of the Universe. Theism or Atheism both seek to answer a fundamental truth about the origins of the Universe and the existence of life. Santa is about toys one day a year. Not really the same.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
03-21-2011, 18:55
I believe that a Christan is trying to make a belief in God equal to Atheism, and claim that Atheists are just as crazy as believers.

Of course there is no God, there is only the need to believe.


...

Really??? http://fc00.deviantart.net/fs51/f/2009/328/a/8/_search__by_catluvr2.gif Where.

I thought I explained my own personal beliefs several times before. Try reading them and trusting a bit. :supergrin:

ArtificialGrape
03-21-2011, 19:40
Refusing to punish guilty people because they are a certain race is racism.
Voting for a person because of their race is racism, even if they are a minority.


Santa does not explain the origins of the Universe. Theism or Atheism both seek to answer a fundamental truth about the origins of the Universe and the existence of life. Santa is about toys one day a year. Not really the same.

:wavey:

Atheism does not seek to answer the origin of the universe, and life, though science does. There is a difference between atheism and science. Your response also suggests that the origin of universe/life is a question that can only be answered by religion (theism, or in your view the religion of atheism).

Santa is not merely about toys one day a year, Santa is a myth that is used to incent desired behavior. As a child if you're naughty Santa withholds presents. As an adult if you're naughty God withholds His presence (you go to Hell). Not really so different.

Back to the original question, refusal to accept claims of supernatural without evidence is not a religion.

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
03-21-2011, 19:43
Atheism does not seek to answer the origin of the universe, and life, though science does. There is a difference between atheism and science. Your response also suggests that the origin of universe/life is a question that can only be answered by religion (theism, or in your view the religion of atheism).

Santa is not merely about toys one day a year, Santa is a myth that is used to incent desired behavior. As a child if you're naughty Santa withholds presents. As an adult if you're naughty God withholds His presence (you go to Hell). Not really so different.

Back to the original question, refusal to accept claims of supernatural without evidence is not a religion.

-ArtificialGrape




If the question was: Were we made, or did we just happen?


Both atheism and theism have an answer.

Stating the answer in a passive way does not negate the belief.

ArtificialGrape
03-21-2011, 20:30
If the question was: Were we made, or did we just happen?

Both atheism and theism have an answer.


If you posed it as asking an atheist and a theist, and state that they both have an answer I would agree, but I still would not agree that it is a question that must be answered by religion.

There is no atheism bible -- or if there is perhaps I haven't received mine because I'm past due in my tithes -- that would answer such a question. There are no related questions at your atheist confirmation. An atheist may not accept any current theory on abiogenesis, but still have no reason to accept "god did it".

-ArtificialGrape

Sarge1400
03-21-2011, 21:05
Deleted, read something incorrectly.

Smacktard
03-21-2011, 21:39
Atheism is not a religion, an Atheist is a new species of man that doesn't need to believe. A result of evolution, another bite of the apple, so to speak.


...

Smacktard
03-21-2011, 21:50
There is no atheism bible -- or if there is perhaps I haven't received mine because I'm past due in my tithes -- that would answer such a question.

-ArtificialGrape

What about the Book Of Smacktard!?? The holiest of holy books!

Send your tithes to: www.paysmacktardnow.com to avoid late fees.

...

rgregoryb
03-21-2011, 21:55
Atheism is not a religion, an Atheist is a new species of man that doesn't need to believe. A result of evolution, another bite of the apple, so to speak.


...

soooo....you don't believe for every drop of rain a flower grows,

rgregoryb
03-21-2011, 21:57
or
that somewhere in the darkest night
A candle glows

rgregoryb
03-21-2011, 22:00
or that little train that thinks he can........

sad life with no belief

Smacktard
03-21-2011, 22:20
or that little train that thinks he can........

sad life with no belief

Reality is a hard pill to swallow if you've been lied to your whole life and fed a beautiful dream.

...

Syclone538
03-21-2011, 23:54
...
Theism or Atheism both seek to answer a fundamental truth about the origins of the Universe and the existence of life.
...

No it doesn't. All atheism is, is a lack of a belief.

The theories that make the most sense to me about the origin of the universe are along these lines.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyclic_model

I have no belief, opinion, or theory about the origin of life.

If the question was: Were we made, or did we just happen?
...

My answer, and I would guess a common atheist answer would be, "I don't know."

Do I believe we were made? No.
Do I believe we just happened? No.


...
Both atheism and theism have an answer.
...

No it doesn't. Some people who are atheist might have an answer, but that doesn't mean that atheism gives an answer.


...
Stating the answer in a passive way does not negate the belief.

What belief?

Saying "I don't believe in a god or gods." is different then saying "I believe there is/are no god/gods." I think you will find a lot more people willing to say the former then the latter. Do you understand the difference?

ArtificialGrape
03-22-2011, 00:44
No it doesn't. All atheism is, is a lack of a belief.

Absolutely, but apparently more difficult to grasp than one would think.

No it doesn't. Some people who are atheist might have an answer, but that doesn't mean that atheism gives an answer.

That's what I'm saying, though it is possible that I inserted a bit of sarcasm in my version :wavey:

Saying "I don't believe in a god or gods." is different then saying "I believe there is/are no god/gods." I think you will find a lot more people willing to say the former then the latter. Do you understand the difference?

Correct, agnostic means that you do not believe that the existence of god is knowable -- it says nothing on whether or not you believe in the existence of god. If in answering a question on religion somebody claims to be agnostic you should immediately follow-up by asking if they are an agnostic theist, or agnostic atheist. Agnostic should not be allowed as a noncommittal cop-out.

-ArtificialGrape

Tilley
03-22-2011, 22:05
What about the Book Of Smacktard!??
Smackie...you still bashing Christians!??!

I hope you are well buddy!

Kingarthurhk
03-23-2011, 04:28
Atheism is not a religion, an Atheist is a new species of man that doesn't need to believe. A result of evolution, another bite of the apple, so to speak.


...

It may not have been an apple, but there is more in what you said there than you know.

Kingarthurhk
03-23-2011, 04:31
I believe that a Christan is trying to make a belief in God equal to Atheism, and claim that Atheists are just as crazy as believers.

Of course there is no God, there is only the need to believe.


...

Interesting. It sounds as though you are taking it personally, which would indicate to me that this is a profoundly held belief of yours.

steveksux
03-23-2011, 20:39
Santa does not explain the origins of the Universe. He does explain the origins of the universe, but only to the good boys and girls who don't lie and call atheism a religion.

Randy

rgregoryb
03-23-2011, 21:09
Reality is a hard pill to swallow if you've been lied to your whole life and fed a beautiful dream.

...

Did I mention there are at least 6 billion opinions on earth, of which yours is only one?

Smacktard
03-23-2011, 22:42
Smackie...you still bashing Christians!??!

I hope you are well buddy!


Hi Tilley, I haven't seen you post for awhile. I hope you and your family are doing well too! I'm not bashing Christians, I'm trying to help them to see the light and get them off my back! It's no fun living in a place where so many people think I'm evil.

....

Smacktard
03-23-2011, 22:47
He does explain the origins of the universe, but only to the good boys and girls who don't lie and call atheism a religion.

Randy

Looks like Cavalry Doc gets coal this Xmas.


...

Smacktard
03-23-2011, 22:50
Did I mention there are at least 6 billion opinions on earth, of which yours is only one?

Yeah, but somebody has to be right, but not far right.


...

Toorop
03-24-2011, 00:02
Why is it so hard to admit that people don't know what the meaning of atheism is?

ksg0245
03-24-2011, 07:25
Santa does not explain the origins of the Universe.

Neither does atheism, it merely rejects assertions of deities. You earlier admitted that some theists accept the Big Bang theory as accurate, why are you contradicting yourself?

Ramjet38
03-24-2011, 18:03
I'm not bashing Christians, I'm trying to help them to see the light and get them off my back!

Now are Christians all over your back and giving you heck...be truthful now?
Maybe exception for GT, but you choose to be here and suffer...right?

Cavalry Doc
03-24-2011, 20:45
Neither does atheism, it merely rejects assertions of deities. You earlier admitted that some theists accept the Big Bang theory as accurate, why are you contradicting yourself?

But it does make an assertion as to the origins of the universe.

It theorizes, without proof, that there was no intelligent design involved in our creation.


There is no proof one way or the other.


It's not about argumentative technicalities. Some theists may accept the "big bang" theory as a possibility, but that does not explain the truth beyond further exploration.


Whatever the truth is, it is what it is. I choose to accept that, without pretending to know that I know the truth.

For those that have faith, and that faith leads them to be better people, well.......... I'm all for that.

If your beliefs lead you to be a worse person, a bad neighbor, or an indifferent being, well then, I'm not in support of that.





Logic and pragmatism rule.

Cavalry Doc
03-24-2011, 20:49
Looks like Cavalry Doc gets coal this Xmas.


...

I make pretty good money, and get lots of cool toys for Christmas.


Reloading was a big theme this year. Doing a lot of overtime lately, and buying myself a few gifts while saving up for the family.

It's cool. :cool:

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
03-24-2011, 20:56
Hi Tilley, I haven't seen you post for awhile. I hope you and your family are doing well too! I'm not bashing Christians, I'm trying to help them to see the light and get them off my back! It's no fun living in a place where so many people think I'm evil.

....



Mega - fail.




As a disclaimer, this is only my personal opinion, based on your numerous previous posts.


Life has dealt you a tough hand. And you are a little torqued.

You have blame issues. But if you were a true atheist, you would realize it is a game of chance, without anyone at fault. What happens, happens, and no one is at fault for quirks of fate. Now, if an individual did what happened to you, then fine, there are ways to go after them in a civilized way, and to be mad whole.




There is a world full of people that don't think like you, and likely many that do.



Why wish ill on those that disagree?


Are they not people too?

Animal Mother
03-24-2011, 22:09
But it does make an assertion as to the origins of the universe.

It theorizes, without proof, that there was no intelligent design involved in our creation. No, it doesn't. Atheism asserts only that there are no gods. You might conclude, from that assertion, that your claim is true, but it isn't a position necessary to atheism.

ksg0245
03-25-2011, 08:08
But it does make an assertion as to the origins of the universe.

I know this will be difficult for you because several times I've asked for cites for your claims that didn't materialize, but could you please provide a cite for your assertion that atheism makes an assertion as to the origins of the universe? Maybe a dictionary definition, maybe a quote from an atheist saying something like "atheism asserts the Big Bang Theory is the purely and exclusively atheistic explanation for the origin of the Universe."

It theorizes, without proof, that there was no intelligent design involved in our creation.

No, it still doesn't; that doesn't change from moment to moment. It rejects the assertion that deities exist. The SCIENTIFIC theories are that the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution were involved in our "creation."

There is no proof one way or the other.

No proof of what? If there's "no proof one way or the other" deities exist, why consider the assertion at all?

It's not about argumentative technicalities. Some theists may accept the "big bang" theory as a possibility, but that does not explain the truth beyond further exploration.

It isn't an "argumentative technicality," at least not on my part. You repeatedly claim atheism makes "an assertion as to the origins of the universe." That is false; all atheism does is reject unsupported assertions of deities. Additionally, the generally accepted SCIENTIFIC (not atheist; there is a difference) explanation for the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang Theory, a theory which is not, as you once admitted, an atheist explanation.

So, once again, please, I beg you: since the BBT isn't an atheist explanation what IS the assertion atheism makes about the origin of the Universe? What "truth" is it beyond which you've explored?

Whatever the truth is, it is what it is. I choose to accept that, without pretending to know that I know the truth.

You pretend to know that atheism makes assertions about the origins of the Universe, so you've disproved your own assertion.

For those that have faith, and that faith leads them to be better people, well.......... I'm all for that.

If your beliefs lead you to be a worse person, a bad neighbor, or an indifferent being, well then, I'm not in support of that.

Logic and pragmatism rule.

They should, but they don't always.

Cavalry Doc
03-25-2011, 19:38
If you posed it as asking an atheist and a theist, and state that they both have an answer I would agree, but I still would not agree that it is a question that must be answered by religion.

There is no atheism bible -- or if there is perhaps I haven't received mine because I'm past due in my tithes -- that would answer such a question. There are no related questions at your atheist confirmation. An atheist may not accept any current theory on abiogenesis, but still have no reason to accept "god did it".

-ArtificialGrape

There is a very organized Atheist community. http://www.atheists.org/

:dunno:

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

I will admit that I believe that many agnostics incorrectly claim to be atheists. Agnosticism is a belief system where the participant admits that they don't know, Atheism is a belief where the decision has been made, although many seem to try to hide in the realm of passive explanation of their belief system in some sort of defensive ploy.

If you don't know, why would you give grief to those that say they do?
I don't know if there is or is not a god. I don't begrudge the atheists their belief, but I do take exception to their failure of logic.

If You know a thing that you accept as fact, that you cannot prove, and may not be provable, your position is not more credible than someone that comes to a different conclusion. Atheism and Theism are equally as credible.

Which is not so much to me. I see evidence both ways, either position could be right.

Cavalry Doc
03-25-2011, 19:40
I know this will be difficult for you because several times I've asked for cites for your claims that didn't materialize, but could you please provide a cite for your assertion that atheism makes an assertion as to the origins of the universe? Maybe a dictionary definition, maybe a quote from an atheist saying something like "atheism asserts the Big Bang Theory is the purely and exclusively atheistic explanation for the origin of the Universe."



No, it still doesn't; that doesn't change from moment to moment. It rejects the assertion that deities exist. The SCIENTIFIC theories are that the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution were involved in our "creation."



No proof of what? If there's "no proof one way or the other" deities exist, why consider the assertion at all?



It isn't an "argumentative technicality," at least not on my part. You repeatedly claim atheism makes "an assertion as to the origins of the universe." That is false; all atheism does is reject unsupported assertions of deities. Additionally, the generally accepted SCIENTIFIC (not atheist; there is a difference) explanation for the origin of the Universe is the Big Bang Theory, a theory which is not, as you once admitted, an atheist explanation.

So, once again, please, I beg you: since the BBT isn't an atheist explanation what IS the assertion atheism makes about the origin of the Universe? What "truth" is it beyond which you've explored?



You pretend to know that atheism makes assertions about the origins of the Universe, so you've disproved your own assertion.



They should, but they don't always.

Passive expression of a belief, does not change the destination.

Cavalry Doc
03-25-2011, 20:00
No, it doesn't. Atheism asserts only that there are no gods. You might conclude, from that assertion, that your claim is true, but it isn't a position necessary to atheism.

And the opposite assertion states that there was/is a Deity or Deities. The Theist may vary in their particular story or which deity/deities did what and when, but you get the picture. milk toast defenses don't really make a lot of sense to me.

Atheists believe there is/was not a deity(s) involved in our creation.


Neither position has proof, neither has more credibility. I respect both. Both may be right. But why not state it the way it is?

Animal Mother
03-25-2011, 22:25
And the opposite assertion states that there was/is a Deity or Deities. The Theist may vary in their particular story or which deity/deities did what and when, but you get the picture. milk toast defenses don't really make a lot of sense to me.

Atheists believe there is/was not a deity(s) involved in our creation.


Neither position has proof, neither has more credibility. I respect both. Both may be right. But why not state it the way it is? You're changing your argument. First it was, "It[atheism] theorizes, without proof, that there was no intelligent design involved in our creation." Now, it is, "Atheists believe there is/was not a deity(s) involved in our creation." Those are not the same claim. The second is true as a tautology. The first is not a requirement of the atheist position, nor is agreement with the Standard Model of cosmology or the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.

Cavalry Doc
03-26-2011, 15:20
You're changing your argument. First it was, "It[atheism] theorizes, without proof, that there was no intelligent design involved in our creation." Now, it is, "Atheists believe there is/was not a deity(s) involved in our creation." Those are not the same claim. The second is true as a tautology. The first is not a requirement of the atheist position, nor is agreement with the Standard Model of cosmology or the modern synthesis of evolutionary theory.


I'm only allowed to have one argument?? Must have missed that in the TOS. :dunno: Restating something using different words sometimes helps with understanding.


Here's another.

Was the universe, including us created with a design, by a designer, or not?

ArtificialGrape
03-26-2011, 17:03
Was the universe, including us created with a design, by a designer, or not?
So where are you taking this? Surely you're not mounting a god of th gaps argument and claiming that anywhere science lacks 100% certainty is filled by God. The obvious flaw is that as science explains more and more questions your God gets smaller and smaller and runs out of places to hide.

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
03-26-2011, 18:27
So where are you taking this? Surely you're not mounting a god of th gaps argument and claiming that anywhere science lacks 100% certainty is filled by God. The obvious flaw is that as science explains more and more questions your God gets smaller and smaller and runs out of places to hide.

-ArtificialGrape

Nope. I'm a real agnostic, and don't know. I don't pretend to know either.



Just saying that atheists have made a decision on what to believe, without any proof, which is a matter of faith, and it answers a rather profound question about our origins.

A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That's all.

steveksux
03-28-2011, 00:59
Nope. I'm a real agnostic, and don't know. I don't pretend to know either.



Just saying that atheists have made a decision on what to believe, without any proof, which is a matter of faith, and it answers a rather profound question about our origins. So according to that, before the Big Bang theory, atheism could NOT have been a religion? Since when are religions dependent on scientific theories? That's obviously a stupid idea.

A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That's all.[/QUOTE]Just like the Tooth Fairy. Another popular religion by that definition.

Of course, your own dictionary definition betrays you, so you're not really interested in definitions. The definition you rely on includes "Hockey is a religion in Canada" as an example. Clearly honest discussion of the topic is not on your agenda.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
03-28-2011, 17:08
http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs40/f/2009/013/d/9/The_Truth_Is_Out_There__Fast__by_westiepup.gif

ArtificialGrape
03-28-2011, 22:05
Cavalry Doc, you don't happen to have a $1 side bet going with somebody that you can keep a thread going for 50 pages? maybe 5000 replies?

-ArtificialGrape

Syclone538
03-28-2011, 22:33
...
Was the universe, including us created with a design, by a designer, or not?

Having no reason to believe in a designer other then that other people believe it, I'd have to say it's extremely unlikely to have been created with a design, by a designer.

...
Just saying that atheists have made a decision on what to believe, without any proof, which is a matter of faith,
...

Many atheists don't believe by default because of the absence of evidence, and that does not require faith. For me it wasn't even a decision, just the default position.

...
and it answers a rather profound question about our origins.
...

No it doesn't.

...
A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That's all.

A lack of belief, because of the absence of evidence. That's all. Show some evidence and many atheists would no longer hold that position at all. Is that ardor and faith?

ArtificialGrape
03-29-2011, 00:43
Having no reason to believe in a designer other then that other people believe it, I'd have to say it's extremely unlikely to have been created with a design, by a designer.


Many atheists don't believe by default because of the absence of evidence, and that does not require faith. For me it wasn't even a decision, just the default position.


No it doesn't.


A lack of belief, because of the absence of evidence. That's all. Show some evidence and many atheists would no longer hold that position at all. Is that ardor and faith?

All your points are spot-on. Unfortunately after over 1100 replies in this thread, we appear unlikely to get the point across.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Syclone538
03-29-2011, 02:47
All your points are spot-on. Unfortunately after over 1100 replies in this thread, we appear unlikely to get the point across.

cheers,
-ArtificialGrape

Yeah, I know. I've read maybe 1/4 of this thread, and it been explained very well more then once. Really not sure why I'm trying.

Syclone538
03-29-2011, 03:01
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg/220px-AtheismImplicitExplicit3.svg.png

A chart showing the relationship between the definitions of weak/strong and implicit/explicit atheism. Explicit strong/positive/hard atheists (in purple on the right) assert that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Explicit weak/negative/soft atheists (in blue on the right) reject or eschew belief that any deities exist without actually asserting that "at least one deity exists" is a false statement. Implicit weak atheists (in blue on the left) would include people (such as young children and some agnostics) who do not believe in a deity, but have not explicitly rejected such belief. (Sizes in the diagram are not meant to indicate relative sizes within a population.)


Implicit vs. explicit
Main article: Implicit and explicit atheism
Definitions of atheism also vary in the degree of consideration a person must put to the idea of gods to be considered an atheist. Atheism has sometimes been defined to include the simple absence of belief that any deities exist. This broad definition would include newborns and other people who have not been exposed to theistic ideas. As far back as 1772, Baron d'Holbach said that "All children are born Atheists; they have no idea of God."[37] Similarly, George H. Smith (1979) suggested that: "The man who is unacquainted with theism is an atheist because he does not believe in a god. This category would also include the child with the conceptual capacity to grasp the issues involved, but who is still unaware of those issues. The fact that this child does not believe in god qualifies him as an atheist."[38] Smith coined the term implicit atheism to refer to "the absence of theistic belief without a conscious rejection of it" and explicit atheism to refer to the more common definition of conscious disbelief. Ernest Nagel contradicts Smith's definition of atheism as merely "absence of theism", acknowledging only explicit atheism as true "atheism".[39]
[edit]

Positive vs. negative
Main article: Negative and positive atheism
Philosophers such as Antony Flew,[40] and Michael Martin,[33] have contrasted positive (strong/hard) atheism with negative (weak/soft) atheism. Positive atheism is the explicit affirmation that gods do not exist. Negative atheism includes all other forms of non-theism. According to this categorization, anyone who is not a theist is either a negative or a positive atheist.[41] The terms weak and strong are relatively recent, while the terms negative and positive atheism are of older origin, having been used (in slightly different ways) in the philosophical literature[40] and in Catholic apologetics.[42] Under this demarcation of atheism, most agnostics qualify as negative atheists.

While Martin, for example, asserts that agnosticism entails negative atheism,[33] most agnostics see their view as distinct from atheism, which they may consider no more justified than theism or requiring an equal conviction.[43] The assertion of unattainability of knowledge for or against the existence of gods is sometimes seen as indication that atheism requires a leap of faith.[44] Common atheist responses to this argument include that unproven religious propositions deserve as much disbelief as all other unproven propositions,[45] and that the unprovability of a god's existence does not imply equal probability of either possibility.[46] Scottish philosopher J. J. C. Smart even argues that "sometimes a person who is really an atheist may describe herself, even passionately, as an agnostic because of unreasonable generalised philosophical skepticism which would preclude us from saying that we know anything whatever, except perhaps the truths of mathematics and formal logic."[47] Consequently, some atheist authors such as Richard Dawkins prefer distinguishing theist, agnostic and atheist positions by the probability that each assigns to the statement "God exists".[48]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

Cavalry Doc
03-29-2011, 04:38
Cavalry Doc, you don't happen to have a $1 side bet going with somebody that you can keep a thread going for 50 pages? maybe 5000 replies?

-ArtificialGrape

Nope. No bets or any goals other than having the discussion.

Cavalry Doc
03-29-2011, 04:44
Having no reason to believe in a designer other then that other people believe it, I'd have to say it's extremely unlikely to have been created with a design, by a designer.



Many atheists don't believe by default because of the absence of evidence, and that does not require faith. For me it wasn't even a decision, just the default position.



No it doesn't.



A lack of belief, because of the absence of evidence. That's all. Show some evidence and many atheists would no longer hold that position at all. Is that ardor and faith?


So another person, that has been taught that the universe and earth was created, and has evaluated the evidence, and believes there is a God, but doesn't go to church, and rarely prays is just as slightly religious as the guy you describe.

It's the fundamental nature of the belief, ad the fact that there is no proof either way that logically describe atheists and theists as having a belief based on faith. Both conclusions are based on a normal human reaction to need to know. Once you get past that, and are willing to accept that some things are not yet known, and it's ok to admit that, then it's pretty easy to see that both destinations are just differing religious beliefs.

ksg0245
03-29-2011, 07:28
Passive expression of a belief, does not change the destination.

So, as with so many things, you won't bother presenting any evidence for your assertion that atheism makes assertions regarding the the origins of the universe. Thanks for clarifying.

ksg0245
03-29-2011, 07:40
Nope. I'm a real agnostic, and don't know. I don't pretend to know either.

Just saying that atheists have made a decision on what to believe, without any proof, which is a matter of faith, and it answers a rather profound question about our origins.

A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. That's all.

Which, as has been repeatedly explained to you, is wrong, no matter how many times you try to re-define it. EXACTLY in the same way claiming "I don't believe in Santa" (or any other unsupported assertion) is a "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" is wrong; claiming "Santa doesn't explain the origins of the universe" is a RED HERRING.

Smacktard
03-29-2011, 08:32
How can you say Santa, no how dare you say Santa isn't real without proof?! You're going to end up trampled to death by 8 tiny reindeer. Don't come crying to me when you end up being nothing but a red spot in the snow! That's what freewill will get you, so smarten up and believe like everybody else or else you know what mister.

Now I shall get on my knees and pray for all the misguided Santa Claus and Easter Bunny haters in this thread. You can thank me later.

Syclone538
03-29-2011, 11:04
So another person, that has been taught that the universe and earth was created, and has evaluated the evidence, and believes there is a God, but doesn't go to church, and rarely prays is just as slightly religious as the guy you describe.
...

The guy you describe is religious, or at least theist, believing in creation and a god on faith.

The guy I describe is not religious, not believing in creation and a god simply because he has never seen any evidence for a god or creation, and sees no reason to believe in it. Does not believe in a god, but doesn't necessarily believe there is no god. May or may not have any belief at all on the origin of the universe.


...
It's the fundamental nature of the belief, ad the fact that there is no proof either way that logically describe atheists and theists as having a belief based on faith. Both conclusions are based on a normal human reaction to need to know. Once you get past that, and are willing to accept that some things are not yet known, and it's ok to admit that, then it's pretty easy to see that both destinations are just differing religious beliefs.

Making an outrageous claim and offering no evidence at all does not give 50/50 odds of being true. It takes faith to believe something like that, and it doesn't take faith to not believe it.

Cavalry Doc
03-31-2011, 20:54
The guy you describe is religious, or at least theist, believing in creation and a god on faith.

The guy I describe is not religious, not believing in creation and a god simply because he has never seen any evidence for a god or creation, and sees no reason to believe in it. Does not believe in a god, but doesn't necessarily believe there is no god. May or may not have any belief at all on the origin of the universe.




Making an outrageous claim and offering no evidence at all does not give 50/50 odds of being true. It takes faith to believe something like that, and it doesn't take faith to not believe it.

Theists and Atheists are both religious. A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Proof or a lack of proof is not convincingly available either way.

Cavalry Doc
03-31-2011, 20:57
How can you say Santa, no how dare you say Santa isn't real without proof?! You're going to end up trampled to death by 8 tiny reindeer. Don't come crying to me when you end up being nothing but a red spot in the snow! That's what freewill will get you, so smarten up and believe like everybody else or else you know what mister.

Now I shall get on my knees and pray for all the misguided Santa Claus and Easter Bunny haters in this thread. You can thank me later.

It's a lot more logical to reserve judgment without proof. I know it's difficult to accept that atheism is just as much a fairy tale as theism is. Neither knows the ultimate truth, but both claim to know.

Cavalry Doc
03-31-2011, 20:59
Which, as has been repeatedly explained to you, is wrong, no matter how many times you try to re-define it. EXACTLY in the same way claiming "I don't believe in Santa" (or any other unsupported assertion) is a "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" is wrong; claiming "Santa doesn't explain the origins of the universe" is a RED HERRING.

It's not a re-defining, it's an accurate application of the definition.

I cannot take responsibility for those that cannot perform correct word usage within the thread.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

steveksux
03-31-2011, 22:00
It's not a re-defining, it's an accurate application of the definition.

I cannot take responsibility for those that cannot perform correct word usage within the thread.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Hockey is a religion in Canada...Where I live, high school football is religion.

Massive fail. guess who can't perform correct word usage in their own thread from their own link... :rofl:

Randy

ArtificialGrape
03-31-2011, 23:36
It's not a re-defining, it's an accurate application of the definition.

I cannot take responsibility for those that cannot perform correct word usage within the thread.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

Oh my god <-- little joke

We need an impartial auditor to come determine how many times this thread has gone full circle.


the burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim (there is a god)
rejection of an affirmative claim (rejecting "there is a god") is not its own affirmative claim
rejection of religion is not a religion
not playing baseball is not a sport
while atheism must reject the role of a god in creation, it does not posit its own cosmological view (regardless of how many atheists share a common view)
atheism does require any particular world view other than rejecting the belief in god/s
atheism has no dogmas, tenet, rituals
using the 4th string definition of religion "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" is meaningless in this argument as almost anything can be classified as a religion (apparently I belong to the Chili's-Has-The-Best-Chips-and-Salsa religion)


:deadhorse:

BTW, somebody claiming that they are agnostic does not let them off the hook in answering "do you believe in god?". Gnosis is whether or not you can "know" if there is a god -- it is outside of whether or not you believe in a god. So, are you an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist?

-ArtificialGrape

Animal Mother
04-01-2011, 00:33
using the 4th string definition of religion "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" is meaningless in this argument as almost anything can be classified as a religion (apparently I belong to the Chili's-Has-The-Best-Chips-and-Salsa religion) Heretic!! You say this only because you have not yet been admitted to the truth of Moreno's (http://www.morenosmexicangrill.com/).

Syclone538
04-01-2011, 00:35
Theists and Atheists are both religious. A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.
...

Could you explain your understanding of that so called system of beliefs?

...
Proof or a lack of proof is not convincingly available either way.

"Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun, it would be nonsense for him to expect others not to doubt him just because they could not prove him wrong."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

ArtificialGrape
04-01-2011, 00:40
Heretic!! You say this only because you have not yet been admitted to the truth of Moreno's (http://www.morenosmexicangrill.com/).
Can't help it -- it's the one that my parents taught me.

Smacktard
04-01-2011, 01:22
Claiming Atheism is a religion is just wishful thinking, and what's what the religious do best.

So keep wishing, maybe your dreams will all come true.

....

ksg0245
04-01-2011, 07:37
It's not a re-defining, it's an accurate application of the definition.

I cannot take responsibility for those that cannot perform correct word usage within the thread.


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

From your link:

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

Why is it, when it's pointed out to you that your misapplication of the definition (misapplied because atheism is not a cause, principle or system of beliefs, and it isn't held to with ardor and faith because it is susceptible to evidence) makes sports a religion, you suddenly object to the definition being used in the same way you're trying to apply it to atheism? And why is it, when the contradictions and flaws in your argument are pointed out, you just continue to repeat them?

dbcooper
04-01-2011, 12:48
Life is simply too complex to have happened without a design. Several organs and even simple structures require too many things to be in just the right place in order to function. A simple flagella requires several atoms to be arranged into molecules, those molecules into compounds, those compounds to be arranged in symmetrical structures with the remainder being suddenly apparent.

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/cells/ciliaandflagella/images/ciliaandflagellafigure1.jpg

Such a simple thing, is yet, so complex. Fill a jar with Blue, red, yellow and gray marbles. Shake them up. Stop when you see the pattern above. Now continue, until the jar is arranged in that pattern from top to bottom.

There are several intermediate steps that would make this very simple structure inoperative. This does not even begin to broach the complexity of an organism being able to selectively use this structure to get itself toward food, or away from danger.


On the other hand, there are several religions, most exclude the others, so which one is right? Which one really knows, or do any of them?



I'm only human. All I know for sure, is that several people in this thread aren't able to evaluate their belief system objectively.


The good old flagellar motor. That arguement ignores preadaptation. I.E. The function of the heart is to pump blood. The heart makes heart sounds but that is not it's function, the function is a subset of it's casual consequences and cannot be analyzed except in the context of the whole organism in it's environment,life cycle, and selective regime. A physicist (like the I.D. gent who likes to crunch numbers to explain irreducible complexity) can list all the casual properties of the heart with no way to pick which one is the relevant feature. A feature can exist that has no significance in one enviroment, but in a new environment it may have a selective signifigance. So with the flagellar motor a set of molecules could do A but be preadapted to do B in the presence of another molecule. And B may be preadapted to do C when another molecule comes along. So you end up with a sequence of preadaptations that led to the pre flagellar motor, and a few small changes leads to the motor with no design, just changes in functionallity in a series of small steps, in short my friend.. it evolved. Does that mean the is no God, nope. It does mean the creationists need to find another example, excuse me, find Any example of irreducible complexity.

As for the wind and the 747 or the watch on the ground. there are only two processes that can generate specified improbobility. Natural selection and Design. Only one of those starts from greatest simplicity, a Designer itself would be an extremely high level of specified improbibility.

For the record I'm agnostic

Syclone538
04-01-2011, 14:10
...

BTW, somebody claiming that they are agnostic does not let them off the hook in answering "do you believe in god?". Gnosis is whether or not you can "know" if there is a god -- it is outside of whether or not you believe in a god. So, are you an agnostic theist, or an agnostic atheist?

-ArtificialGrape

Since I doubt he will directly answer that question, I'm thinking it might be better to ask, what chance or odds would you give to the existence of a god or gods?

1/1,000,000
1/1000
1/10
2/10
3/10
ect

Personally, I'm thinking somewhere around 1/10,000.

dbcooper
04-01-2011, 15:08
I believe there is something beyond this life, what I do not or cannot know.

steveksux
04-01-2011, 16:48
Why is it, when it's pointed out to you that your misapplication of the definition (misapplied because atheism is not a cause, principle or system of beliefs, and it isn't held to with ardor and faith because it is susceptible to evidence) makes sports a religion, you suddenly object to the definition being used in the same way you're trying to apply it to atheism? And why is it, when the contradictions and flaws in your argument are pointed out, you just continue to repeat them?Because its his religion. His belief that atheism is a religion is a religious belief not supported by any facts or evidence, but believed with ardor and faith.

It wouldn't be a proper religion without contradicting itself in the written word and relying on wild interpretations of the holy book (Merriam-Webster in this case) to justify its tenets.

It may actually fit in the primary definition of religion. If hockey didn't exist in Canada people wouldn't be saying "Hockey is a religion in Canada". That is at least a fact based belief system, not one that is believed even when clearly shown to be contrary to the facts, or in the absence of any supporting factual information. Unlike the OPs odd beliefs on Atheism.

Of course, its still more of a Sears religion rather than a real religion, isn't it? Real religions can't be proven false at all, let alone so easily, and with the very "holy book" the "religion" is based upon.

So I suppose this is more of a strange obsession or psychosis than a religion.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 06:28
So, as with so many things, you won't bother presenting any evidence for your assertion that atheism makes assertions regarding the the origins of the universe. Thanks for clarifying.

It asserts that no deity was involved.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 06:33
The good old flagellar motor. That arguement ignores preadaptation. I.E. The function of the heart is to pump blood. The heart makes heart sounds but that is not it's function, the function is a subset of it's casual consequences and cannot be analyzed except in the context of the whole organism in it's environment,life cycle, and selective regime. A physicist (like the I.D. gent who likes to crunch numbers to explain irreducible complexity) can list all the casual properties of the heart with no way to pick which one is the relevant feature. A feature can exist that has no significance in one enviroment, but in a new environment it may have a selective signifigance. So with the flagellar motor a set of molecules could do A but be preadapted to do B in the presence of another molecule. And B may be preadapted to do C when another molecule comes along. So you end up with a sequence of preadaptations that led to the pre flagellar motor, and a few small changes leads to the motor with no design, just changes in functionallity in a series of small steps, in short my friend.. it evolved. Does that mean the is no God, nope. It does mean the creationists need to find another example, excuse me, find Any example of irreducible complexity.

As for the wind and the 747 or the watch on the ground. there are only two processes that can generate specified improbobility. Natural selection and Design. Only one of those starts from greatest simplicity, a Designer itself would be an extremely high level of specified improbibility.

For the record I'm agnostic

The flagella is a very simple structure. Try a kidney, or a mammalian eye. There are several intermediate structures that would not function. The possibility of a mutation being incompatible with procreation is much more possible, stopping the species dead in it's tracks. Accidents happen, no?

I see evidence of a design, and therefore a designer, but I also see the possibility that it really could have happened by accident. I don't feel compelled to pretend I know the truth.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 06:37
Since I doubt he will directly answer that question, I'm thinking it might be better to ask, what chance or odds would you give to the existence of a god or gods?

1/1,000,000
1/1000
1/10
2/10
3/10
ect

Personally, I'm thinking somewhere around 1/10,000.

Stick to the subject.

I'd probably say the probability is between 0 and 100%.

Why is there such a strong need to have an opinion on whether there is or is not, or was or was not a deity or deities. We are when we are, and we are what we are. Maybe we were designed by a designer, or maybe we just happened. Religious belief seeks answers to this question, atheists and theists are just on opposite sides of one of the earlier questions, that's all.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 06:40
From your link:

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

Why is it, when it's pointed out to you that your misapplication of the definition (misapplied because atheism is not a cause, principle or system of beliefs, and it isn't held to with ardor and faith because it is susceptible to evidence) makes sports a religion, you suddenly object to the definition being used in the same way you're trying to apply it to atheism? And why is it, when the contradictions and flaws in your argument are pointed out, you just continue to repeat them?

Atheism is a system of beliefs. They have no proof that there is no deity, that's the faith part. And if you do not believe that atheists hold to their faith with ardor, try convincing one to pray to a deity.

I'm really sorry you all can't see the simplicity of the application. The words, using their plain meanings fit. I guess it's another example of being blinded by faith.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 06:44
Could you explain your understanding of that so called system of beliefs?

www.athest.org

From their website.
What is Atheism?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that nothing exists but natural phenomena (matter), that thought is a property or function of matter, and that death irreversibly and totally terminates individual organic units. This definition means that there are no forces, phenomena, or entities which exist outside of or apart from physical nature, or which transcend nature, or are “super” natural, nor can there be. Humankind is on its own.

The following definition of atheism was given to the Supreme Court of the United States in the case of Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203, 83 S. Ct. 1560, 10 L.Ed.2d (MD, 1963), to remove reverential Bible reading and oral unison recitation of the Lord's Prayer in the public schools:

“Your petitioners are atheists and they define their beliefs as follows. An atheist loves his fellow man instead of god. An atheist believes that heaven is something for which we should work now – here on earth for all men together to enjoy.

An atheist believes that he can get no help through prayer but that he must find in himself the inner conviction and strength to meet life, to grapple with it, to subdue it, and enjoy it.

An atheist believes that only in a knowledge of himself and a knowledge of his fellow man can he find the understanding that will help to a life of fulfillment.

He seeks to know himself and his fellow man rather than to know a god. An atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanquished, war eliminated. He wants man to understand and love man.

He wants an ethical way of life. He believes that we cannot rely on a god or channel action into prayer nor hope for an end of troubles in a hereafter.

He believes that we are our brother's keepers and are keepers of our own lives; that we are responsible persons and the job is here and the time is now.”



"Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun, it would be nonsense for him to expect others not to doubt him just because they could not prove him wrong."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Whether or not a teapot is orbiting the sun is a trivial matter, and is not a foundational belief on which all others are effected.

Syclone538
04-02-2011, 09:33
Stick to the subject.

I'd probably say the probability is between 0 and 100%.

Why is there such a strong need to have an opinion on whether there is or is not, or was or was not a deity or deities. We are when we are, and we are what we are. Maybe we were designed by a designer, or maybe we just happened. Religious belief seeks answers to this question, atheists and theists are just on opposite sides of one of the earlier questions, that's all.

The subject is why you think atheism is a religion. I think most of the people in this thread are trying to help you understand it's not, so your opinion on deities is relevant.


...
Whether or not a teapot is orbiting the sun is a trivial matter, and is not a foundational belief on which all others are effected.

People believing in deities would be a trivial matter to me if it wasn't for the number of people that believe, and what some of them are willing to do in the name of their god.

ArtificialGrape
04-02-2011, 10:21
Atheism is a system of beliefs.
No, one more time. It is the rejection of a single belief -- "god(s) exist"

They have no proof that there is no deity, that's the faith part
Rejection of all the other dogma tied to "god(s) exist" is not a belief system -- you're just free of all that baggage. Every spin that you try to put on atheism having a belief is merely the rejection of another religious tenet.

Cavalry Doc: Atheism has faith there is no god.
Reality: Atheism rejects the religious tenet of god.

Cavalry Doc: Atheism believes there was no god involved in creation.
Reality: Atheism rejects the religious claim of Creation.

Cavalry Doc: Atheism believes there was no Hand of God in human biological development.
Reality: Again, atheism rejects the claim of Creation.

Just because religion carries a lot of dogma baggage that is discarded does not make atheism a belief system. This concept is not rocket surgery.

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim, but that's probably been pointed out 100+ times already in this thread.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
04-02-2011, 10:45
The flagella is a very simple structure. Try a kidney, or a mammalian eye. There are several intermediate structures that would not function. The possibility of a mutation being incompatible with procreation is much more possible, stopping the species dead in it's tracks. Accidents happen, no?
"Irreducible Complexity", a proposition of religion's Trojan Horse -- Intelligent Design -- has been thoroughly discredited.

In the trial of landmark Intelligent Design case 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term, gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity had been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and had been rejected by the scientific community at large."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139

If you care to educate yourself on the matter, the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) has over 80 reference citations, and plenty of other references.

I see evidence of a design, and therefore a designer, but I also see the possibility that it really could have happened by accident. I don't feel compelled to pretend I know the truth.
I think a first year med school student could improve the design of the human body. Why would an intelligent designer have our airway overlap with our food intake? This design feature is responsible for 66-77 choking deaths per year in the US alone for children under the age of 10. (WebMD article (http://children.webmd.com/news/20100222/group-aims-to-reduce-child-choking-deaths))

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 10:57
The subject is why you think atheism is a religion. I think most of the people in this thread are trying to help you understand it's not, so your opinion on deities is relevant.

I don't "think" it's a religion, it is, based on the normal and common use of the words used to define the word "religion". Most of the people in the thread are avoiding answering the original question, why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion? There has been a lot of squirming and misdirection, but the fact is that atheism is a fundamental belief. Whether life on earth was created or just happened is a pretty big deal.

I have very clearly stated multiple times that I believe that maybe there is/was a deity/deities, maybe not. Regardless of any of our opinions, reality is what it is. Theists propose our existence is by design, atheists propose that our existence happened without a design or designer, but is a result of natural phenomena. Both positions have multiple variables, and both are equally legitimate belief systems.

What do I believe? I believe I don't know whether a diety or deities exist or ever existed. I believe it's ok not to know.



People believing in deities would be a trivial matter to me if it wasn't for the number of people that believe, and what some of them are willing to do in the name of their god.

People have done bad things to one another as long as there have been people, this is regardless of any belief system. The excuses aren't really all that important. Plenty of evil has been conducted without concern for a god or the lack of one. Plenty has been conducted by theists, atheists & agnostics.

If you are looking for a common denominator for large & small scale bad deeds, you'll need to look farther than simply blaming a group you disagree with on an issue, even a fundamental one.

ksg0245
04-02-2011, 11:23
It asserts that no deity was involved.

No, it doesn't; atheism isn't cosmology and doesn't make any assertions about the origins of the Universe. Claiming it does demonstrates either misunderstanding or dishonesty, and since it's been explained to you, misunderstanding isn't the explanation for your claim.

Oh, by the way, repeating your claim isn't actually presenting evidence for your claim. I'd invite you to try again, but we both know there isn't any point, is there?

ksg0245
04-02-2011, 11:39
Atheism is a system of beliefs.

No, it's a lack of belief; a rejection of the assertion "deities exist." You've repeated your claim perhaps dozens of times now, and it still hasn't changed what atheism is.

They have no proof that there is no deity, that's the faith part.

No, that's the "why should I believe something for which there is no evidence" part. Do you have a good reason atheists should believe something for which there's no objective, verifiable evidence, or are you just asserting they should?

And if you do not believe that atheists hold to their faith with ardor, try convincing one to pray to a deity.

Do you pray? If not, is it because you "hold to your faith with ardor"? If you do, is it because you think it's a good idea "just in case"?

You won't answer those questions, you've proved that.

It doesn't take "ardor" to not pray to something one doesn't believe exists.

I'm really sorry you all can't see the simplicity of the application.

It isn't a matter of not seeing it; it's a matter of you being wrong and refusing to admit it. You insist on using a definition of religion that encompasses virtually any possible passion, and then when it's demonstrated that definition can applied to something that invalidates your argument, you move the goalpost.

The words, using their plain meanings fit.

Sure, since football is so well known as a religion.

I guess it's another example of being blinded by faith.

The irony, it burns.

ksg0245
04-02-2011, 11:49
I don't "think" it's a religion, it is, based on the normal and common use of the words used to define the word "religion".

Yes, in exactly the same way sports is a religion based on the normal and common use of the words used to define the word "religion."

Most of the people in the thread are avoiding answering the original question,

Nobody has avoided answering the question; you've avoided the answers and just repeated your claim.

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

Because it isn't, for the exact same reason you object to sports being called religion.

There has been a lot of squirming and misdirection,

Only from you.

but the fact is that atheism is a fundamental belief.

No, it still isn't; it's still the rejection of the assertion of deities based on the lack of evidence.

Whether life on earth was created or just happened is a pretty big deal.

Sure. Do you have any evidence it was created?

I have very clearly stated multiple times that I believe that maybe there is/was a deity/deities, maybe not.

No, you've said you don't know.

Regardless of any of our opinions, reality is what it is. Theists propose our existence is by design, atheists propose that our existence happened without a design or designer, but is a result of natural phenomena.

No, atheists propose that there's no evidence of deities. Most scientists propose our existence happened without a designer.

Both positions have multiple variables, and both are equally legitimate belief systems.

It is a legitimate belief system to believe something for which there is no evidence?

What do I believe? I believe I don't know whether a diety or deities exist or ever existed. I believe it's ok not to know.

You just refuse to allow atheists their lack of believe which they've based on the lack of evidence.

People have done bad things to one another as long as there have been people, this is regardless of any belief system. The excuses aren't really all that important. Plenty of evil has been conducted without concern for a god or the lack of one. Plenty has been conducted by theists, atheists & agnostics.

If you are looking for a common denominator for large & small scale bad deeds, you'll need to look farther than simply blaming a group you disagree with on an issue, even a fundamental one.

Something we both agree on.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 12:30
No, it doesn't; atheism isn't cosmology and doesn't make any assertions about the origins of the Universe. Claiming it does demonstrates either misunderstanding or dishonesty, and since it's been explained to you, misunderstanding isn't the explanation for your claim.

Oh, by the way, repeating your claim isn't actually presenting evidence for your claim. I'd invite you to try again, but we both know there isn't any point, is there?

Stick to the subject, and avoid trying to make oblique personal comments. It's a sign of character.

All the evidence needed is within the definition of the word, religion. If you disagree, your argument is with Merriam-Websters, not me.

Syclone538
04-02-2011, 12:53
...
Most of the people in the thread are avoiding answering the original question, why is it so hard to admit atheism is a religion?
...

Because we're not willing to lie to answer your question that is based on false pretenses.

ArtificialGrape
04-02-2011, 13:00
What do I believe? I believe I don't know whether a diety or deities exist or ever existed.
sounds to me like you're an agnostic atheist.

agnostic -- knowing is not possible
atheist -- reject claims of a deity (unless you can elaborate on a deity that you do accept)

Congratulations :supergrin:

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 13:43
sounds to me like you're an agnostic atheist.

agnostic -- knowing is not possible
atheist -- reject claims of a deity (unless you can elaborate on a deity that you do accept)

Congratulations :supergrin:

-ArtificialGrape

I think that's part of the problem, a correct scale between atheist and theist.

Atheist, atheistic agnostic, agnostic, theistic agnostic and theist is a more accurate gradient description. Those on the far ends have an answer they cannot prove, those in the middle have reserved judgement.

I'm pretty much a dead in the middle agnostic. There might have been a creator, but who knows?

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 13:56
Because we're not willing to lie to answer your question that is based on false pretenses.

False??? I simply made an observation, that is supported by a dictionary.

I think after this many pages, I'm starting to see there are several reasons it's hard to admit, depending on the individual.

Some are clearly anti-religion, and are uncomfortable admitting that atheism and theism are both based on an answer to a question that they cannot possibly know the answer too. Theists have faith their god exists, and probably REALLY hope they are right. Same with atheists.

Some are actually atheistic agnostics, and have mistakingly labeled themselves as atheist. Most of the passive expressions of belief seem more agnostic.

There are others, but that's a good start.

Syclone538
04-02-2011, 14:15
...
Some are actually atheistic agnostics,
...

Most I would imagine, certainly all that I know, and just about all that I've ever heard of.

...
and have mistakingly labeled themselves as atheist.
...

It's not a mistake, just incomplete.

Theist/atheist is if you believe.
Gnostic/agnostic is if you believe you can know.

I am atheist, I do not believe. I am also agnostic, I do not believe it can be known.

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 14:30
Most I would imagine, certainly all that I know, and just about all that I've ever heard of.



It's not a mistake, just incomplete.

Theist/atheist is if you believe.
Gnostic/agnostic is if you believe you can know.

I am atheist, I do not believe. I am also agnostic, I do not believe it can be known.


Do you believe it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed)?

That, at least in my humble opinion, is the difference.

steveksux
04-02-2011, 14:42
I don't "think"
QFT. Yes, we know. That's how you've managed to conclude atheism is a religion.

/thread

Randy

steveksux
04-02-2011, 14:49
False??? I simply made an observation, that is supported by a dictionary.The same dictionary that claims hockey is a religion in Canada.
I think after this many pages, I'm starting to see there are several reasons it's hard to admit, depending on the individual.The interesting question is why is it so hard for you to admit atheism is not a religion?

Your own cherished definition lists hockey and football as religions. Why is it so hard for you to admit football is a religion?

Religious bigotry is such an ugly phenomenon. It wouldn't surprise me in the least to hear you claim football fans don't go to Heaven. :rofl:

You can be saved, just accept Lombardi as your personal saviour!

Randy

ArtificialGrape
04-02-2011, 15:59
Theist/atheist is if you believe.
Gnostic/agnostic is if you believe you can know.

I am atheist, I do not believe. I am also agnostic, I do not believe it can be known.

Do you believe it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed)?

That, at least in my humble opinion, is the difference.

No difference -- that is covered by the gnosis ("knowing").

Could a deity have set the birth of the universe and mankind in motion over a bar bet with another deity, and left no evidence, and done nothing to reveal himself/herself in the following 14-15 million years? We can't know -- agnostic.

Even if you accept the God of Abraham, could that God have been created by MegaSuperÜber God who did not reveal himself/herself to the God of Abraham? It can't be known -- agnostic.

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 18:33
No difference -- that is covered by the gnosis ("knowing").

Could a deity have set the birth of the universe and mankind in motion over a bar bet with another deity, and left no evidence, and done nothing to reveal himself/herself in the following 14-15 million years? We can't know -- agnostic.

Even if you accept the God of Abraham, could that God have been created by MegaSuperÜber God who did not reveal himself/herself to the God of Abraham? It can't be known -- agnostic.

-ArtificialGrape



This is just a mild disagreement. Where you consider that to describe and agnostic atheist, I consider that a description of an atheistic agnostic.

Atheists have made the decision. You state that you have not, or that it is unknowable, so (and this is admittedly where I am assuming) at least possible (without the mildly humorous Bar meeting).

So, if pressed, you say that you firmly believe that there is or has been no deity or deities, then I'd agree you are an atheist.

If pressed, you say you really cannot be sure, but lean one way or the other, then in my humble opinion you are a mislabeled agnostic.

Welcome to the fold. http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/295/4/e/_forcehug__by_darkmoon3636.gif

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 18:39
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.

:dunno: I don't see the others responding to you either. Take a hint.

steveksux
04-02-2011, 19:59
:dunno: I don't see the others responding to you either. Take a hint.That's because I haven't been making stupid claims that beg to be corrected.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you. Take that hint... :rofl:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
04-02-2011, 20:26
steveksux
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6444/502616.gif

So how about dem bears.......

Maybe you could comment on a subject were you can refrain from attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Not sure if you are doing that now, but past experience has earned you a very rare place on my ignore list.

My suspicion is that you are continually violating the TOS in an attempt to either get the thread closed, or your current user name banned.

Which one would you prefer?

steveksux
04-02-2011, 20:33
steveksux
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.
http://img180.imageshack.us/img180/6444/502616.gif

So how about dem bears.......

Maybe you could comment on a subject were you can refrain from attacking the messenger instead of the message.

Not sure if you are doing that now, but past experience has earned you a very rare place on my ignore list.

My suspicion is that you are continually violating the TOS in an attempt to either get the thread closed, or your current user name banned.

Which one would you prefer?Hmmmm... making things up out of thin air based on not knowing what you're talking about.

That's certainly on topic for this thread based on your creative interpretation of the Merriam - Websters dictionary definition you've been dancing around to attempt to support your position. Except for when you're disavowing the same definition when it includes stuff like football and hockey and make your position look exactly as silly as it is...

I don't think using your own definitions against you, to make your position look foolish constitutes a personal attack. :dunno:

Randy

ArtificialGrape
04-02-2011, 20:47
This is just a mild disagreement. Where you consider that to describe and agnostic atheist, I consider that a description of an atheistic agnostic.

Atheists have made the decision. You state that you have not, or that it is unknowable, so (and this is admittedly where I am assuming) at least possible (without the mildly humorous Bar meeting).

So, if pressed, you say that you firmly believe that there is or has been no deity or deities, then I'd agree you are an atheist.

If pressed, you say you really cannot be sure, but lean one way or the other, then in my humble opinion you are a mislabeled agnostic.

Welcome to the fold. http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs12/i/2006/295/4/e/_forcehug__by_darkmoon3636.gif

Here's my take on it
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l591/ArtificialGrape/theism-agnosticism.jpg

I also believe answering "can be known" with "yes" lacks intellectual honesty on the part of both theists and atheists, so that really leaves agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

I disagree with the term atheistic agnostic because "atheistic" gives the impression of atheist tendencies, but lacking commitment. I reject * all * (no indecision whatsoever) claims of a god (atheist); however, like all negative claims, "there is no god" cannot be proven (agnostic).

BTW, yesterday I saw a horsicorn -- body of a unicorn with the head of a horse. Disprove :supergrin:

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
04-03-2011, 06:16
Here's my take on it
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l591/ArtificialGrape/theism-agnosticism.jpg

I also believe answering "can be known" with "yes" lacks intellectual honesty on the part of both theists and atheists, so that really leaves agnostic theists and agnostic atheists.

I disagree with the term atheistic agnostic because "atheistic" gives the impression of atheist tendencies, but lacking commitment. I reject * all * (no indecision whatsoever) claims of a god (atheist); however, like all negative claims, "there is no god" cannot be proven (agnostic).

BTW, yesterday I saw a horsicorn -- body of a unicorn with the head of a horse. Disprove :supergrin:

-ArtificialGrape

Our disagreement is on which is the adjective, and which is the noun.

Your approach is digital, mine is analog. More of a sliding scale between those that are sure the know the answer on opposing sides, and the gradients within.

Atheist >> atheistic agnostic >> agnostic << theistic agnostic << theist.


On the horsicorn thing, I'd approach that the same way I do religion. If you believe that you saw one, and that makes you happy and motivates you to do good things, then good for you. If others doubt the existence of your horsicorn, that's their right. No one should prevent you from wearing a picture of a horsicorn on a t-shirt to school, or a T shirt that says they don't exist, or that another animal is better. Ideas can be expressed. Horsicorn believers should not be saying that non-believers should be beheaded, or damning them to hell. Non-believers should respect the right of others to believe, and be polite about it.

By the way, did you get a photo, that right there could be worth some money.

ksg0245
04-03-2011, 08:36
That's because I haven't been making stupid claims that beg to be corrected.

I don't see anyone agreeing with you. Take that hint... :rofl:

Randy

Responding to Randy to demonstrate to CD that I tend to not respond to people I agree with, since we agree.

ksg0245
04-03-2011, 09:04
Stick to the subject, and avoid trying to make oblique personal comments.

Not an oblique comment; a direct one. The subject at that moment was you repeating an assertion, rather than providing evidence for that assertion, and my concluding since that's what you've done in the past, you're likely to do so in the future.

It's a sign of character.

So is providing evidence for one's assertions and not rolling one's goalposts around the playing field. Or even accepting the answers one gets, rather than rejecting them because they weren't what was hoped for and then claiming they weren't given.

All the evidence needed is within the definition of the word, religion. If you disagree, your argument is with Merriam-Websters, not me.

No, as I've said all along, my disagreement is with you arbitrarily misapplying or disallowing definitions as it suits your purpose, which is especially ironic since you keep playing the "I'm just using the dictionary definition" card while insisting atheism and agnosticism address the same subject.

You refute your own argument when you insist football or hockey or whatever isn't a religion by defining religion as "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith;" if you're going to insist on applying it in one case, you don't get to object when it's applied in another equivalent case. You compound that problem by claiming "atheists know God doesn't exist" despite the fact you can't support that definition with any cites and have actual atheists telling you that isn't the case. Neither of those difficulties originate in the dictionary.

ksg0245
04-03-2011, 09:10
I think that's part of the problem, a correct scale between atheist and theist.

Because they're two related but still discrete scales.

Atheist, atheistic agnostic, agnostic, theistic agnostic and theist is a more accurate gradient description. Those on the far ends have an answer they cannot prove, those in the middle have reserved judgement.

This will again fall on deaf ears, but could you please provide a cite for your definition of atheism as knowing deities don't exist? Or even a cited definition of theism as knowing deities exist?

I'm pretty much a dead in the middle agnostic. There might have been a creator, but who knows?

Now if you could just answer the question of whether you believe there is or not, and avoid the whole "I believe I don't know" dodge.

ksg0245
04-03-2011, 09:16
Our disagreement is on which is the adjective, and which is the noun.

Your approach is digital, mine is analog. More of a sliding scale between those that are sure the know the answer on opposing sides, and the gradients within.

Atheist >> atheistic agnostic >> agnostic << theistic agnostic << theist.

Please provide a cite for the definition of atheism as "knowing deities do not exist."

On the horsicorn thing, I'd approach that the same way I do religion. If you believe that you saw one, and that makes you happy and motivates you to do good things, then good for you. If others doubt the existence of your horsicorn, that's their right. No one should prevent you from wearing a picture of a horsicorn on a t-shirt to school, or a T shirt that says they don't exist, or that another animal is better. Ideas can be expressed. Horsicorn believers should not be saying that non-believers should be beheaded, or damning them to hell. Non-believers should respect the right of others to believe, and be polite about it.

By the way, did you get a photo, that right there could be worth some money.

Syclone538
04-03-2011, 10:40
Do you believe it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed)?

That, at least in my humble opinion, is the difference.

Yes I believe it is possible.

ArtificialGrape
04-03-2011, 10:46
Our disagreement is on which is the adjective, and which is the noun.

Your approach is digital, mine is analog. More of a sliding scale between those that are sure the know the answer on opposing sides, and the gradients within.

Atheist >> atheistic agnostic >> agnostic << theistic agnostic << theist.
The problem with initial question of this thread, "Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion?", is that any answer must support the conclusion stated in the question -- "atheism is a religion".

This is no better than asking somebody why they won't answer, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

My 2 question quiz, each with 2 possible answers, is not at all misleading. Many here have already answered.

1. do you believe god(s) exist?
2. can you prove that your answer to 1. is correct?

Pleading "agnostic" based on your previous responses is just a refusal to answer question 1.

-ArtificialGrape

Japle
04-03-2011, 18:03
This thread demonstrates two examples of insanity.

1. CD repeatedly claims Atheism is a religion, expecting every time that others will agree with him.

2. Others tell CD he’s wrong, expecting every time that CD will finally see that he’s wrong.

In both cases, people are doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
That’s insane.

Or (and this is what I think is really going on) CD is simply trolling, trying to drag this ridiculous thread out for as long as he can, while others fruitlessly feed his trollism.

Is trollism a religion? :yawn:

Smacktard
04-03-2011, 22:35
This thread demonstrates two examples of insanity.

1. CD repeatedly claims Atheism is a religion, expecting every time that others will agree with him.

2. Others tell CD he’s wrong, expecting every time that CD will finally see that he’s wrong.

In both cases, people are doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
That’s insane.

Or (and this is what I think is really going on) CD is simply trolling, trying to drag this ridiculous thread out for as long as he can, while others fruitlessly feed his trollism.

Is trollism a religion? :yawn:



Japle, this thread is not an example of trollism, it is a desperate attempt of the religious to feel better about themselves and reconcile their foolish beliefs with reality. Too bad it won't work.

...

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 04:41
This thread demonstrates two examples of insanity.

1. CD repeatedly claims Atheism is a religion, expecting every time that others will agree with him.

2. Others tell CD he’s wrong, expecting every time that CD will finally see that he’s wrong.

In both cases, people are doing the same thing over and over, expecting a different result.
That’s insane.

Or (and this is what I think is really going on) CD is simply trolling, trying to drag this ridiculous thread out for as long as he can, while others fruitlessly feed his trollism.

Is trollism a religion? :yawn:

It's a sign that you have nothing to add to a conversation when you attack the participants.

It's a conversation, if you don't like it, don't participate.

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 04:47
Japle, this thread is not an example of trollism, it is a desperate attempt of the religious to feel better about themselves and reconcile their foolish beliefs with reality. To bad it won't work.

...

You haven't been paying attention. I'm a middle of the road agnostic. If that's a religion, ok. I'm cool with that.

It's not my fault if the realization by overly zealous atheists that believe it is their personal mission in life to erase all mention of religion and to ridicule believers in unsupported beliefs, are also believers in an unsupported belief.

Faith, ardor. The truth is, firmly believing there is no god, is just as logical as firmly believing there is one. No more, no less.

It's interesting for an agnostic to observe, especially since my own opinion is that either belief system is ok to have. It's the religious fanatics (theist or atheist) that you have to watch out for, because they lose their ability to be polite.

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 04:54
The problem with initial question of this thread, "Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion?", is that any answer must support the conclusion stated in the question -- "atheism is a religion".

This is no better than asking somebody why they won't answer, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

My 2 question quiz, each with 2 possible answers, is not at all misleading. Many here have already answered.

1. do you believe god(s) exist?
2. can you prove that your answer to 1. is correct?

Pleading "agnostic" based on your previous responses is just a refusal to answer question 1.

-ArtificialGrape

First, I stopped beating my wife before I ever had an opportunity to do so.

Second, your "yes or no" question has more than two answers.

I believe it's possible that a god or gods exist, or existed.
I believe it may be possible to know for sure, but I personally do not.

It's a question that can be validly answered yes, no or maybe.

ksg0245
04-04-2011, 05:15
First, I stopped beating my wife before I ever had an opportunity to do so.

Second, your "yes or no" question has more than two answers.

I believe it's possible that a god or gods exist, or existed.
I believe it may be possible to know for sure, but I personally do not.

It's a question that can be validly answered yes, no or maybe.

As you've done every time you've been asked that question, you ignored it, made up your own questions, and answered those. The question wasn't "Do you believe it's possible deities exist," nor was it "Do you believe it's possible to know whether deities exist."

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 05:27
As you've done every time you've been asked that question, you ignored it, made up your own questions, and answered those. The question wasn't "Do you believe it's possible deities exist," nor was it "Do you believe it's possible to know whether deities exist."


Maybe you need to read what AG wrote again??? :dunno:


The problem with initial question of this thread, "Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion?", is that any answer must support the conclusion stated in the question -- "atheism is a religion".

This is no better than asking somebody why they won't answer, "when did you stop beating your wife?"

My 2 question quiz, each with 2 possible answers, is not at all misleading. Many here have already answered.

1. do you believe god(s) exist?
2. can you prove that your answer to 1. is correct?

Pleading "agnostic" based on your previous responses is just a refusal to answer question 1.

-ArtificialGrape

First, I stopped beating my wife before I ever had an opportunity to do so.

Second, your "yes or no" question has more than two answers.

(1.)I believe it's possible that a god or gods exist, or existed.
(2.)I believe it may be possible to know for sure, but I personally do not.

It's a question that can be validly answered yes, no or maybe.

I believe that it may be possible to know.

If a large face lit up the sky above japan, and said, oops, my bad. I didn't mean to make that quake quite that large, and then all the radiation was gone, and all those who died were brought back to life, and all the sick were healed, well, I'd have to seriously consider changing my own ideas about what is and what is not, regardless of whose face it was....


If you don't like the answers I'm giving, or they upset you , you don't have to read them. They have this cool ignore system here, and you can put me on your ignore list, and I'll never bother you again. Ask Steve, he can tell you how well it works.

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

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 05:58
Because they're two related but still discrete scales.



This will again fall on deaf ears, but could you please provide a cite for your definition of atheism as knowing deities don't exist? Or even a cited definition of theism as knowing deities exist?



Now if you could just answer the question of whether you believe there is or not, and avoid the whole "I believe I don't know" dodge.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist?show=0&t=1301918272


Sometimes "Maybe" is the most correct answer to a "yes or no" question.

ksg0245
04-04-2011, 08:53
Maybe you need to read what AG wrote again??? :dunno:

Did you? Was the question "Do you believe it's possible deities exist?" Because when I read it, I didn't see the words "it's possible" included.

I believe that it may be possible to know.

Yes, you've answered that particular question of yours several times.

If a large face lit up the sky above japan, and said, oops, my bad. I didn't mean to make that quake quite that large, and then all the radiation was gone, and all those who died were brought back to life, and all the sick were healed, well, I'd have to seriously consider changing my own ideas about what is and what is not, regardless of whose face it was....


If you don't like the answers I'm giving, or they upset you , you don't have to read them. They have this cool ignore system here, and you can put me on your ignore list, and I'll never bother you again. Ask Steve, he can tell you how well it works.

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

Your answers are fine and dandy, they just aren't answers to the questions you've been asked. Which, as I've mentioned, is ironic, since you keep claiming your question regarding atheism being a religion hasn't been answered when in fact it has been, clearly and repeatedly, by many people.

RC-RAMIE
04-04-2011, 09:13
Maybe you need to read what AG wrote again??? :dunno:






I believe that it may be possible to know.

If a large face lit up the sky above japan, and said, oops, my bad. I didn't mean to make that quake quite that large, and then all the radiation was gone, and all those who died were brought back to life, and all the sick were healed, well, I'd have to seriously consider changing my own ideas about what is and what is not, regardless of whose face it was....


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

So would Atheist

ksg0245
04-04-2011, 09:17
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist

Apparently you haven't read that definition, so I'll cut and paste it for you.

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

Most recently, you claimed

I asked you to support that claim, that atheists "are sure they know the answer."

The cite you provided: "one who believes that there is no deity."

I don't see anything in the cite you provided that implicitly or explicitly says anything like "an atheist is one who knows that there is no deity."

And yet, you keep making the claim. I expect you'll continue to do so.

To be fair, I have seen some very few atheists claim they know. That doesn't change the definition of the term, though.

[url]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/theist?show=0&t=1301918272 ("http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17156664&postcount=1220""Your approach is digital, mine is analog. More of a sliding scale between those that are sure the know the answer on opposing sides, and the gradients within."[/url)

Cut and pasted: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Same problem here; the cite you provided doesn't say theism is "one who knows a deity or deities exist."

It's almost like a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith for you.

Sometimes "Maybe" is the most correct answer to a "yes or no" question.

Not for someone trying to be precise, it isn't.

Vic777
04-04-2011, 09:18
I was gonna say it's because we have a language and dictionaries and words have meanings and we can't progress in a discussion if we can't even agree on the meanings of words. So, I asked my better half, "Is Atheism a Religion?", she said "Yes", so I decided to stay out of the discussion. OK, let's say Atheism is a Religion, now, what's your point?

Syclone538
04-04-2011, 11:06
The flagella is a very simple structure. Try a kidney, or a mammalian eye. There are several intermediate structures that would not function.
...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye


www.athest.org

From their website.

What is Atheism?

Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies...



What do you mean when you say "their"?

But yeah, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. But you don't necessarily have to replace that lack of belief with a belief in anything else.

ArtificialGrape explained it better than I could have in post 1198.

...
...
People believing in deities would be a trivial matter to me if it wasn't for the number of people that believe, and what some of them are willing to do in the name of their god.

People have done bad things to one another as long as there have been people, this is regardless of any belief system. The excuses aren't really all that important. Plenty of evil has been conducted without concern for a god or the lack of one. Plenty has been conducted by theists, atheists & agnostics.

If you are looking for a common denominator for large & small scale bad deeds, you'll need to look farther than simply blaming a group you disagree with on an issue, even a fundamental one.

I'm just saying I think it's odd that such a large percentage of the population would believe something that seems to have been invented to answer scientific questions that can't be answered yet, and I think there have been more religious suicide bombers than atheist suicide bombers. I'm not saying that people who are atheist haven't done bad things.



...
Some are actually atheistic agnostics, and have mistakingly labeled themselves as atheist.
...

I didn't catch this when I responded to it. I took it to mean atheist agnostic.



Our disagreement is on which is the adjective, and which is the noun.
...

They are both nouns.

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 11:54
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
But yeah, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. But you don't necessarily have to replace that lack of belief with a belief in anything else.

ArtificialGrape explained it better than I could have in post 1198.

I'm glad that you brought up both the Evolution of the Eye (common irreducible complexity argument), and message 1198 (baggage), since it stands out to me that neither of these has been addressed by Calvary Doc since I posted them.

No, one more time. It is the rejection of a single belief -- "god(s) exist"
Rejection of all the other dogma tied to "god(s) exist" is not a belief system -- you're just free of all that baggage. Every spin that you try to put on atheism having a belief is merely the rejection of another religious tenet.

Cavalry Doc: Atheism has faith there is no god.
Reality: Atheism rejects the religious tenet of god.

Cavalry Doc: Atheism believes there was no god involved in creation.
Reality: Atheism rejects the religious claim of Creation.

Cavalry Doc: Atheism believes there was no Hand of God in human biological development.
Reality: Again, atheism rejects the claim of Creation.

Just because religion carries a lot of dogma baggage that is discarded does not make atheism a belief system. This concept is not rocket surgery.

Burden of proof is always on the affirmative claim, but that's probably been pointed out 100+ times already in this thread.

"Irreducible Complexity", a proposition of religion's Trojan Horse -- Intelligent Design -- has been thoroughly discredited.

In the trial of landmark Intelligent Design case 2005 Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, biochemistry professor Michael Behe, the originator of the term, gave testimony on the subject of irreducible complexity. The court found that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity had been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and had been rejected by the scientific community at large."
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District/4:Whether_ID_Is_Science#Page_79_of_139

If you care to educate yourself on the matter, the wiki article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity) has over 80 reference citations, and plenty of other references.

I think a first year med school student could improve the design of the human body. Why would an intelligent designer have our airway overlap with our food intake? This design feature is responsible for 66-77 choking deaths per year in the US alone for children under the age of 10. (WebMD article (http://children.webmd.com/news/20100222/group-aims-to-reduce-child-choking-deaths))

Beware Owner
04-04-2011, 12:11
I think that atheism is a religion because atheists believe in a nonexistence that cannot be proved.

Sarge1400
04-04-2011, 16:16
I think that atheism is a religion because atheists believe in a nonexistence that cannot be proved.

Do you believe in Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Zeus?

If not, does that make your nonbelief a religion? Hint: by your logic it does.

Japle
04-04-2011, 18:33
Posted by Smacktard:
Japle, this thread is not an example of trollism, it is a desperate attempt of the religious to feel better about themselves and reconcile their foolish beliefs with reality. Too bad it won't work.

Of course it won’t work. That’s my point. That’s been demonstrated time after time after time after time after time after time ad infinitum.

The thread is nothing except :brickwall: repeated endlessly.

I have nothing to contribute except to point out that, for many pages now, no one has had anything to contribute.

And I don’t expect it to stop.

Please do continue. :deadhorse:

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:01
Apparently you haven't read that definition, so I'll cut and paste it for you.

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

Most recently, you claimed [url="http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17156664&postcount=1220""Your approach is digital, mine is analog. More of a sliding scale between those that are sure the know the answer on opposing sides, and the gradients within."[/url]

I asked you to support that claim, that atheists "are sure they know the answer."

The cite you provided: "one who believes that there is no deity."

I don't see anything in the cite you provided that implicitly or explicitly says anything like "an atheist is one who knows that there is no deity."

And yet, you keep making the claim. I expect you'll continue to do so.

To be fair, I have seen some very few atheists claim they know. That doesn't change the definition of the term, though.



Cut and pasted: "belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically : belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world"

Same problem here; the cite you provided doesn't say theism is "one who knows a deity or deities exist."

It's almost like a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith for you.



Not for someone trying to be precise, it isn't.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Hg8DRS8mYqM/TYGVyp9VZKI/AAAAAAAADJ0/fYgd41pwEW0/s1600/split_ends.gif


Splitting hairs is complicated.


So lets pose the same digital questions to you.
1. do you believe god(s) exist?
2. can you prove that your answer to 1. is correct?

I am interested to see your responses, or lack of them.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:05
I think that atheism is a religion because atheists believe in a nonexistence that cannot be proved.

Logical.

http://www3.images.coolspotters.com/photos/98393/leonard-nimoy-and-hollywood-walk-of-fame-gallery.jpg

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:07
I was gonna say it's because we have a language and dictionaries and words have meanings and we can't progress in a discussion if we can't even agree on the meanings of words. So, I asked my better half, "Is Atheism a Religion?", she said "Yes", so I decided to stay out of the discussion. OK, let's say Atheism is a Religion, now, what's your point?

It is you know.......


But the radical practitioners have a hard time admitting it.


:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:12
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye




What do you mean when you say "their"?

But yeah, atheism is the lack of belief in a deity. But you don't necessarily have to replace that lack of belief with a belief in anything else.

ArtificialGrape explained it better than I could have in post 1198.



I'm just saying I think it's odd that such a large percentage of the population would believe something that seems to have been invented to answer scientific questions that can't be answered yet, and I think there have been more religious suicide bombers than atheist suicide bombers. I'm not saying that people who are atheist haven't done bad things..

What is the body count between Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao, Khmer rouge.....

The common denominator is humans, not "belief in a deity".

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:20
I'm glad that you brought up both the Evolution of the Eye (common irreducible complexity argument), and message 1198 (baggage), since it stands out to me that neither of these has been addressed by Calvary Doc since I posted them.





That's funny. Pretending that a first year medical student could design a better body.

You obviously have no idea how many people they would kill every year without close and informed supervision.

http://www.flutrackers.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=268&d=1147143112



All of the brainpower over the entire course of human existence has explained our existence.

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:23
This message is hidden because Sarge1400 is on your ignore list.


lo siento, pero eso es su problema.

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 19:26
sounds to me like you're an agnostic atheist.

agnostic -- knowing is not possible
atheist -- reject claims of a deity (unless you can elaborate on a deity that you do accept)

Congratulations :supergrin:

-ArtificialGrape



But I think knowing IS possible.

And I think it's possible that there is(were) deities (a deity).


Just because I don't know which ones, or whether or not they still exist or existed, does not negate their possibility of existence.



:dunno:

It does not prove it either.



Do you have proof?