Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 6 - 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

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 19:54
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.
so let's break it down a little further and see if we can get a question you will answer... all possibility aside, is there a current deity that you acknowledge as divine?

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 20:10
What is the body count between Lenin, Stalin, Tito, Mao, Khmer rouge.....

The common denominator is humans, not "belief in a deity".

:wavey:

I've already argued against the suggestion of a causal relationship between atheist dictators and their atrocities.

You can find the post here (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17127065&postcount=77)

ArtificialGrape wrote:
Morality does not require belief in a god. Atheism, and this seems to be a real stumbling block for people on this forum, is merely the belief that there is no god. Atheism has no dogma, holy writ, tenets, etc. Atheism is not a cause for action.

Your argument requires 2 assumptions: (1) belief in God causes people to act morally, and (2) without God people act immorally. This is contradicted by theists that do commit atrocities, and atheists that do not.

Let’s take a minute to read that again, “this is contradicted by theists that do commit atrocities, and atheists that do not.” There must be differences, outside of a belief in god, that explains why there are atheists that do (and atheists that do not) commit atrocities, and theists that do (and theists that do not) commit atrocities -- their own sense of values (or morals). So, if we cannot conclude that a theist committing atrocities is because of their belief in God, we cannot conclude that an atheist committing atrocities is because of their lack of belief in God.

The millions that died at the hands of the dictators that you mention, did not die because those leaders were too rational, too skeptical, and unwilling to accept claims without evidence. In fact, these totalitarian leaders have more in common with religion -- with the leader serving in the role of God -- and having their own dogma and ideology that must be obeyed without question.

These atrocities, even when perpetuated against religion and the religious, were not committed in the name of atheism, rather the organization of churches/religion was a threat to these dictator's regimes that had to be dealt with.

-ArtificialGrape

Dalton Wayne
04-04-2011, 20:17
The real question is why is this thread still alive?:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 20:26
so let's break it down a little further and see if we can get a question you will answer... all possibility aside, is there a current deity that you acknowledge as divine?

-ArtificialGrape

Go ahead and keep painting, but I'm not going to end up in the corner.


I honestly believe that it is possibly that intelligent design is true, and I honestly believe that it is possible that all of "this" just happened.


There is no proof either way, there are several competing arguments, but none of them are absolutely convincing.

That being the case, I simply made the logical step of reserving judgment, until convincing evidence was available. I don't know whether a diety(s) exist(ed).

I'm cool with that, why is that so hard to understand??? Another thread???


I will say that the last several times I have been in a church, it was to vote.

I respect people that believe though. Whether they believe in a deity or not. Both are valid choices. I have reserved judgment, but do not believe that others that made a different choice are any less honest than I am. All of us look at what is out there, and take a position. Mine is not digital, it is analog. In the absence of convincing evidence one way or the other, I choose not to choose. For me, and me alone, it seems like a reasonable choice. I respect the choices of others.

Just like any other religious fanatic, it is difficult for them to see how anyone could possibly choose differently than them.

Think about that for a while.:dunno:

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 20:28
The real question is why is this thread still alive?:dunno:

Why is that?


Is it profound enough to wonder whether a deity exists, or has ever existed?

It's a question that we all wish we knew the answer too. Some think they know the answer, others do not.

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 20:29
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.
Great point, thanks for making that. Let me rephrase, "even 1st year med school students, who would kill countless people without close and informed supervision, could design a better body" -- that definitely makes the point better :supergrin:

Back to the body, does the way that our airway overlaps with our digestive system leading to dozens of choking deaths in children yearly in the United States alone support Intelligent Design from an omnipotent/omniscient God?

Regarding the eye, in humans (mammals really) the optic nerve passes through the retina causing a blind spot that our brain compensates for by hallucinating what cannot be seen. We go through life hallucinating part of our visual field. This is not the case in the eye of the octopus. I'm thinking that the 2 most likely explanations (though I'm sure others will present their own), is 1) He likes octopuses more, or 2) they evolved separately.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 20:31
The real question is why is this thread still alive?:dunno:
Like the cockroach it has adapted through evolution.

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 20:35
I've already disproved the suggestion of a causal relationship between atheist dictators and their atrocities.

You can find the post here (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17127065&postcount=77)

ArtificialGrape wrote:
Morality does not require belief in a god. Atheism, and this seems to be a real stumbling block for people on this forum, is merely the belief that there is no god. Atheism has no dogma, holy writ, tenets, etc. Atheism is not a cause for action.

Your argument requires 2 assumptions: (1) belief in God causes people to act morally, and (2) without God people act immorally. This is contradicted by theists that do commit atrocities, and atheists that do not.

Let’s take a minute to read that again, “this is contradicted by theists that do commit atrocities, and atheists that do not.” There must be differences, outside of a belief in god, that explains why there are atheists that do (and atheists that do not) commit atrocities, and theists that do (and theists that do not) commit atrocities -- their own sense of values (or morals). So, if we cannot conclude that a theist committing atrocities is because of their belief in God, we cannot conclude that an atheist committing atrocities is because of their lack of belief in God.

The millions that died at the hands of the dictators that you mention, did not die because those leaders were too rational, too skeptical, and unwilling to accept claims without evidence. In fact, these totalitarian leaders have more in common with religion -- with the leader serving in the role of God -- and having their own dogma and ideology that must be obeyed without question.

These atrocities, even when perpetuated against religion and the religious, were not committed in the name of atheism, rather the organization of churches/religion was a threat to these dictator's regimes that had to be dealt with.

-ArtificialGrape


What??:shocked: Really?:upeyes:

You've disproved a causal relationship between atheist dictators and their atrocities???

If they did it, and they brought it about, how could you possibly disprove the truth? It happened, they were instrumental in enacting their atrocities, and they just happened to be atheists.....







You'll have to excuse me while I go back and re-examine your posts.... for other logic mistakes.

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 20:46
What??:shocked: Really?:upeyes:

You've disproved a causal relationship between atheist dictators and their atrocities??
Fair enough, I deserved that for poor choice of words -- I already "argued the relationship"?, "disputed the relationship"?

Wording aside, what do you dispute with the argument presented?

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 20:47
Great point, thanks for making that. Let me rephrase, "even 1st year med school students, who would kill countless people without close and informed supervision, could design a better body" -- that definitely makes the point better :supergrin:

Back to the body, does the way that our airway overlaps with our digestive system leading to dozens of choking deaths in children yearly in the United States alone support Intelligent Design from an omnipotent/omniscient God?

Regarding the eye, in humans (mammals really) the optic nerve passes through the retina causing a blind spot that our brain compensates for by hallucinating what cannot be seen. We go through life hallucinating part of our visual field. This is not the case in the eye of the octopus. I'm thinking that the 2 most likely explanations (though I'm sure others will present their own), is 1) He likes octopuses more, or 2) they evolved separately.

-ArtificialGrape

Dozens among billions that survive?

http://www.sigmaaldrich.com/img/assets/4202/MetabolicPathways_6_17_04_.pdf

http://www.di.unipi.it/~braccia/ToolCode/

http://cssb.biology.gatech.edu/images/pred-pathway.jpg

http://1cellpk.wikispaces.com/file/view/altered_transport_systems.gif/32888015/altered_transport_systems.gif



It's all so simple..... Or not.

ArtificialGrape
04-04-2011, 20:51
You'll have to excuse me while I go back and re-examine your posts.... for other logic mistakes.
When you get back, let me know what you found.

Cavalry Doc
04-04-2011, 20:52
Fair enough, I deserved that for poor choice of words -- I already "argued the relationship"?, "disputed the relationship"?

Wording aside, what do you dispute with the argument presented?

:wavey: Glad we can still be friends.




I dispute that atheists have a more intellectually honorable position than theists have.


Both pick sides on a question. They are both sure they are right. They both have many arguments. In my humble opinion, neither of them have proof, but have the right to believe what they want to believe.

Sarge1400
04-04-2011, 21:15
lo siento, pero eso es su problema.

pinche puta :tongueout:

The rest of you can carry on, but I'm done looking at this thread. It's patently obvious that CD is not interested in discussion, and painfully clear that he's only masturbating his over-inflated ego. This thread has gone full circle more than the Daytona 500, but refuses to cross the finish line.

Cavalry Doc
04-05-2011, 04:42
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.

I believe there is a lot of overlap with the words "know" & "believe".

If I've unintentionally confused you by using the word "know", I apologize.
Just substitute "believe" anywhere I errantly used the word "know".

Thanks for pointing that out.

ksg0245
04-05-2011, 05:40
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-Hg8DRS8mYqM/TYGVyp9VZKI/AAAAAAAADJ0/fYgd41pwEW0/s1600/split_ends.gif

Splitting hairs is complicated.

But dodging questions sure isn't.

You claimed several that times atheists know deities don't exist. You dodged EVERY SINGLE TIME when asked to provide a cite for your assertion.

That isn't splitting hairs, that's you dodging.

So lets pose the same digital questions to you.

Brilliant. I've already answered the question several times, so nobody will notice this brand new dodge of yours, but go ahead, maybe my answer will be different this time.


1. do you believe god(s) exist?

No. And to be clear, no, I don't believe in deities. I don't claim to KNOW they don't exist, I don't assert they don't exist; I merely note the lack of objective, verifiable evidence, and reject the assertion that they do.

2. can you prove that your answer to 1. is correct?

Can I prove I reject the unsupported assertion of deities? Why, yes, I can: "I reject the unsupported assertion of deities." I can even provide my reasoning AGAIN: I see no objective, verifiable evidence of deities, and conclude they probably don't exist.

There's no requirement to prove the non-exsistence of something for which no objective, verifiable evidence has been presented, and which, as it happens, contradicts all known laws and phenomena. Nobody is required to accept extraordinary unsupported assertions just because someone makes the assertion. Why do you think otherwise?

Now that I've clearly answered your red herring once again, please be so kind as to finally answer a question for me with no dodging waffling tangents: do you believe deities exist? The question isn't "do you think it's possible deities exist," nor is it "do you believe it's possible to know deities exist." It's a yes or no answer. Not "maybe." Either you believe, or you don't; you might be supremely confident, you might be completely baffled, but you fall on one side of the question. Do you, yes or no, without using terms like "think" "possible" "maybe" "believe" or any other weasel word, believe deities exist?

It's a really simple, easy question, but you won't answer. You will never answer.

I am interested to see your responses, or lack of them.

That's funny, coming from the guy who's made dodging questions into an art.

Or a religion.

:wavey:

Why is it so difficult for some people to admit they believe in God? What could they possibly think they're accomplishing by being so obstinate?

ksg0245
04-05-2011, 05:45
It is you know.......


But the radical practitioners have a hard time admitting it.


:dunno:

Especially when the goalposts are so mobile.

dbcooper
04-05-2011, 10:38
[QUOTE=Cavalry Doc;17151970]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.[/QUOTE

You want to see evidence of design, had you never heard of God and was told about evolution you would see differently. Same as had you been born in the middle east you would know beyond any doubt that old Mo was indeeed Gods prophet, the Q his words.


Sexually isolated populations have gone extinct, 98% of all life that ever lived here is now extinct , maybe some were do to a change in reproduction. Problem is the myth that all changes do to natural selection are beneficial, they are just as likely to end in extinction.


Stages of the mammalian eye have been done, from light sensitive spot to concave to catch more light, to a lens to focus it and on and on and on.

If it was designed then the designer is less than Intelligent seeing as how it's designed upside down and backwards, it's function ONLY makes sense in light of evolution

I will freely admit there may be a god, but evolution is a fact same as gravity and the laws of motion, to deny it is just plain well....sad


If someones faith can't let them acknowledge science, well over of a centuries worth of it, lined up in the fossil record for all to see then it is a hollow faith indeed.

dbcooper
04-05-2011, 10:47
The real question is why is this thread still alive?:dunno:


because the debate is fun, even when you know going in that nobody will change their position no matter what. And let's face it some of it's just plain funny.

Syclone538
04-05-2011, 15:12
Cavalry Doc, do you know of anyone that you would call an atheist?

ArtificialGrape
04-05-2011, 16:29
Cavalry Doc, do you know of anyone that you would call an atheist?

It's possible that atheists exist. It's possible that they don't exist. I see arguments for both.

:rofl:

:wavey:

steveksux
04-05-2011, 16:51
It's possible that atheists exist. It's possible that they don't exist. I see arguments for both.

:rofl:

:wavey:Well, that would make you an agnostic atheist atheist.

Someone who KNOWS atheists don't exist are atheistic atheist atheists.

I'll be the first to admit there's no actual evidence of existence of the atheists like those mythical leprechaun football fan atheists the OP believes in.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
04-05-2011, 19:28
Cavalry Doc, do you know of anyone that you would call an atheist?

Yes. ...

Syclone538
04-05-2011, 19:31
Anyone that could be considered famous? If so could you name some?

Cavalry Doc
04-05-2011, 19:35
[QUOTE=Cavalry Doc;17151970]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.[/QUOTE

You want to see evidence of design, had you never heard of God and was told about evolution you would see differently. Same as had you been born in the middle east you would know beyond any doubt that old Mo was indeeed Gods prophet, the Q his words.


Sexually isolated populations have gone extinct, 98% of all life that ever lived here is now extinct , maybe some were do to a change in reproduction. Problem is the myth that all changes do to natural selection are beneficial, they are just as likely to end in extinction.


Stages of the mammalian eye have been done, from light sensitive spot to concave to catch more light, to a lens to focus it and on and on and on.

If it was designed then the designer is less than Intelligent seeing as how it's designed upside down and backwards, it's function ONLY makes sense in light of evolution

I will freely admit there may be a god, but evolution is a fact same as gravity and the laws of motion, to deny it is just plain well....sad


If someones faith can't let them acknowledge science, well over of a centuries worth of it, lined up in the fossil record for all to see then it is a hollow faith indeed.

Science explains a lot, but not everything. There are still mysteries out there. There are many theories about how we came to be here, none are complete. It's possible that the myriad of chemical and electronic reactions that allow me to type this at this moment are actually quite simple, and that our brains simply cannot comprehend how it all fits together.

It's a common axiom, the more you know, the more you realize that you don't know. I know enough about the human body, to know that there is a lot that is unexplained. That simple little things that just work so well together, occurred in distant parts of the body and still are able to maintain homeostasis is not completely explained in the theory of evolution. Let alone the symbiotic relationship of very different organisms. I can see evidence of adaptation. The Theory of Evolution explains some things, but not all.

Cavalry Doc
04-05-2011, 19:38
But dodging questions sure isn't.

You claimed several that times atheists know deities don't exist. You dodged EVERY SINGLE TIME when asked to provide a cite for your assertion.

That isn't splitting hairs, that's you dodging.



Brilliant. I've already answered the question several times, so nobody will notice this brand new dodge of yours, but go ahead, maybe my answer will be different this time.



No. And to be clear, no, I don't believe in deities. I don't claim to KNOW they don't exist, I don't assert they don't exist; I merely note the lack of objective, verifiable evidence, and reject the assertion that they do.



Can I prove I reject the unsupported assertion of deities? Why, yes, I can: "I reject the unsupported assertion of deities." I can even provide my reasoning AGAIN: I see no objective, verifiable evidence of deities, and conclude they probably don't exist.

There's no requirement to prove the non-exsistence of something for which no objective, verifiable evidence has been presented, and which, as it happens, contradicts all known laws and phenomena. Nobody is required to accept extraordinary unsupported assertions just because someone makes the assertion. Why do you think otherwise?

Now that I've clearly answered your red herring once again, please be so kind as to finally answer a question for me with no dodging waffling tangents: do you believe deities exist? The question isn't "do you think it's possible deities exist," nor is it "do you believe it's possible to know deities exist." It's a yes or no answer. Not "maybe." Either you believe, or you don't; you might be supremely confident, you might be completely baffled, but you fall on one side of the question. Do you, yes or no, without using terms like "think" "possible" "maybe" "believe" or any other weasel word, believe deities exist?

It's a really simple, easy question, but you won't answer. You will never answer.



That's funny, coming from the guy who's made dodging questions into an art.

Or a religion.



Why is it so difficult for some people to admit they believe in God? What could they possibly think they're accomplishing by being so obstinate?

I've been honest. I'm a real middle of the road agnostic. I'm very comfortable with that. If I did believe in a god, wouldn't that statement be blasphemy?

I think you and I are done, as you cannot accept honest answers, and persist in trying to make this something personal, instead of a polite conversation.

where's that ignore list now that they've redesigned the site........

:wavey:

ksg0245
04-06-2011, 05:56
I've been honest. I'm a real middle of the road agnostic. I'm very comfortable with that. If I did believe in a god, wouldn't that statement be blasphemy?

Too bad you won't be answering these questions: How is believing in a god blasphemy? How is believing but not claiming knowledge blasphemy?

I think you and I are done, as you cannot accept honest answers, and persist in trying to make this something personal, instead of a polite conversation.

Again, ironic, given your repeated claims that I haven't read your questions, and your consistent rejection of honest answers from atheists and refusal to honestly answer questions from atheists. That isn't polite conversation, that's deliberate antagonism.

where's that ignore list now that they've redesigned the site........

:wavey:

Perhaps that's best; when you can't get someone to answer the way you want, ignore them and continue making unsupported claims without being bothered by pesky responses.

dbcooper
04-06-2011, 07:22
[QUOTE=dbcooper;17167653]

Science explains a lot, but not everything. There are still mysteries out there. There are many theories about how we came to be here, none are complete. It's possible that the myriad of chemical and electronic reactions that allow me to type this at this moment are actually quite simple, and that our brains simply cannot comprehend how it all fits together.

It's a common axiom, the more you know, the more you realize that you don't know. I know enough about the human body, to know that there is a lot that is unexplained. That simple little things that just work so well together, occurred in distant parts of the body and still are able to maintain homeostasis is not completely explained in the theory of evolution. Let alone the symbiotic relationship of very different organisms. I can see evidence of adaptation. The Theory of Evolution explains some things, but not all.

In the history of everything known there was a time when it wasn't. What science has done is disprove every, every single, "irreducibly complex" orgamism that the I.D. movement has pointed to. And I.D. has it easy, they just have to find one, science must explain everything else. Evolution Isn't The law of Evolution do only to the uproar it would cause in the religious community, and that is the only reason. Not one single scientific study has disproven it, but keep trying.

Do scientists diagree on some of the mechanisms, absolutely. However the all agree after looking at millions of pieces of evidence( pesky fossils) and study after study, the evolution did, is, and will continue to happen.

Cavalry Doc
04-06-2011, 20:16
[QUOTE=Cavalry Doc;17170345]

In the history of everything known there was a time when it wasn't. What science has done is disprove every, every single, "irreducibly complex" orgamism that the I.D. movement has pointed to. And I.D. has it easy, they just have to find one, science must explain everything else. Evolution Isn't The law of Evolution do only to the uproar it would cause in the religious community, and that is the only reason. Not one single scientific study has dis proven it, but keep trying.

Do scientists diagree on some of the mechanisms, absolutely. However the all agree after looking at millions of pieces of evidence( pesky fossils) and study after study, the evolution did, is, and will continue to happen.

I remember hearing a quote, and I'm not sure it is true, but Billy Graham when pressed by a scientist said something close to "Fine, I get your Big bang theory. So, with a Big Bang, God created the heavens and the Earth...


The fact is, that no one living was around then, unless a deity or deity exists, and so, no mortal man or woman knows for sure how "IT" happened. It was not a witnessed event.

Anyone that claims to know is guessing, even if it is an educated guess, one little glitch, can change it all.

So why pretend to know? If you have an idea, great, but at least admit it's only an idea.

Only the radicals know for sure.....

Cavalry Doc
04-06-2011, 20:18
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.

lo siento hombre.....

Cavalry Doc
04-06-2011, 20:19
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.

Y tu....

Cavalry Doc
04-06-2011, 20:26
Anyone that could be considered famous? If so could you name some?

http://www.michaelnugent.com/resources/famous-atheists/


They got web sites full of these guys and gals......


Really, google is our friend....

Cavalry Doc
04-06-2011, 20:31
Fair enough, I deserved that for poor choice of words -- I already "argued the relationship"?, "disputed the relationship"?

Wording aside, what do you dispute with the argument presented?

Bad people do bad things. NO argument there. Religion is not a cause, but a convenient excuse or convenient argument from time to time.


Religion is not the cause of bad things, people are.

But, paradoxically, people are capable of great compassion and selfless good deeds.


Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, we should examine a person by their merits, and not condemn, or glorify them based on their stated beliefs.

A radical concept, I know, but at least consider it......

Syclone538
04-06-2011, 21:17
http://www.michaelnugent.com/resources/famous-atheists/


They got web sites full of these guys and gals......


Really, google is our friend....

Not exactly how I thought you you might respond, but good enough. I'll go with the four horsemen, just cause I thought you might say one of them, they are all on that page, and I can make my point with all four of them.

Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y
39 minutes to 41 minutes in.


Sam Harris 3 to 4 minutes
Christopher Hitchens 11 to 12 minutes
http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001



Do you still think any of these four people are atheist?

Cavalry Doc
04-06-2011, 21:28
Not exactly how I thought you you might respond, but good enough. I'll go with the four horsemen, just cause I thought you might say one of them, they are all on that page, and I can make my point with all four of them.

Richard Dawkins and Dan Dennett
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JPxGnN7RV1Y
39 minutes to 41 minutes in.


Sam Harris 3 to 4 minutes
Christopher Hitchens 11 to 12 minutes
http://www.jewishtvnetwork.com/?bcpid=533363107&bctid=802338105001



Do you still think any of these four people are atheist?



The famous people I know, I do no know on a religious level. It was strictly business. There was some fighting and some occasional killing involved, and some of it involved religions.... but we never discussed our own.

:dunno:

There are many normal people that I know that claim to be atheist, and in many cases, based off of limited conversations on the subject, I believe them.

ArtificialGrape
04-06-2011, 21:41
Maybe, and I'm going out on a limb here, we should examine a person by their merits, and not condemn, or glorify them based on their stated beliefs.

A radical concept, I know, but at least consider it......
Now here's something that I can agree with.

Syclone538
04-06-2011, 21:43
I'm just trying to show you that what it seems to me that you think of when you think atheist, almost doesn't exist. Penn Jillette is the only person I can think of that you might think of as an atheist, and even he goes back and forth. I don't know of anyone that consistently says they know there is no god or that they don't believe it is possible that a god exists or existed. I'm wondering if you know, or even know of, anyone like that. Maybe, if I can convince you that your idea of an atheist doesn't exist, then I can convince you that your idea of an atheist is under inclusive.


http://revision3.com/pennpoint/agnosticssuck

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2011, 04:59
I'm just trying to show you that what it seems to me that you think of when you think atheist, almost doesn't exist. Penn Jillette is the only person I can think of that you might think of as an atheist, and even he goes back and forth. I don't know of anyone that consistently says they know there is no god or that they don't believe it is possible that a god exists or existed. I'm wondering if you know, or even know of, anyone like that. Maybe, if I can convince you that your idea of an atheist doesn't exist, then I can convince you that your idea of an atheist is under inclusive.


http://revision3.com/pennpoint/agnosticssuck

If a person only goes to mass on Christmas, can they still be Catholic.

Fanatical 100% belief is not required.

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 06:53
lo siento hombre.....

Cavalry Doc demonstrates that, despite his claims to the contrary, he isn't interested in hearing from anyone who expects him to respond honestly to questions, but does enjoy playing that mature "nyah, nyah, nyah, I can't hear you, my fingers are in my ears la la la" card. Admirable traits, indeed.

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 06:55
http://www.michaelnugent.com/resources/famous-atheists/


They got web sites full of these guys and gals......


Really, google is our friend....

And yet, you couldn't use it to actually name one.

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 07:01
Y tu....

I just wanted to reiterate how much I admire such restrained, adult behavior.

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 07:02
If a person only goes to mass on Christmas, can they still be Catholic.

Fanatical 100% belief is not required.

Irony.

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 07:06
I remember hearing a quote, and I'm not sure it is true, but Billy Graham when pressed by a scientist said something close to "Fine, I get your Big bang theory. So, with a Big Bang, God created the heavens and the Earth...


The fact is, that no one living was around then, unless a deity or deity exists, and so, no mortal man or woman knows for sure how "IT" happened. It was not a witnessed event.

Anyone that claims to know is guessing, even if it is an educated guess, one little glitch, can change it all.

So why pretend to know? If you have an idea, great, but at least admit it's only an idea.

Only the radicals know for sure.....

All of which is funny, given your certainty about what atheists know and believe. I look forward to your clarification of the contradiction.

Oh, wait...

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 07:13
Science explains a lot, but not everything. There are still mysteries out there. There are many theories about how we came to be here, none are complete. It's possible that the myriad of chemical and electronic reactions that allow me to type this at this moment are actually quite simple, and that our brains simply cannot comprehend how it all fits together.

It's a common axiom, the more you know, the more you realize that you don't know. I know enough about the human body, to know that there is a lot that is unexplained. That simple little things that just work so well together, occurred in distant parts of the body and still are able to maintain homeostasis is not completely explained in the theory of evolution. Let alone the symbiotic relationship of very different organisms. I can see evidence of adaptation. The Theory of Evolution explains some things, but not all.

Unfortunate, then, that it claims to completely explain all. Wait, no it doesn't. Could you please respond to my pointing out your erroneous unsupported assertion?

Huh. Guess you can't. Too bad.

Syclone538
04-07-2011, 07:34
If a person only goes to mass on Christmas, can they still be Catholic.

Fanatical 100% belief is not required.

So you have changed your mind since you posted this?

Do you believe it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed)?

That, at least in my humble opinion, is the difference.

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2011, 18:40
So you have changed your mind since you posted this?

Nope, not at all. Although I do change my mind from time to time. I consider that a sign that one is actually considering things brought up during a discussion.

If one believes a deity or deities exists, or existed, then they believe in the existence of deities. A theist. No?

So, if a person believes that a deity or deities have not existed, and don't exist, then they are an atheist, No?


What makes it a religious belief, is the believing, without absolute proof.

Admittedly, and on this point I agree with Penn, none of us know for sure, none of us have a piece of evidence that is so convincing that all of us would know the truth if we saw it.





So, people either choose to believe one way or the other, and fill in details as needed, or they choose not to commit to an unprovable position either way.

There might or might not have been a God, or Gods. That is a fact. But there is no requirement to take sides in an argument that has no proof one way or the other.

Those that choose to live their live believing one way or the other, are religious.

A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

If you can divorce yourself of emotion, and examine the statements clearly, you will admit it makes logical sense.

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2011, 18:41
Old Today, 07:53
Remove user from ignore list
ksg0245
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 07:55
Remove user from ignore list
ksg0245
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 08:01
Remove user from ignore list
ksg0245
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 08:02
Remove user from ignore list
ksg0245
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 08:06
Remove user from ignore list
ksg0245
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.
View Post Old Today, 08:13
Remove user from ignore list
ksg0245
This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.


I've moved on. It's really OK if you do too. Best wishes.

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

ksg0245
04-07-2011, 19:27
I've moved on. It's really OK if you do too. Best wishes.

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

"Moving on" wouldn't involve continuing to repeat unsupported nonsense like "What makes it a religious belief, is the believing, without absolute proof" and "A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" and "If you can divorce yourself of emotion, and examine the statements clearly, you will admit it makes logical sense." "Moving on" wouldn't involve childish "la la la I can't hear you" tantrums.

But feel free to tell yourself otherwise, since you only want to hear from people who agree with you.

steveksux
04-07-2011, 19:32
He's going to be in trouble soon. Nobody agrees with him, and he's putting everyone else on ignore. How mature... :rofl:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
04-07-2011, 19:34
Now here's something that I can agree with.

:wavey:

Syclone538
04-07-2011, 20:20
It seems like we are having a communication issue.

Do you believe it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed)?

That, at least in my humble opinion, is the difference.

Just to make sure I understand this, are you saying that if someone answers no they don't believe its possible, then they are an atheist, and if they answer yes it is possible then they are agnostic? In your opinion, is it possible to answer yes it is possible, and be an atheist?

Smacktard
04-08-2011, 01:33
If you believe Atheism is a religion, it is because your mind has been contaminated with religious thoughts, spoon fed to you since you were very young.

It happened to me too, but I woke up one day.

...

ksg0245
04-08-2011, 04:18
He's going to be in trouble soon. Nobody agrees with him, and he's putting everyone else on ignore. How mature... :rofl:

Randy

Well, to be fair, there are people who agree with him; it's mostly atheists who're trying to tell him that, surprisingly enough, they know better than he does what they believe or don't believe.

That "nyah nyah I can't hear you" is pretty funny, though.

DeltaNu1142
04-08-2011, 04:29
If one believes a deity or deities exists, or existed, then they believe in the existence of deities. A theist. No?
So, if a person believes that a deity or deities have not existed, and don't exist, then they are an atheist, No?
What makes it a religious belief, is the believing, without absolute proof.
Faith != Religion.

steveksux
04-08-2011, 07:43
Well, to be fair, there are people who agree with him; it's mostly atheists who're trying to tell him that, surprisingly enough, they know better than he does what they believe or don't believe.

That "nyah nyah I can't hear you" is pretty funny, though.
30 pages ago there were people that agreed with him, they've seemingly abandoned the field of battle. Some people have the smarts to abandon an indefensible position, and some...

Randy

dbcooper
04-08-2011, 12:01
[QUOTE=dbcooper;17172275]

I remember hearing a quote, and I'm not sure it is true, but Billy Graham when pressed by a scientist said something close to "Fine, I get your Big bang theory. So, with a Big Bang, God created the heavens and the Earth...


The fact is, that no one living was around then, unless a deity or deity exists, and so, no mortal man or woman knows for sure how "IT" happened. It was not a witnessed event.

Anyone that claims to know is guessing, even if it is an educated guess, one little glitch, can change it all.

So why pretend to know? If you have an idea, great, but at least admit it's only an idea.

Only the radicals know for sure.....


I'll admit that perhaps some entity snapped his fingers to start the process, exactly how long is a day to a god. In a way you make my point, you can believe without denying scientific facts. The problems arise when a religious movement (I.D. in particular) masquardes as science when under scientific principles and standards it clearly is not, when a judge appointed by Bush says so it should give one pause. Pointing out that scientists have competing theories about the process and saying that that shows some doubt evolution as a way to push I.D. as a competing theory is dishonest on a scientific level as well as moral level. Science can never disprove God, it shouldn't even try. Religion has it's place in the world and can do great things, biology is even starting to show the possibility that we are hardwired from early in our evolution to have those types of beliefs. Comparative religions courses, Religion in History, The Bible as Literature great. In science class, not so much.

creaky
04-08-2011, 19:36
"Moving on" wouldn't involve continuing to repeat unsupported nonsense like "What makes it a religious belief, is the believing, without absolute proof" and "A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" and "If you can divorce yourself of emotion, and examine the statements clearly, you will admit it makes logical sense." "Moving on" wouldn't involve childish "la la la I can't hear you" tantrums.

But feel free to tell yourself otherwise, since you only want to hear from people who agree with you.

Sounds like you're having trouble with being ignored. Accept the fact that you really don't have anything to say. Your old, worn out "void" defense is weak and tremendously tedious and some folks just don't want to entertain you and the pack of knuckleheads you've surrounded yourself with. I don't blame them at all.

I don't think your arguments are clever or compelling. Just more of the same you've been peddling for years now.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times. You can't post your thoughts about a subject then complain when a responder serves it back up to you. The responder does know what and how you think. (Unless you're lying and we all know that atheists are notorious liars..... you know, lack of morals and all.) ;)

There are only so many ways for an atheist to think before they become something else.

Live with it and try to act your age.

Cavalry Doc
04-08-2011, 19:45
Faith != Religion.

:dunno:


Definition of RELIGION

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

Cavalry Doc
04-08-2011, 20:20
If you believe Atheism is a religion, it is because your mind has been contaminated with religious thoughts, spoon fed to you since you were very young.

It happened to me too, but I woke up one day.

...

Mr. Tard,

You've simply traded one system of beliefs for another. Why? That's for you to discover.

A lack of belief, does not lead one to declare that something does not exist, especially with such fervor.



A lack of belief, is just that. When one says that you were created by god. Your answer would be, "That's nice, but I don't think so".

Belief that no deity exists, would lead one to say, "You're wrong".

And this is simply a hypothesis, a guess... A possibility..... :dunno:
Maybe you believe in a deity, but are miserable, or even just less happy than you want to be, and therefore blame the deity that you believe in, and then do a 180 degree turn, and condemn god at every opportunity.


Not 100% sure, but I believe you've said as much before. Just because it may suck being you, does not change whether or not the Universe was created or just happened.

No offense meant. The fact remains, we are what we are. Some people live what appear to be wonderfully fantastic lives. Some are miserable. MAYBE it's luck, maybe it's design.

Maybe there is a why? Maybe not. None of us really knows, but if you really think you have the answer, then yes, you are religious.

GTFOI

Smacktard
04-09-2011, 03:00
Are you telling me that there is a religion that's not a scam?

Remember, the religious claim to know that a God exists, God's name, where God is, what God wants us to do, how much we should pay, Gods laws, Gods punishments, Who God loves, what God hates, what God wants us to eat, Art work God allows, Who God wants on top, Who has a soul and who doesn't, that Gods voice would destroy us, and the fact that God picks your fate. It goes on forever.

All an Atheist claims is that there is no God.


...

ksg0245
04-09-2011, 10:49
Sounds like you're having trouble with being ignored.

Nope. I have trouble with people lying. I think I've mentioned that before.

Accept the fact that you really don't have anything to say.

Accept the fact that I and other atheists have a lot to say, and you really don't like hearing it.

Your old, worn out "void" defense is weak and tremendously tedious and some folks just don't want to entertain you and the pack of knuckleheads you've surrounded yourself with. I don't blame them at all.

Of course not. Since GOD obviously exists, atheists have no reason to complain when people tell them what they really think, and should just stay in their place. It's presumptuous of me to even consider anything else.

I don't think your arguments are clever or compelling.

That's your prerogative; I don't find poorly supported assertions of deities clever or compelling. Our standards are different.

Just more of the same you've been peddling for years now.

If it would sink in, I wouldn't need to repeat myself when people got them wrong.

If I've said it once I've said it a million times.

I can hardly wait.

You can't post your thoughts about a subject then complain when a responder serves it back up to you.

If that was what happened, you'd be correct. Unfortunately, that's exactly what didn't happen. You must have missed CD telling atheists things like "atheists are certain deities exist," and "religion is a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, but sports doesn't count because it invalidates my argument."

The responder does know what and how you think.

Then why did he keep getting it wrong? I've not been shy about posting what I think, and yet he got it wrong almost every single time, just as he was unable to process what every other atheist here told him. If he did manage to get something right, it wasn't long before he backslid. He shares those qualities with others.

(Unless you're lying and we all know that atheists are notorious liars..... you know, lack of morals and all.) ;)

What a sanctimonious load. What is so difficult to understand about "I don't see any objective, verifiable evidence for your assertion of deities; until it's provided, I have no reason to accept the assertion."?

There are only so many ways for an atheist to think before they become something else.

I'm sure that's supposed to mean something.

Live with it and try to act your age.

You mean like committing a complex question fallacy and then pouting for weeks when people don't respond in the way needed? Act that age?

You're right; I should just accept that people like you and CD know what I think better than I do. It's unreasonable and immature of me to think otherwise. Gosh, you must have known I was thinking that, too.

ksg0245
04-09-2011, 10:50
Definition of RELIGION

4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

Like sports!

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 11:05
Are you telling me that there is a religion that's not a scam?

Remember, the religious claim to know that a God exists, God's name, where God is, what God wants us to do, how much we should pay, Gods laws, Gods punishments, Who God loves, what God hates, what God wants us to eat, Art work God allows, Who God wants on top, Who has a soul and who doesn't, that Gods voice would destroy us, and the fact that God picks your fate. It goes on forever.

All an Atheist claims is that there is no God.


...

Help me understand how all that amounts to a scam. I'm not in any way stating that people use religion to scam, but how does everything you wrote here amount to a scam?

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 11:06
Can anyone say with certainty that they KNOW there is no God, or that they simply BELIEVE there's no God?

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 11:59
Can anyone say with certainty that they KNOW there is no God, or that they simply BELIEVE there's no God?
I think you will find a very small percentage that would authoritatively claim that there is no God. I think you will find that the majority "reject all claims that god(s) exist". Pick any 2 or 3 random pages from this thread, and you will probably find the same argument.

One cannot prove a negative (non-existence). Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant).

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Beware Owner
04-09-2011, 12:01
I think you will find a very small percentage that would authoritatively claim that there is no God. I think you will find that the majority "reject all claims that god(s) exist". Pick any 2 or 3 random pages from this thread, and you will probably find the same argument.

One cannot prove a negative (non-existence). Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant).

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Which would make atheism a set of beliefs, correct?

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 12:03
Help me understand how all that amounts to a scam. I'm not in any way stating that people use religion to scam, but how does everything you wrote here amount to a scam?
Not speaking for Smacktard, but in my view "fraud" may have been a better word, though the solicitation of donations could be more easily argued as scam.

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 12:10
Which would make atheism a set of beliefs, correct?
Your reading assignment is to go back and read at least the last 10 pages of this thread :)

Rejection of a belief is not a belief.
Not playing baseball is not a sport.

Here is a relevant response to Cavalry Doc from message 1198

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.

-ArtificialGrape

Syclone538
04-09-2011, 13:03
Can anyone say with certainty that they KNOW there is no God, or that they simply BELIEVE there's no God?

Which would make atheism a set of beliefs, correct?

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"I believe there is no god."

"I do not believe there is a god."

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 15:53
Are you telling me that there is a religion that's not a scam?

I think that any and all religions have elements of corruption within them. Why? Because people are what they are, they have their own motivations, and when confronted with rules they don't agree with, many will bend them. Many will use religion for their own goals. That's true of atheists and theists.

I also believe there are many good, selfless, and honorable religious people. Atheists and Theists alike, even a few agnostics.


Remember, the religious claim to know that a God exists, God's name, where God is, what God wants us to do, how much we should pay, Gods laws, Gods punishments, Who God loves, what God hates, what God wants us to eat, Art work God allows, Who God wants on top, Who has a soul and who doesn't, that Gods voice would destroy us, and the fact that God picks your fate. It goes on forever.


All an Atheist claims is that there is no God.


...

I've been trying to point that out for a couple of hundred posts in this thread. I've been surprised at how people have tried to evade that simple statement by going passive.

The point is, Theists believe in a deity, and if they believe that we are governed by that deity, then they usually believe in divine commandments of some sort of another.

Atheists do not believe in a deity, and so therefore refute the existence of divine law. So all law is the law of man. There is still a right and wrong among men, that most of us can agree on in many circumstances.

Stealing, bad.
Rape, murder, dishonesty, rudeness etc....

But, deep down inside, none of us really know..... those that claim to have faith that they are right.

Me, heck, don't know, and after searching, realized that life is what it is, and you don't have to have an answer to every question, even profound ones.

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 15:58
I think you will find a very small percentage that would authoritatively claim that there is no God. I think you will find that the majority "reject all claims that god(s) exist". Pick any 2 or 3 random pages from this thread, and you will probably find the same argument.

One cannot prove a negative (non-existence). Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant).

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."



Just another point on a gradient. Some may believe, without any certainty that there is no god. Some believe with certainty in their belief.

Knowing is just a strong belief, how strong a belief has to be for a person to "know" it, is an individual choice. How much do any of us truly know????


Ardor...... extreme vigor or energy.... :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 16:04
Your reading assignment is to go back and read at least the last 10 pages of this thread :)

Rejection of a belief is not a belief.
Not playing baseball is not a sport.

Here is a relevant response to Cavalry Doc from message 1198


Passively stating the concept does not relieve you of the responsibility to support your belief.

If I can ask you a personal question, do you at least consider it reasonably possible that a deity exists?

That's not a trap or anything, just another way to open up the discussion.

If it is at least reasonably possible that a deity exists, are you really sure you are an atheist, a person that believes there are no deities....????


An agnostic believes that it is reasonably possible, but in my case, even though it is possible, there are many claims to know which deity(s) exist, and some are mutually exclusive. So if one or more exist, which ones? After a lot of thinking on the subject, I've decided that I do not know, and that in the big scheme of the cosmos, it's really not important. I'll still do what feels right to me, and oppose what I consider wrong vigorously, I still think I have a moral compass, but don't feel a need to support my positions on right or wrong by pointing to a certain deity, or an absence of deities.


Consider a person stating, "I do not know that Jesus did not exist as described in the bible". If he refuses to believe any evidence that he did not exist other than how it is described in the bible, is he any less a Christian?


Hint: It's the refusal to entertain the possibilities that makes him religious. Just like it does for the atheists.........

Maybe you'll see it too one day. It's so simple for a comfortable agnostic to see.

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 16:22
I think you will find a very small percentage that would authoritatively claim that there is no God. I think you will find that the majority "reject all claims that god(s) exist". Pick any 2 or 3 random pages from this thread, and you will probably find the same argument.

One cannot prove a negative (non-existence). Claiming otherwise is intellectually dishonest (or ignorant).

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

There are several scholars of logic that disagree with that statement, here is just one...... Google is your friend:supergrin:

“You can’t prove a negative.”





People who are searching for excuses to believe silly things frequently make this statement. A theist makes a positive assertion, and then declines to provide a basis for it. You deny their assertion (rightly so, what with no basis and all), but your denial is deemed invalid because it is impossible to prove a denial.



There is so very much wrong with this situation, it will take a while to wade through it.



The rules of logic and science indicate that there must be some kind of basis (either in substance or in thought) for an assertion or else it must be denied. An assertion, without evidence, is not accepted as true. That is the default position, the position that defines what critical thought is. Critical thought means not believing things you are told unless there is evidence to back it up. And without critical thought, logic and science are abandoned, and this is the only kind of productive thought humanity has ever come up with. To reject critical thought is to turn one’s back on thinking and embrace the Dark Ages. That’s the answer to this statement in theory.



However, in practice, there is usually a lot more happening with the person who makes such a proclamation. The person who makes this kind of statement has a great many fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of logic, science, and productive thought.



First, many people who believe in God do not realize that in every discussion about theism, their assertion is implicit: God exists. They do not need to say it. Every argument they make is under the assumption that the statement “God exists” is true. The fact that they identify themselves as believers is enough to serve as an assertion that a deity or deities exists. No assertion is being made by an atheist (at least not a smart atheist). The word “god” hasn’t even been defined and the nature of belief in that god has not been described; these must take place before any substantial discussion about the nature of God can begin. Atheists have no reason to provide these descriptions – without any beliefs about God, they have no reason to do so. It must be presumed that this onus rests upon the theist. The mere mention of one’s belief in God serves as an assertion that God exists.



Secondly, a person who rejects an assertion does not need to provide any justification for it. The evidence has to be provided by the party making the assertion. The person rejecting the assertion needs to provide nothing at all. Many theists try to escape this basic fact of life by declaring (in opposition to common sense) that their assertions need to be justified only to themselves in their personal experience. Simply put, that what is true for others might not be true for themselves. But this is madness – this also turns its back on productive thinking. This idea is called “solipsism,” and it refers to the notion that every person lives in his own reality, and what is true in his or her life might not be true for others. This is an old idea and it was shown to be ridiculous many centuries ago. Think about it – if it solipsism really was real, there wouldn’t be any books, schools, learning, or science. And people would never be able to communicate effectively.



Thirdly, the statement that “you cannot prove a negative” is simply false. On the surface, it seems to be true: if Person A says “I think God exists” and Person B says “I don’t think God exists,” it’s pretty clear that Person B is going to have a hard time proving that there isn’t a God. However, if you look a little closer, it actually depends on the nature of the negative statement being made. Here are some negative statements that can be proven very easily:


Five is not equal to four

The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld

The tsetse fly is not native to North America



Clearly, it’s possible to prove a negative statement. The real problem here is clearly the nature of the positive statement being refuted. When a person asserts that God exists, he does not specify the nature of God – that is, is God small, large, blue, red? And where is he? Of course it is not possible to prove that God does not exist, if “God” is a thing that has no definition, no characteristics, and no location. In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings. When you get right down to it, the statement “you cannot prove a negative” is really just a different way of saying “You can’t prove me wrong because I don’t even know what I’m talking about.”



Logical statements have to abide by certain rules and restrictions. In order for a statement to be logical, it must be falsifiable, which means that it has to be presented in such a way that it could be proven incorrect. A statement is not logical if it cannot be tested to make sure it is true. The existence of God is not a logical question at all, and is therefore nonsensical. Of course you can’t prove that God doesn’t exist – no one even knows what God is supposed to be. (http://www.graveyardofthegods.net/articles/cantprovenegative.html)

RC-RAMIE
04-09-2011, 17:21
How about I have no need or reason to prove theist wrong. They have a need to back up statements they claim to be true. When they start to do that I will worry about it.

I don't consider the idea of a god because I have no reason to. Its not that I don't believe in a god, I see no reason to even entertain the idea of one.

Why is the only thing you are sure of is that it is god or no god, no other options?

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 19:13
There are several scholars of logic that disagree with that statement, here is just one...... Google is your friend:supergrin:

That article was the best that you could find disputing that the burden of proof is on the assertive claim?

"The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld", and
"Five is not equal to four"

Starting with an assertion that can be proven, negating it, disproving the negated expression, then claiming that it refutes the "can't disprove a negative" is clearly not the work of "scholars of logic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof contains multiple citations for this common logic fallacy -- google is your friend :tongueout:

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 19:48
Passively stating the concept does not relieve you of the responsibility to support your belief.

If I can ask you a personal question, do you at least consider it reasonably possible that a deity exists?

That's not a trap or anything, just another way to open up the discussion.

If it is at least reasonably possible that a deity exists, are you really sure you are an atheist, a person that believes there are no deities....????

I will emphatically answer "no", I don't consider it reasonably possible that a deity exists. After thousands of years and thousands of religions I am not aware of verifiable claim of the supernatural from any of them. Given this, I do not find it at all reasonable to believe that a deity exists. Can I prove that no deity exists? Of course not.

An agnostic believes that it is reasonably possible, but in my case, even though it is possible, there are many claims to know which deity(s) exist, and some are mutually exclusive. So if one or more exist, which ones? After a lot of thinking on the subject, I've decided that I do not know, and that in the big scheme of the cosmos, it's really not important. I'll still do what feels right to me, and oppose what I consider wrong vigorously, I still think I have a moral compass, but don't feel a need to support my positions on right or wrong by pointing to a certain deity, or an absence of deities.
As you point out many claims of deities are mutually exclusive. They cannot all be right. They can all be wrong.

I don't see how as an agnostic can claim that it's "really not important" -- your eternal soul and torment lie in the balance. If the Christians are right, as a non-Christian, you're burning in hell for eternity. As an infidel to Islam, if the Muslim are right you are destined to suffer their hell for eternity...

How can you claim that it's "really not important"?

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 21:23
I will emphatically answer "no", I don't consider it reasonably possible that a deity exists.


Duly noted. :wavey: Know?

After thousands of years and thousands of religions I am not aware of verifiable claim of the supernatural from any of them. Given this, I do not find it at all reasonable to believe that a deity exists. Can I prove that no deity exists? Of course not.

OK, then I accept the fact that you are an atheist, according to the Merriam-Websters definition. A committed belief, at least for religious folks, does not require proof.



As you point out many claims of deities are mutually exclusive. They cannot all be right. They can all be wrong.

One of the many claims of deities is that none exist, or have existed. :dunno:


I don't see how as an agnostic can claim that it's "really not important" -- your eternal soul and torment lie in the balance. If the Christians are right, as a non-Christian, you're burning in hell for eternity. As an infidel to Islam, if the Muslim are right you are destined to suffer their hell for eternity...

How can you claim that it's "really not important"?


What one individual wants, is a small matter. There are billions of people alive today, on a single planet revolving around a single star, many more have gone before us. How many inhabitable planets are out there.....


I'm not sure I'll burn in a lake of fire, or simply fall off the back of a miniature giant space turtle when I die. It's also possible that things just fade to nothingness. Right after I'm done doing it, I'll let you know how it goes.


I'm also not sure that there is not a deity. If there is one, or more, I'm cool with that. If not, the same.



-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 21:25
That article was the best that you could find disputing that the burden of proof is on the assertive claim?

"The ancient Egyptians did not watch Seinfeld", and
"Five is not equal to four"

Starting with an assertion that can be proven, negating it, disproving the negated expression, then claiming that it refutes the "can't disprove a negative" is clearly not the work of "scholars of logic".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof contains multiple citations for this common logic fallacy -- google is your friend :tongueout:

Not the best, just one of many.


Google is your friend. Before you respond, google, it, and read at least the full contents of the first 5 threads.

Cavalry Doc
04-09-2011, 21:31
How about I have no need or reason to prove theist wrong. They have a need to back up statements they claim to be true. When they start to do that I will worry about it.

I don't consider the idea of a god because I have no reason to. Its not that I don't believe in a god, I see no reason to even entertain the idea of one.

Why is the only thing you are sure of is that it is god or no god, no other options?

Or another possibility.......

How about, I have no need or reason to prove atheist's wrong. They have a need to back up statements they claim to be true. When they start to do that I will worry about it.

I don't consider the idea of a deity free existence because I have no reason to. Its not that I don't believe in the absence of a god or gods, I see no reason to even discount the idea of one.




Why is the only thing you are sure of is that it is god or no god, no other options?

Oh, that's someone else you are responding to..

I think it's possible that we do not know the truth. I've also mentioned numerous times that it is possible that an intelligence kicked all of this of, then died.

FL2NV
04-09-2011, 21:37
Have any of you atheists actually seeked out God, or are you expecting Him to come to you? It is almost unbelievable to me that people think He does not exist, but when you have seen what I have seen, and experienced what I have experienced, then maybe you would know why. Atheists seek "evidence" of God, but none of them try to find it.

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 22:09
Have any of you atheists actually seeked out God, or are you expecting Him to come to you? It is almost unbelievable to me that people think He does not exist, but when you have seen what I have seen, and experienced what I have experienced, then maybe you would know why. Atheists seek "evidence" of God, but none of them try to find it.
Many atheists will tell you that they began looking to strengthen their relationship with God, and the more they learned, the smaller God became, until He was no longer necessary, and obviously non-existent.

I've posed this question before, and never really had it answered. What justification do you have for Christianity (or insert faith here) that is not the very same sort of justification that others have for their different faith?

For example, "my Bible tells me that God is real". The Qur'an posits that Allah is real. No difference.

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 22:20
I've also mentioned numerous times that it is possible that an intelligence kicked all of this of, then died.
Actually, Lord Xenu didn't die -- he just flew back home. :ufo:

FL2NV
04-09-2011, 22:20
What justification? The experience of it. Like I said, thing I've seen, experienced, etc. But that was only after faith, prayer, etc.

ArtificialGrape
04-09-2011, 22:38
What justification? The experience of it. Like I said, thing I've seen, experienced, etc. But that was only after faith, prayer, etc.

So what is it that you have seen and experienced following prayer? Jews and Muslims also believe that prayers are being answered. Are these 3 Abrahamic religions all praying to the same god, and he is answering them?

Many ancient religions prayed to their gods, and believed that those prayers were answered.

Do you accept that some god is answering all those prayers, or are those of other religions possibly mistaken?

FL2NV
04-09-2011, 23:06
So what is it that you have seen and experienced following prayer? Jews and Muslims also believe that prayers are being answered. Are these 3 Abrahamic religions all praying to the same god, and he is answering them?

Many ancient religions prayed to their gods, and believed that those prayers were answered.

Do you accept that some god is answering all those prayers, or are those of other religions possibly mistaken?

I'll have to PM sometime. It's not that I prayed, and something happened. What I basically meant was that after faith comes proof. You don't just pray for stuff and it happens, that's not what I meant.

Syclone538
04-10-2011, 00:24
Cavalry Doc, in your opinion, is it possible to answer yes it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed), and still be an atheist?


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's possible.
Just to be clear, what exactly is that the difference in?

If a person only goes to mass on Christmas, can they still be Catholic.

Fanatical 100% belief is not required.

Not required for what exactly?

...
So, if a person believes that a deity or deities have not existed, and don't exist, then they are an atheist, No?
...

I agree with that as far as it goes, but think that it is under inclusive. I think that someone (me) that doesn't believe in a god, but also doesn't believe it's impossible, but extremely unlikely, that a god or gods exist or existed, is still an atheist.

...
If I can ask you a personal question, do you at least consider it reasonably possible that a deity exists?
...

No.


...
If it is at least reasonably possible that a deity exists,
...

I don't think it is.


...
are you really sure you are an atheist,
...

Yes.


...
a person that believes there are no deities....????
...

No, I am not.


...
An agnostic believes that it is reasonably possible,
...

No, agnostic means the person in question doesn't know and/or thinks it is unknowable, at least currently.

...
After a lot of thinking on the subject, I've decided that I do not know,
...

That is agnostic, just like almost all atheists are.

steveksux
04-10-2011, 00:49
There are several scholars of logic that disagree with that statement, here is just one...... Google is your friend:supergrin:
You really do need to read the articles you post. Its been a number of times your quotes doom your argument. Such as in this quote from your post:

In fact, you can prove just about any kind of negative you can think of – except for (surprise!) the non-existence of mystical beings.

Gee, the same thing we've been trying to get through your thick skull, highlighted in the very quote you find to try to refute us... :rofl::rofl:

Priceless. Google is NOT your friend apparently. Reading comprehension is your friend. Apparently a long lost friend you haven't been acquainted with in a very long time.

Randy

DeltaNu1142
04-10-2011, 05:44
Faith != Religion.
:dunno:

Definition of RELIGION
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

...uhhh... so now you're saying faith is the same as religion? Then I suppose religion is also the same as ardor, by your definition... or the 4th definition provided by... someone else?

It's points such as these that make me realize there's no sense in anyone with an view in opposition to yours posting in this thread.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 07:38
Cavalry Doc, in your opinion, is it possible to answer yes it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed), and still be an atheist?




Yes I believe it's possible.
Just to be clear, what exactly is that the difference in?



Not required for what exactly?



I agree with that as far as it goes, but think that it is under inclusive. I think that someone (me) that doesn't believe in a god, but also doesn't believe it's impossible, but extremely unlikely, that a god or gods exist or existed, is still an atheist.



No.




I don't think it is.




Yes.




No, I am not.




No, agnostic means the person in question doesn't know and/or thinks it is unknowable, at least currently.



That is agnostic, just like almost all atheists are.

OK, I agree, you're an atheist.

But as far as agnostics go, agnosticism does not require one to believe that the truth is unknowable.

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

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1
: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

Emphasis added by me.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 07:42
Faith != Religion.

originally posted by Cavalry Doc
:dunno:


Definition of RELIGION

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



...uhhh... so now you're saying faith is the same as religion? Then I suppose religion is also the same as ardor, by your definition... or the 4th definition provided by... someone else?

It's points such as these that make me realize there's no sense in anyone with an view in opposition to yours posting in this thread.

I just posted the definition. More of a correction. Faith is an element of the definition, not the totality of it. Look closely, and you'll see the word "and" in front of "faith". As opposed to "or".


You posted that "faith= religion", not I.

If you're frustrated, you don't have to continue. There are a bunch of other threads on the site that might be fun.

DeltaNu1142
04-10-2011, 07:51
You posted that "faith= religion", not I.
You somehow managed to quote me and misquote me in the same post...

For the cheap seats, I said:
Faith != Religion.
If you're frustrated, you don't have to continue. There are a bunch of other threads on the site that might be fun.
More fun; and far less asinine.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 07:56
Actually, Lord Xenu didn't die -- he just flew back home. :ufo:


Just a detail of one of many possible scenarios..... The possible details are endless, but reality still is reality. Whether we fully understand it, it is what it is. Our personal belief or disbelief does not change how we actually came to be here. That's simply a matter of history.

ksg0245
04-10-2011, 07:58
Have any of you atheists actually seeked out God, or are you expecting Him to come to you? It is almost unbelievable to me that people think He does not exist, but when you have seen what I have seen, and experienced what I have experienced, then maybe you would know why. Atheists seek "evidence" of God, but none of them try to find it.

Are you unaware that the majority of atheists are former theists, and became atheists as a result of examining their faith?

Are you unaware that subjective experience is notoriously unreliable, and that people can easily be mislead by things like magic tricks, misinterpretation, and ignorance?

And it's "sought," not "seeked."

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 08:11
You somehow managed to quote me and misquote me in the same post...

For the cheap seats, I said:


More fun; and far less asinine.

"faith= religion" vs. "Faith != Religion"

I guess you're right, I didn't capitalize each word, and left out the bold exclamation mark.

My Apologies.

ArtificialGrape
04-10-2011, 08:15
"faith= religion" vs. "Faith != Religion"

I guess you're right, I didn't capitalize each word, and left out the exclamation mark.

My Apologies.

It may not be clear to everybody, but "!=" means "not equal" in some computer languages, so leaving out the ! is significant.

DeltaNu1142
04-10-2011, 08:23
It may not be clear to everybody, but "!=" means "not equal" in some computer languages, so leaving out the ! is significant.
It seems that's not the only thing that's not clear to some people. Quoting ardently without comprehension suggests our time would be better spent elsewhere.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 09:37
It may not be clear to everybody, but "!=" means "not equal" in some computer languages, so leaving out the ! is significant.

Ahhhh I see now. Thanks. Wonder why he didn't just say so?

Lo siento, pero Yo no hablo fortran.

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 09:43
It seems that's not the only thing that's not clear to some people. Quoting ardently without comprehension suggests our time would be better spent elsewhere.

It must be a terrible burden, knowing everything and being unable to convince all of the others. How do you deal with the cosmic responsibility?


Nope, I don't know everything. Obscure computer programing jargon is just one of many things I don't know.

That was an interesting tangent.

But now that your message has been clearly received....

You meant to post that Faith does not equal religion.

I agree with you, it is clearly only an element within the definition.


Fair enough?

Syclone538
04-10-2011, 10:59
OK, I agree, you're an atheist.

But as far as agnostics go, agnosticism does not require one to believe that the truth is unknowable.

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

Ok, we might be making some progress. I hoped you would answer the question

"Cavalry Doc, in your opinion, is it possible to answer yes it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed), and still be an atheist?"

But since I answered that I believe it is possible, if extremely unlikely, that god(s) exist(ed), and you agree I'm an atheist, you either think I'm lying or think that I can think it's possible and be an atheist. I also disputed your definition of atheist as someone who believes there are/were no deities, and you didn't contend that point.

So, if it is possible to believe it is possible that deity(s) exist(ed), not holding a belief that they do or not but thinking it extremely unlikely, and still be an atheist, how can you call atheism a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith?

Cavalry Doc
04-10-2011, 12:15
Ok, we might be making some progress. I hoped you would answer the question

"Cavalry Doc, in your opinion, is it possible to answer yes it is possible that a deity(s) exist(ed), and still be an atheist?"

But since I answered that I believe it is possible, if extremely unlikely, that god(s) exist(ed), and you agree I'm an atheist, you either think I'm lying or think that I can think it's possible and be an atheist. I also disputed your definition of atheist as someone who believes there are/were no deities, and you didn't contend that point.

So, if it is possible to believe it is possible that deity(s) exist(ed), not holding a belief that they do or not but thinking it extremely unlikely, and still be an atheist, how can you call atheism a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith?

Try to think of it as a gradient.... It's not digital.

If you really believe, that it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that a deity exists, that's far enough down the scale to land in the realm that most would consider an atheist.

I'll admit I missed the part where you state you believed it was possible.



Not trying to be coy or anything like that, but this seems a bit contradictory to me. You believe it is possible, but do not believe it is reasonable to believe it is possible????

It's OK to be conflicted. All of us are.

Syclone538
04-10-2011, 23:08
Try to think of it as a gradient.... It's not digital.

If you really believe, that it is unreasonable to consider the possibility that a deity exists, that's far enough down the scale to land in the realm that most would consider an atheist.

...

Not trying to be coy or anything like that, but this seems a bit contradictory to me. You believe it is possible, but do not believe it is reasonable to believe it is possible????

It's OK to be conflicted. All of us are.

Maybe I've made a typo or something, because we seem have a misunderstanding. (lol, imagine that right) Can you point out to me where I said it is unreasonable to consider the possibility?

I think it is possible, but extremely unlikely. I do not think it is reasonably possible. I do not think it is reasonable to think it is likely. I think everyone should consider it, but don't know of any reason that, after considering it, someone should believe it or consider it likely.

...
I'll admit I missed the part where you state you believed it was possible.
...

Do you know of anyone anywhere that believes it is not possible?

I, kind of, know of one person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaeJf-Yia3A

Somewhere in this video they talk about someone that thinks it can be proven that there is/are no god(s). The idea was that you had to assume that a holy book was 100% the word of god, then disprove the book.

None of them seem to agree with that.

edit
47:30 of part 1
Victor Stenger

Smacktard
04-11-2011, 01:58
Maybe I've made a typo or something, because we seem have a misunderstanding. (lol, imagine that right) Can you point out to me where I said it is unreasonable to consider the possibility?

I think it is possible, but extremely unlikely. I do not think it is reasonably possible. I do not think it is reasonable to think it is likely. I think everyone should consider it, but don't know of any reason that, after considering it, someone should believe it or consider it likely.



Do you know of anyone anywhere that believes it is not possible?

I, kind of, know of one person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaeJf-Yia3A

Somewhere in this video they talk about someone that thinks it can be proven that there is/are no god(s). The idea was that you had to assume that a holy book was 100% the word of god, then disprove the book.

None of them seem to agree with that.

edit
47:30 of part 1
Victor Stenger


Thanks for the links!


...

Cavalry Doc
04-11-2011, 04:37
Maybe I've made a typo or something, because we seem have a misunderstanding. (lol, imagine that right) Can you point out to me where I said it is unreasonable to consider the possibility?

Post 1335, about half way down.



I think it is possible, but extremely unlikely. I do not think it is reasonably possible. I do not think it is reasonable to think it is likely. I think everyone should consider it, but don't know of any reason that, after considering it, someone should believe it or consider it likely.



Do you know of anyone anywhere that believes it is not possible?

I, kind of, know of one person.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DKhc1pcDFM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TaeJf-Yia3A

Somewhere in this video they talk about someone that thinks it can be proven that there is/are no god(s). The idea was that you had to assume that a holy book was 100% the word of god, then disprove the book.

None of them seem to agree with that.

edit
47:30 of part 1
Victor Stenger


It's about gradients, it's not black and white. When you believe enough that you live your life as if it's true, that's far enough down that path to declare that you've arrived.

void *
04-11-2011, 08:43
It's about gradients, it's not black and white.


You keep saying this, yet you don't approach your presupposed posit that atheism is a religion in this manner.

Why can't you accept the idea of viewing it as a curve, with some atheists approaching it in a manner that means they believe that they know, but many approach it in a manner that means they don't believe in gods, but don't believe that they know, either?

It's a good game of 'everything's about gradients but Calvary Doc's supposition is a black and white' you've got going there.

ksg0245
04-11-2011, 08:50
You keep saying this, yet you don't approach you presupposed posit that atheism is a religion in this manner.

Why can't you accept the idea of viewing it as a curve, with some atheists approaching it in a manner that means they believe that they know, but many approach it in a manner that means they don't believe in gods, but don't believe that they know, either?

It's a good game of 'everything's about gradients but Calvary Doc's supposition is a black and white' you've got going there.

Thank you. I was going to make that exact point, but he's got his fingers in his ears, and I suspect will never admit that's what he's doing no matter who points it out.

Syclone538
04-11-2011, 11:06
Post 1335, about half way down.





It's about gradients, it's not black and white. When you believe enough that you live your life as if it's true, that's far enough down that path to declare that you've arrived.


Well I thought maybe we had a misunderstanding, but now it looks more like an intentional misinterpretation.

And I'll ask again, do you know of anyone anywhere that believes it is not possible?

steveksux
04-11-2011, 22:21
Well I thought maybe we had a misunderstanding, but now it looks more like an intentional misinterpretation.

And I'll ask again, do you know of anyone anywhere that believes it is not possible?Its as if he thinks that if there's any atheist, anywhere, even just one, even if there aren't any, but there is just a hypothetical atheist that feels that way, its enough to make atheism a religion. :rofl:

That's pretty strange. That's like saying everyone that thinks there is ANY similarity whatsoever between atheism and religion is a lunatic just because there's one person that thinks atheism IS a religion..

Randy

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2011, 17:27
Well I thought maybe we had a misunderstanding, but now it looks more like an intentional misinterpretation.

And I'll ask again, do you know of anyone anywhere that believes it is not possible?

It's not intentional. Your post seemed a bit contradictory. That's all.

I know people that live their lives as if it is not possible. I know what Atheist organizations state are their positions:

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. (http://www.atheists.org/atheism)

emphasis added

There are evidently many people that believe that "God" is impossible.
Just google it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=god+is+impossible&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2011, 17:32
You keep saying this, yet you don't approach your presupposed posit that atheism is a religion in this manner.

Why can't you accept the idea of viewing it as a curve, with some atheists approaching it in a manner that means they believe that they know, but many approach it in a manner that means they don't believe in gods, but don't believe that they know, either?

It's a good game of 'everything's about gradients but Calvary Doc's supposition is a black and white' you've got going there.

Religious belief in any ultimate truth has gradients. Some Catholics believe birth control is OK. Many people that believe in a God will openly admit that they have occasional crises of faith. It is within the nature of man to question our own beliefs. Some are more convinced than others.

The fact that Atheism includes practitioners that have gradients of the strength of their conviction is a fact.

Try focusing on this issue, as opposed to the messenger. It's a sign of character.

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2011, 17:36
This is merely a notice, so that visitors to the thread will realize why some posts do not get replies from me.

This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.

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

If curious, they can go back and read why. I figure I should do that once a page, just to make it clearly evident.

Syclone538
04-12-2011, 21:34
It's not intentional. Your post seemed a bit contradictory. That's all.
...

I said I do not believe it is reasonably possible and you read that to mean it is not reasonable to consider the possibility. That is all on you, and it was your question that I was answering. I don't understand the misunderstanding, and it kind of looks intentional, but I'll take your word for it.

...
I know people that live their lives as if it is not possible.
...

And I live my life like it's not possible that I'll win the lottery tomorrow either.


...
I know what Atheist organizations state are their positions:
Atheism is the lack of belief in a deity, which implies that
...

Different emphasis added.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"I do not believe in a deity."
"I believe there is not a deity."

...
There are evidently many people that believe that "God" is impossible.
Just google it.

http://www.google.com/search?q=god+is+impossible&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

I'll look into this more when I can spend more time on it.

Cavalry Doc
04-12-2011, 21:41
I said I do not believe it is reasonably possible and you read that to mean it is not reasonable to consider the possibility. That is all on you, and it was your question that I was answering. I don't understand the misunderstanding, and it kind of looks intentional, but I'll take your word for it.



And I live my life like it's not possible that I'll win the lottery tomorrow either.




Different emphasis added.

Do you understand the difference between these two statements?

"I do not believe in a deity."
"I believe there is not a deity."



I'll look into this more when I can spend more time on it.



Sure thing. Get back to me when you've had the time...

:wavey:

ksg0245
04-13-2011, 07:25
This is merely a notice, so that visitors to the thread will realize why some posts do not get replies from me.

If curious, they can go back and read why. I figure I should do that once a page, just to make it clearly evident.

I think visitors to the thread are able to figure out why you don't want to reply to some posts by reading your earlier nonresponses, without your needing to constantly bring attention to the fact that you don't want to hear from people who disagree with you.

I look forward to your future "la la la I can't hear you" posts, too.

ksg0245
04-13-2011, 07:29
Religious belief in any ultimate truth has gradients. Some Catholics believe birth control is OK. Many people that believe in a God will openly admit that they have occasional crises of faith. It is within the nature of man to question our own beliefs. Some are more convinced than others.

The fact that Atheism includes practitioners that have gradients of the strength of their conviction is a fact.

Try focusing on this issue, as opposed to the messenger. It's a sign of character.

CD once again ignores a point that invalidates his argument while tossing out another snide remark. Interestingly, he so strenuously objects to pointed remarks about himself that he covers his eyes.

It's a sign of character.

void *
04-13-2011, 08:00
Try focusing on this issue, as opposed to the messenger. It's a sign of character.

Noting that you're contradicting yourself is focusing on the issue, as it's directly relevant to the validity of the argument you are making.

The irony is thick here, as well, given the statement about character. Instead of focusing on the contradiction you made (which would require you to admit you're contradicting yourself), you take a swipe at my character.

If you wouldn't contradict yourself, your argument wouldn't have contradictions to point out (Of course, if you didn't contradict yourself, you wouldn't have an argument at all). If you didn't make the ad-homs, there'd be no ad-homs to point out. If you don't want people to point those things out - the simple answer is for you to stop doing them.

steveksux
04-13-2011, 15:53
Noting that you're contradicting yourself is focusing on the issue, as it's directly relevant to the validity of the argument you are making.

The irony is thick here, as well, given the statement about character. Instead of focusing on the contradiction you made (which would require you to admit you're contradicting yourself), you take a swipe at my character.

If you wouldn't contradict yourself, your argument wouldn't have contradictions to point out (Of course, if you didn't contradict yourself, you wouldn't have an argument at all). If you didn't make the ad-homs, there'd be no ad-homs to point out. If you don't want people to point those things out - the simple answer is for you to stop doing them.When you point out the flaws in the message, you simultaneously show the messenger is wrong, therefore you're focusing too much on the messenger and are soon to be on the ignore list... :rofl:

Its not so bad really, he always sidestepped and threw out red herrings when faced with an argument. I never got a straight answer before I was being ignored. I kind of like it this way. Its more honest when he just admits he's not listening to anyone but himself. I found the honesty quite refreshing.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2011, 18:31
Noting that you're contradicting yourself is focusing on the issue, as it's directly relevant to the validity of the argument you are making.

The irony is thick here, as well, given the statement about character. Instead of focusing on the contradiction you made (which would require you to admit you're contradicting yourself), you take a swipe at my character.

If you wouldn't contradict yourself, your argument wouldn't have contradictions to point out (Of course, if you didn't contradict yourself, you wouldn't have an argument at all). If you didn't make the ad-homs, there'd be no ad-homs to point out. If you don't want people to point those things out - the simple answer is for you to stop doing them.

Just a little joke, no offense intended, but reading that reminded me of the game "twister".

Thanks for the laugh.


People are conflicted, and contradictory by nature. Perhaps you have a specific example?

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2011, 18:35
Oh, new page.

FYI to new visitors to the thread.

This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.

The reasons are on the previous pages.

DeltaNu1142
04-13-2011, 19:10
We get it.

In case anyone's interested in why CD isn't responding to previous posts... look at essentially any page of previous posts for clarification.

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/i-cant-hear-you-over-the-sound-of-how-awesome-i-am.jpg

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2011, 19:24
We get it.

In case anyone's interested in why CD isn't responding to previous posts... look at essentially any page of previous posts for clarification.

http://img2.moonbuggy.org/imgstore/i-cant-hear-you-over-the-sound-of-how-awesome-i-am.jpg

Got anything to say about the topic? BTW, photo link is broken.

Cavalry Doc
04-13-2011, 19:40
Excellent article.


Atheism, Agnosticism and Religious Faith: How Do You Weigh The Arguments?
(http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheism-Agnosicism-and-Religious-Faith-How-Do-You-Weigh-The-Arguments)

By rickyvallon

Give Peace A Chance: Religion Causes (Internet) Wars?

Are you a religious believer? A committed atheist? An agnostic? These days it seems that you just can’t avoid heated disputes between one faction and another, whether on relatively anonymous internet forums or chatrooms, or between high profile media figures, fighting it out in the pages of their newspaper columns and interviews. I don’t know about you, but I’m beginning to find the public spats between believers and non-believers more than a tad annoying.


Not that I don’t have a position on the matter myself:but wouldn’t we all be better off if we decided to live and let live, and better than that, keep our mouths shut if the alternative is ranting and ad hominem attacks?


On the whole, though, I find the atheists just a little more annoying than the religious fundamentalists. This is because of their ever-smugger insistence on the superiority of their position. So far, so much in common with the opposite team…


Are Atheists Rational?

However, the atheists base their supposed superiority on the logic and rationality of their position. How can you believe in a God with no evidence, they sneer. Where is the evidence? Voices in your head or your holy leaders dictating a holy book? Why, there’s a medical diagnosis for that, my dear…

They never do seem to turn this hard-edged analysis upon themselves, though, and ask the same tough questions.


THE REST IS HERE (http://hubpages.com/hub/Atheism-Agnosicism-and-Religious-Faith-How-Do-You-Weigh-The-Arguments)


Kind of points out the problems with atheism as a belief system. No proof. A negative claim is still just a claim.

Theists and Atheists, neither has higher logical ground for their arguments. Spock was an agnostic, at least before they started making the movies.

ArtificialGrape
04-13-2011, 20:24
Excellent article.

Kind of points out the problems with atheism as a belief system. No proof. A negative claim is still just a claim.

Theists and Atheists, neither has higher logical ground for their arguments. Spock was an agnostic, at least before they started making the movies.

So I read the entire article, and once I saw this, "atheists confidently (and loudly) proclaim that there is NO GOD" I knew the predictable strawman argument was to follow.

I think that most atheists that were raised in religion and later abandoned it came to the conclusion through intellectual honesty that led to rejecting god(s), and I would expect that this same honesty would keep the majority from declaring as fact the statement above -- "there is NO GOD". I don't have a poll to support this, so you'll have to take it on faith :supergrin:

This is just another article allowing people to use agnosticism as a cop out to a tough question.

I will simplify my earlier 2 questions down to 1:

Is there at least one specific god that you accept as being true/supernatural/divine?

If you answer "yes" you're a theist, if you answer "no" you're an atheist?

This is truly a question with a binary (yes or no) answer.

If you begin to answer with, "well there could be", while interesting, that's not answering the question: Is there at least one specific god that you accept as being true/supernatural/divine?

An answer of "no, but there could be", as I've argued before, makes you an atheist -- there is not any 1 specific god that you accept as real.

I did find the babysitter remark in Ricky Gervais clip funny.

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

steveksux
04-13-2011, 21:10
Oh, new page.

FYI to new visitors to the thread.



The reasons are on the previous pages.
I'll save everyone the trouble of looking back. Here's the definitions used to justify his claim that atheism is a religion:
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 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
— re·li·gion·less adjective
See religion defined for English-language learners »
Red is the now infamous definition littered throughout the thread. Obviously a different connotation than 1 or 2, which obviously refer to actual religions like Christianity.

Now look at the examples from the same dictionary entry:
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.Obviously refer to actual religions in the normal sense of the word, definitions 1 or 2.

Now for the examples that refer to the definition favored by Cavalry Doc to include atheism, #4:
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 obviously refer to the definition CD uses to call Atheism a "religion". Yet when hockey or football are brought up, he protests.... "you're demeaning religions comparing them with hockey", "hockey is just a game, its obviously not a religion".

Sorry. You can't have it both ways. If the definition fits, then the examples apply too. If the examples don't fit, neither does the definition. Obviously even if we grant his definition means atheism is a "religion" in that narrow sense of the word, its an obvious lie to claim it makes atheism the same sort of "religion" that Christianity is.

Its not too difficult to understand this concept. Its patently obvious the claim is proven false by the very dictionary entry he chose to attempt to make the claim. Instead of doing the honest thing and conceding defeat? Continue making the obviously disingenuous claim, and place the messengers on ignore.

You would not want to buy a used car from someone who tries to make such misleading claims. "Oh, this car is VERY reliable". Reliable in the sense that it breaks down every 200 miles like clockwork.

So you guys are welcome to try to engage in a meaningful discussion, but that requires honesty, and there's nothing but trolling coming from the other side.

Randy

DeltaNu1142
04-14-2011, 01:10
Got anything to say about the topic? BTW, photo link is broken.
No, it's been proven futile. And no... photo works fine.

ksg0245
04-14-2011, 07:38
Just a little joke, no offense intended, but reading that reminded me of the game "twister".

Thanks for the laugh.

People are conflicted, and contradictory by nature. Perhaps you have a specific example?

I can think of one.

ksg0245
04-14-2011, 07:40
Oh, new page.

FYI to new visitors to the thread.

The reasons are on the previous pages.

:upeyes:

ksg0245
04-14-2011, 08:03
Excellent article.

Not with misinformation like No, atheists confidently (and loudly) proclaim that there is NO GOD. in it, it isn't. It just demonstrates that the writer, like so many people, doesn't know what he's talking about.

Kind of points out the problems with atheism as a belief system. No proof. A negative claim is still just a claim.

For those still playing along, this is the "negative claim" atheism makes: "a disbelief in the existence of deity." (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1302788685)

Quite an intricate belief system, isn't it?

Since CD is a firm believer in language precision, this is what "disbelieve" means: "to hold not worthy of belief : not believe; to withhold or reject belief," (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve) and, to be absolutely precisely clear, this is what "disbelief" means: "the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue" (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief).

The "negative claim belief system" CD asserts makes atheism a religion: "I don't believe deities exist."

Theists and Atheists, neither has higher logical ground for their arguments. Spock was an agnostic, at least before they started making the movies.

That's persuasive.

void *
04-14-2011, 10:08
People are conflicted, and contradictory by nature. Perhaps you have a specific example?

You might want to read the posts of yours I was responding to. They are the specific examples.

See, when you argue that nothing is black and white, but your basic premise sits on a foundation requiring a black and white, your argument contradicts your overall premise. That's not about you, other than you are the one making the contradictory argument.

When you respond to that with an argument saying that I am focusing on you rather than your argument, and follow that up with an ad-hom, you are both wrong (since my original point was about your arguments), as well as hypocritically contradicting yourself *again* (since your argument states I am focusing on you, while you are swinging an ad-hom attack on me).

Cavalry Doc
04-14-2011, 18:29
No, it's been proven futile. And no... photo works fine.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/Nope.png

Maybe it's supposed to be a black rectangle?

Cavalry Doc
04-14-2011, 18:32
So I read the entire article, and once I saw this, "atheists confidently (and loudly) proclaim that there is NO GOD" I knew the predictable strawman argument was to follow.

I think that most atheists that were raised in religion and later abandoned it came to the conclusion through intellectual honesty that led to rejecting god(s), and I would expect that this same honesty would keep the majority from declaring as fact the statement above -- "there is NO GOD". I don't have a poll to support this, so you'll have to take it on faith :supergrin:

This is just another article allowing people to use agnosticism as a cop out to a tough question.

I will simplify my earlier 2 questions down to 1:

Is there at least one specific god that you accept as being true/supernatural/divine?

If you answer "yes" you're a theist, if you answer "no" you're an atheist?

This is truly a question with a binary (yes or no) answer.

If you begin to answer with, "well there could be", while interesting, that's not answering the question: Is there at least one specific god that you accept as being true/supernatural/divine?

An answer of "no, but there could be", as I've argued before, makes you an atheist -- there is not any 1 specific god that you accept as real.

I did find the babysitter remark in Ricky Gervais clip funny.

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

If I answer, I don't know whether any or all of them exist, then what.

I don't know, nor do I feel a duty to know one way or the other.

Maybe yes, maybe no.


Atheists have decided.
Theists have decided.
Agnostics have not decided.

ArtificialGrape
04-14-2011, 19:35
If I answer, I don't know whether any or all of them exist, then what.
There is not a god that you accept -- atheist.
Atheists have decided.
Theists have decided.
Agnostics have not decided.
Atheists answered, no.
Theists answered, yes.
Agnostics refused to answer. :cool:

Cavalry Doc
04-16-2011, 07:42
There is not a god that you accept -- atheist.

Atheists answered, no.
Theists answered, yes.
Agnostics refused to answer. :cool:

I accept that is you opinion. But the definition of atheist is: "one who believes that there is no deity."

I believe that is a religious belief, as it requires faith.

In the absence of convincing evidence one way or the other, I chose to accept that I do not know. I don't feel a need to believe that I know the ultimate reality of the universe, and am perfectly comfortable with my position. I believe that since I don't know myself, I have no business trying to convince people that their religious belief is somehow inferior or less logical than my own. For an agnostic, I can see that Atheism is, from the beginning, another belief that makes a choice to believe something without proof, requiring faith. To me, I see several different types of Theists on one side, and several different types of Atheists on the other. Maybe it's my ability to accept the unknown as unknown that gives me the perspective to see it. Religious zealots on either side have difficulty understanding how a person could accept not knowing...... :dunno:

Is there a God?

Atheists answered, no.
Theists answered, yes.
Agnostics give an answer that is apparently unacceptable to digital thinking religious zealots.



Yes, no, and maybe are all valid answers to the question, is there a god.



I accept that your opinion is your opinion. I respect your belief, whether you think there is a god, no god(s), or don't know either.

void *
04-16-2011, 19:13
If I answer, I don't know whether any or all of them exist, then what.

I don't know, nor do I feel a duty to know one way or the other.


Nobody is asking you to have a duty to know one way or another.


Yes, no, and maybe are all valid answers to the question, is there a god.

'I don't know' is not 'Yes', wouldn't you agree? And since people who believe in gods answer the question 'Is there a god' with 'Yes', anyone who answers 'No' or 'I don't know' is in a class that does not believe.

By the very fact that you answer with 'I don't know', you indicate you are not a believer. If you were a believer, you would say 'Yes'.

Cavalry Doc
04-16-2011, 20:42
Nobody is asking you to have a duty to know one way or another.


If you'll go back and look just a short time, I have been accused by artificialgrape of refusing to answer a question that I have answered. He just didn't approve of the answer he received. It did not fit his digital template.



'I don't know' is not 'Yes', wouldn't you agree? And since people who believe in gods answer the question 'Is there a god' with 'Yes', anyone who answers 'No' or 'I don't know' is in a class that does not believe.



Thanks. That is a point that I have been trying to make. The lack of belief in a deity does not make one an atheist, the belief that there is no deity makes one an atheist. The definition of the word is quite clear.

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


By the very fact that you answer with 'I don't know', you indicate you are not a believer. If you were a believer, you would say 'Yes'.

By the very fact that I answer "I don't know", means that I friggin don't know. It's so simple, clear, and direct, that I am astounded that it is not understood. I don't know. period. end. That's all folks....

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/thatsallfolks-1.jpg



The fact that an "atheist" believes that there is no deity(see definition and begin correct word usage), and has been no deity. If you aren't committed to your belief, and don't know, you are an atheistic agnostic, an agnostic or a theistic agnostic. Atheists are committed to their belief.





I am a believer in the truth. Whether I know it or not, the truth is what it is. I do not claim to know what the truth is in every case, and particularly in the case of the question, "does god exist".

Truth is, atheism is a religion, whether any of us like it or not.

void *
04-16-2011, 23:16
The lack of belief in a deity does not make one an atheist

If you believed, you would be a theist. Atheist and theist are antonyms, as has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.


By the very fact that I answer "I don't know", means that I friggin don't know. It's so simple, clear, and direct, that I am astounded that it is not understood. I don't know. period. end. That's all folks....

Yep.

And I don't know either.

The difference between myself and yourself is that I admit the fact that I don't know means I don't believe. Combine that with the fact that I consider it unlikely (although, not impossible - although you stubbornly refuse to see that most self-labeled atheists in the thread do not consider it either an impossibility or a disproved posit), and that makes me an atheist.

Whereas you refuse to answer the question as to whether or not you believe ... when you've actually already answered it, because responding to the question 'Do a god or gods exist?' with 'I don't know' is not responding 'Yes' - and if you believed, you would simply respond 'Yes'.

A theist believes - whether they consider it knowledge or not.
An atheist doesn't believe - whether they consider it knowledge or not.
An agnostic refuses to answer the question, or states 'I don't know', despite the fact that answering 'I don't know' means they don't believe. Basically, an agnostic is an atheist that doesn't want to own up to it. You want to keep the 'I don't know' part, which most of the atheists you have been arguing with you concur with, and avoid the question of whether or not you believe.

Smacktard
04-17-2011, 03:02
'I don't know' is not 'Yes', wouldn't you agree? And since people who believe in gods answer the question 'Is there a god' with 'Yes', anyone who answers 'No' or 'I don't know' is in a class that does not believe.

By the very fact that you answer with 'I don't know', you indicate you are not a believer. If you were a believer, you would say 'Yes'.


Looks like you're one of those un-believers Doc.

...

ArtificialGrape
04-18-2011, 11:07
That is a point that I have been trying to make. The lack of belief in a deity does not make one an atheist, the belief that there is no deity makes one an atheist. The definition of the word is quite clear.

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



By the very fact that I answer "I don't know", means that I friggin don't know. It's so simple, clear, and direct, that I am astounded that it is not understood. I don't know. period. end. That's all folks....

The fact that an "atheist" believes that there is no deity(see definition and begin correct word usage), and has been no deity. If you aren't committed to your belief, and don't know, you are an atheistic agnostic, an agnostic or a theistic agnostic. Atheists are committed to their belief.

I am a believer in the truth. Whether I know it or not, the truth is what it is. I do not claim to know what the truth is in every case, and particularly in the case of the question, "does god exist".

Truth is, atheism is a religion, whether any of us like it or not.

How about atheist as defined by the more authoritative Oxford Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0977070#m_en_gb0977070)
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:

To the majority of the planet, there is probably no particular difference between,

a person who does not believe in god(s), and
a person who believes there is no god(s)

and asked to define atheist, I bet most would offer something pretty close to 1. above.

The primary definition of religion in the Oxford Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1284107#m_en_us1284107) is:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion

then if you get down to the 3rd definition you find
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
consumerism is the new religion

In a discussion regarding the supernatural, it is obvious (to almost anybody) that the first definition is the one that applies to the conversation.

Bottom line, if you're called before God on judgment day, I don't think that your sliding scale of belief if going to bear much weight.
God: did you believe in and worship me?
Cavalry Doc: Well, you see, I had this idea of a graduated scale of belief, far right were fundamental Believers, far left were fundamental atheists, and I'm dead center.
<<ding>> <-- that's the sound of the down elevator button being pushed.

One thing that I think we can agree on, arguing over whether atheism is a religion has become a religion.

See ya around the fiery lake :devildance:

BTW, my definition above was larger and red, so clearly I win for that as well.

Cavalry Doc
04-18-2011, 17:43
How about atheist as defined by the more authoritative Oxford Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_gb0977070#m_en_gb0977070)
a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods:

To the majority of the planet, there is probably no particular difference between,

a person who does not believe in god(s), and
a person who believes there is no god(s)

and asked to define atheist, I bet most would offer something pretty close to 1. above.

The primary definition of religion in the Oxford Dictionary (http://oxforddictionaries.com/view/entry/m_en_us1284107#m_en_us1284107) is:
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power , especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion

then if you get down to the 3rd definition you find
a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance:
consumerism is the new religion

In a discussion regarding the supernatural, it is obvious (to almost anybody) that the first definition is the one that applies to the conversation.

Bottom line, if you're called before God on judgment day, I don't think that your sliding scale of belief if going to bear much weight.
God: did you believe in and worship me?
Cavalry Doc: Well, you see, I had this idea of a graduated scale of belief, far right were fundamental Believers, far left were fundamental atheists, and I'm dead center.
<<ding>> <-- that's the sound of the down elevator button being pushed.

One thing that I think we can agree on, arguing over whether atheism is a religion has become a religion.

See ya around the fiery lake :devildance:

BTW, my definition above was larger and red, so clearly I win for that as well.

That's all cute and all, and rather emotionally stated, but I'll try to pick out some of the points.


First, Why do you believe the Oxford Dictionary is superior. It's British English, as opposed to American English, and I'm an American. Brits will quickly agree that American is different, as will Americans that have worked with Brits, like I have. Trust me when I tell you I was not being hit on when an attractive British woman asked me to stop by her room and knock her up.

When in Rome, do as the Romans, when in the United States, Merriam-Webster is the standard.

How is you're trying to scare me with hell any different than a Christian trying to scare you with it? I'm smelling some hypocrisy.... :dunno:

I'm not afraid. I have fully accepted that I don't know, and everything that goes with it. Evidently, you may still be a little insecure, or practicing atheism not for it's merits, but as rebellion against a christian upbringing perhaps. Just possibilities.


Either way, Atheism is a belief, using either dictionary, that is based on something that is not known, a matter of faith.

Just another side of the coin to an agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
04-18-2011, 17:48
If you believed, you would be a theist. Atheist and theist are antonyms, as has been pointed out to you many times in this thread.



Yep.

And I don't know either.

The difference between myself and yourself is that I admit the fact that I don't know means I don't believe. Combine that with the fact that I consider it unlikely (although, not impossible - although you stubbornly refuse to see that most self-labeled atheists in the thread do not consider it either an impossibility or a disproved posit), and that makes me an atheist.

Whereas you refuse to answer the question as to whether or not you believe ... when you've actually already answered it, because responding to the question 'Do a god or gods exist?' with 'I don't know' is not responding 'Yes' - and if you believed, you would simply respond 'Yes'.

A theist believes - whether they consider it knowledge or not.
An atheist doesn't believe - whether they consider it knowledge or not.
An agnostic refuses to answer the question, or states 'I don't know', despite the fact that answering 'I don't know' means they don't believe. Basically, an agnostic is an atheist that doesn't want to own up to it. You want to keep the 'I don't know' part, which most of the atheists you have been arguing with you concur with, and avoid the question of whether or not you believe.

Very digital.

Theist <> everyone else.


It's a gradient.

Atheist << Athiestic agnostic << Agnostic >> Theistic agnostic >> Theist.



You are just unable to understand the logic of the answer "maybe". I can't say I haven't tried, but you are proving part of a point I made earlier, religious zealots are very intolerant of differing views.

Cavalry Doc
04-18-2011, 17:52
Looks like you're one of those un-believers Doc.

...

So you agree that "I don't know" = no?

Twisted and tortuous pseudo-logic.


I don't know means I don't know. I even believe I don't know.


Is there a God? Do YOU believe there is one or is not one? Why?

ArtificialGrape
04-18-2011, 20:50
How is you're trying to scare me with hell any different than a Christian trying to scare you with it? I'm smelling some hypocrisy.... :dunno:
Not hypocritical at all, I fear no Cosmic Justice, and don't believe that anybody else should either. Just reiterating that I'm not so sure that a god would accept the gradient approach.

I'm not afraid. I have fully accepted that I don't know, and everything that goes with it. Evidently, you may still be a little insecure, or practicing atheism not for it's merits, but as rebellion against a christian upbringing perhaps. Just possibilities.
I'm not insecure in the slightest in regard to my atheism. I'm not rebelling in the sense of going against my upbringing merely for the sake of rebelling. I also recognize and accept what my lack of belief means -- there will be no reunions with loved ones that have passed; there is no Hell for Hitlers, child raping priests, and other scourges of mankind; terrible things sometimes happen to good people, and there is no greater good, ...

Either way, Atheism is a belief, using either dictionary, that is based on something that is not known, a matter of faith.
Just because a story is widely accepted, I find no reason to accept on faith claims that cannot be proven -- it does not require faith on my part to reject these claims. The rejection of the single premise (and associated baggage), god(s) exist, is not a belief system.

When it comes to claims of existence, the only logical position is disbelief until claims of existence are proven. Do you belief in UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, Chupacabra? Does your disbelief of any of these constitute a belief system that you have? Does it require faith on your part (assuming you disbelieve in at least one of those) to dismiss the claims of existence?

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail."

ksg0245
04-19-2011, 07:23
So you agree that "I don't know" = no?

Twisted and tortuous pseudo-logic.


I don't know means I don't know. I even believe I don't know.


Is there a God? Do YOU believe there is one or is not one? Why?

If you don't know what YOU believe, how can you presume to know what others believe?

ksg0245
04-19-2011, 07:32
That's all cute and all, and rather emotionally stated, but I'll try to pick out some of the points.


First, Why do you believe the Oxford Dictionary is superior. It's British English, as opposed to American English, and I'm an American. Brits will quickly agree that American is different, as will Americans that have worked with Brits, like I have. Trust me when I tell you I was not being hit on when an attractive British woman asked me to stop by her room and knock her up.

When in Rome, do as the Romans, when in the United States, Merriam-Webster is the standard.

How is you're trying to scare me with hell any different than a Christian trying to scare you with it? I'm smelling some hypocrisy.... :dunno:

I'm not afraid. I have fully accepted that I don't know, and everything that goes with it. Evidently, you may still be a little insecure, or practicing atheism not for it's merits, but as rebellion against a christian upbringing perhaps. Just possibilities.


Either way, Atheism is a belief, using either dictionary, that is based on something that is not known, a matter of faith.

Just another side of the coin to an agnostic.

From the only dictionary CD accepts:

atheism : 2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism?show=0&t=1303219437)

disbelief : the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief)

disbelieve : to hold not worthy of belief : not believe (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieving)

For CD, opposites are the same things.

ksg0245
04-19-2011, 07:37
Very digital.

Theist <> everyone else.


It's a gradient.

Atheist << Athiestic agnostic << Agnostic >> Theistic agnostic >> Theist.



You are just unable to understand the logic of the answer "maybe". I can't say I haven't tried, but you are proving part of a point I made earlier, religious zealots are very intolerant of differing views.

"Maybe" isn't an answer to the question "do you believe?" Nor is "I don't know."

Jayhawkai
04-19-2011, 15:52
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qs3RKZjSzYg

steveksux
04-19-2011, 16:15
Not hypocritical at all, I fear no Cosmic Justice, and don't believe that anybody else should either. Just reiterating that I'm not so sure that a god would accept the gradient approach.


I'm not insecure in the slightest in regard to my atheism. I'm not rebelling in the sense of going against my upbringing merely for the sake of rebelling. I also recognize and accept what my lack of belief means -- there will be no reunions with loved ones that have passed; there is no Hell for Hitlers, child raping priests, and other scourges of mankind; terrible things sometimes happen to good people, and there is no greater good, ...


Just because a story is widely accepted, I find no reason to accept on faith claims that cannot be proven -- it does not require faith on my part to reject these claims. The rejection of the single premise (and associated baggage), god(s) exist, is not a belief system.

When it comes to claims of existence, the only logical position is disbelief until claims of existence are proven. Do you belief in UFOs, Loch Ness Monster, Sasquatch, Chupacabra? Does your disbelief of any of these constitute a belief system that you have? Does it require faith on your part (assuming you disbelieve in at least one of those) to dismiss the claims of existence?

-ArtificialGrape

"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

"Faith is nothing more than the license religious people give one another to keep believing when reasons fail." Nonchupacabranistianism certainly IS a religion, at least it must be according to Cavalry Doc.

I suppose atheism is not a monotheistic religion either because they don't believe in multiple gods. And Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny.

Must be a lot of holidays they celebrate to NOT honor all those beings they don't believe in.
Randy

ArtificialGrape
04-19-2011, 16:30
Nonchupacabranistianism certainly IS a religion, at least it must be according to Cavalry Doc.

I suppose atheism is not a monotheistic religion either because they don't believe in multiple gods. And Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny.

Must be a lot of holidays they celebrate to NOT honor all those beings they don't believe in.
Randy

I'm actually a polyatheist -- there are many gods that I don't believe in.

Smacktard
04-25-2011, 19:29
I'm actually a polyatheist -- there are many gods that I don't believe in.

If there is one god, there could be hundreds or millions.


...

void *
04-27-2011, 10:58
I don't know means I don't know. I even believe I don't know.

You don't know whether or not you believe, apparently, which is imho just a way of saying you don't want to answer the question, nor acknowledge that not answering 'Yes' means that you don't believe because people that believe answer yes.

bfg1971
04-28-2011, 14:29
Funny discussion at school today. It seems that some secular humanists employed by the US Navy want a secular humanist chaplain. Now the Navy only provides chaplain of approved religions and since they are considering this. it logically follows that the US Navy sees secular humanism as an approved religion.

The question of course is "is a secular humanist an atheist?"


I don't know the answer to that question. What do you think?

ArtificialGrape
04-28-2011, 15:34
Funny discussion at school today. It seems that some secular humanists employed by the US Navy want a secular humanist chaplain. Now the Navy only provides chaplain of approved religions and since they are considering this. it logically follows that the US Navy sees secular humanism as an approved religion.

The question of course is "is a secular humanist an atheist?"

I don't know the answer to that question. What do you think?

While Secular Humanists are nonreligious, they posit their own philosophy, and most atheists do not subscribe to Secular Humanism.

Atheism alone is nothing more than the rejection of the claim that "god(s) exist."

Details can be found at http://www.secularhumanism.org

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2011, 13:14
Just checking in. Been working 7 day weeks and spending free time on other endeavors.


Steve is still here :rofl:. Steve, try to get it, it's the belief that no deity(s) exists, not the lack of belief in a particular deity.

Bottom line is still the same. Stating it passively does not eliminate the facts.

Guss
05-08-2011, 13:52
I guess there is everlasting life...This thread won't die.

Guss
05-08-2011, 13:59
Before encountering this thread, I was not aware that there were people who worship the dictionary gods. Further, it seems to be very important that you pick the right dictionary gods. Which do I choose: The Oxford Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, or (Heaven forbid) the secular Wikipedia source?

steveksux
05-08-2011, 15:26
Just checking in. Been working 7 day weeks and spending free time on other endeavors.


Steve is still here :rofl:. Steve, try to get it, it's the belief that no deity(s) exists, not the lack of belief in a particular deity.

Bottom line is still the same. Stating it passively does not eliminate the facts.
Your beloved dictionary definition puts atheism in the context of "Hockey is a religion in Canada'. It specifically states atheism is the antonym of religion. The opposite of religion, for those of us dictionarily challenged.

That's the facts. You're unable to comprehend the difference between a screen name of Steve and actual name of Randy.

No wonder you apparently can't competently read a dictionary. Of course you're just trolling, I sincerely doubt you are genuinely that obtuse. You're simply incapable of accepting when you're wrong. Perhaps its just embarrassment that the very dictionary definition you relied on to make your point was your undoing.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
05-08-2011, 17:27
Your beloved dictionary definition puts atheism in the context of "Hockey is a religion in Canada'. It specifically states atheism is the antonym of religion. The opposite of religion, for those of us dictionarily challenged.

That's the facts. You're unable to comprehend the difference between a screen name of Steve and actual name of Randy.

No wonder you apparently can't competently read a dictionary. Of course you're just trolling, I sincerely doubt you are genuinely that obtuse. You're simply incapable of accepting when you're wrong. Perhaps its just embarrassment that the very dictionary definition you relied on to make your point was your undoing.

Randy

So, you believe Canadians "worship hockey", and why is that? Probably due to the absolute devotion to the sport? Well, it would appear that you are in fact then not an Athiest as you must have two gods, your ego and and hubris. So, I suppose, given the above context regarding Canada, you are no longer an Athiest, but a hedonist.

steveksux
05-08-2011, 17:56
So, you believe Canadians "worship hockey", and why is that? Probably due to the absolute devotion to the sport? Well, it would appear that you are in fact then not an Athiest as you must have two gods, your ego and and hubris. So, I suppose, given the above context regarding Canada, you are no longer an Athiest, but a hedonist.
You're not paying attention. Try again. You really don't remember his dictionary definition of religion? Its only been posted a couple dozen times. He's the one using the definition of "religion" that refers to hockey being a religion in Canada to prove atheism is a "religion". Its a stupid argument. And that's what I'm pointing out. I've never suggested anything along the lines you're suggesting. If you were paying attention you'd know that.

Randy

Kingarthurhk
05-08-2011, 18:17
You're not paying attention. Try again. You really don't remember his dictionary definition of religion? Its only been posted a couple dozen times. He's the one using the definition of "religion" that refers to hockey being a religion in Canada to prove atheism is a "religion". Its a stupid argument. And that's what I'm pointing out. I've never suggested anything along the lines you're suggesting. If you were paying attention you'd know that.

Randy

And if you were paying attention, you would note that philsophically, any pressumption about the metaphysical that leads to the paradigm in which the matrix of reality is viewed could easily be considered a religion. Ergo, Athiesm, by such a definition is a religion.

steveksux
05-08-2011, 20:12
And if you were paying attention, you would note that philsophically, any pressumption about the metaphysical that leads to the paradigm in which the matrix of reality is viewed could easily be considered a religion. Ergo, Athiesm, by such a definition is a religion.

Actually. If you were paying attention, you'd realize there is nothing metaphysical about atheism. And that IS a major difference between it and religion.

But, why am I explaining that to someone who thinks people "worship" hockey? Someone apparently unaware words can have different connotations that are not interchangeable. That's the crux of the OPs trolling, the willful misrepresentation of that simple concept, pretending it does not apply.


Randy

ArtificialGrape
05-08-2011, 20:57
Just checking in. Been working 7 day weeks and spending free time on other endeavors.


Steve is still here :rofl:. Steve, try to get it, it's the belief that no deity(s) exists, not the lack of belief in a particular deity.

Bottom line is still the same. Stating it passively does not eliminate the facts.
Doc, atheism requires no assertion that "there is no god" it merely rejects the assertion that "god(s) exist" -- nothing more.

Are there atheists that go the step further and claim "no god(s) exist? Sure, a minority from what I've seen, but that's certainly not required of an atheist.

-ArtificialGrape

ArtificialGrape
05-08-2011, 21:03
So, you believe Canadians "worship hockey", and why is that? Probably due to the absolute devotion to the sport? Well, it would appear that you are in fact then not an Athiest as you must have two gods, your ego and and hubris. So, I suppose, given the above context regarding Canada, you are no longer an Athiest, but a hedonist.
Christians seem to believe that the billions of objects in the cosmos as well as every plant and animal (including 350,000+ species of beetles) on earth were created just for man, and it's atheists with an ego?

-ArtificialGrape

Guss
05-09-2011, 03:59
Christians seem to believe that the billions of objects in the cosmos as well as every plant and animal (including 350,000+ species of beetles) on earth were created just for man, and it's atheists with an ego?

Ego? Man was created in the image of God wasn't he?

ArtificialGrape
05-09-2011, 12:46
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l591/ArtificialGrape/faith/no-flavor.jpg

My entire philosophical understanding of the world has been turned upside down by a limeade.

If Sonic charges 10 cents for the flavor of "no flavor" could this mean that bald is a hair color and no religion is a religion?

Please allow me a little time to process the greater implications.

-ArtificialGrape (the one true flavor)

ksg0245
05-09-2011, 12:51
Just checking in. Been working 7 day weeks and spending free time on other endeavors.


Steve is still here :rofl:. Steve, try to get it, it's the belief that no deity(s) exists, not the lack of belief in a particular deity.

Bottom line is still the same. Stating it passively does not eliminate the facts.

Just because you need it to be defined in a specific way to fit neatly into your little diatribe doesn't mean anyone else is required to accept that definition.

Kingarthurhk
05-09-2011, 19:25
Actually. If you were paying attention, you'd realize there is nothing metaphysical about atheism. And that IS a major difference between it and religion.

But, why am I explaining that to someone who thinks people "worship" hockey? Someone apparently unaware words can have different connotations that are not interchangeable. That's the crux of the OPs trolling, the willful misrepresentation of that simple concept, pretending it does not apply.


Randy

Spoken like a true zealot. You ARE making an assumption about the metaphysical. You are declaring there is no God. That is a metaphysical presupposition. This defines the way in which you view reality. Therefore, it is your religion. I might add you seek to defend it. And ironically, it even has an evangeliical arm by often declaring Theories as if they were facts. The Big Bang Theory, Evolutionary Theory. So, in essence, this "religion" has, for lack of a better, term, a "bible".

ArtificialGrape
05-09-2011, 20:23
Spoken like a true zealot. You ARE making an assumption about the metaphysical. You are declaring there is no God. That is a metaphysical presupposition. This defines the way in which you view reality. Therefore, it is your religion. I might add you seek to defend it. And ironically, it even has an evangeliical arm by often declaring Theories as if they were facts. The Big Bang Theory, Evolutionary Theory. So, in essence, this "religion" has, for lack of a better, term, a "bible".
A couple of things...

1st, I really just need to leave this in my paste buffer, but atheism is nothing more than the rejection of the claims made by others that "god(s) exist". That is all, nothing more. There is no need to claim "no god(s) exist". This is a critical distinction.

Also, there is no requirement of atheism to explain anything that religion purports to explain. A claim can be rejected entirely by it's own lack of evidence. I don't have to know what 12345 raised to the power of 6789 is, but I can clearly reject somebody claiming that it is 9 with no further discussion.

BTW, plenty of believers in Christianity and other religions already accept the big bang and evolution.

2nd, you obviously don't understand how the terms "fact" and "theory" are used by the scientific community, so this video would be worth the 10 minutes to watch it. Only a Theory? (http://youtu.be/g7Ctl9nzEqs)

3rd, how much are you banking on science not having explained the origin of the cosmos and the origin of life and the variation of species? Would you be willing to reduce the magnitude and grandeur of God based on any scientific explanation? If not, what is the point arguing against science when you are predetermined to ignore it?

Of course, if science was to demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin or something else proved the existence of a historical Jesus, then Christians would be all over that piece of science, but until it can be used in their favor, Christians seem rather content to ignore science.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. – Frater Ravus

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2011, 20:45
Before encountering this thread, I was not aware that there were people who worship the dictionary gods. Further, it seems to be very important that you pick the right dictionary gods. Which do I choose: The Oxford Dictionary, the Random House Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, or (Heaven forbid) the secular Wikipedia source?

It's not about worshiping the gods of the dictionary, it's about the meaning of words, and concepts.


Fact is that any committed atheist, has made a choice of what to believe, not any different than any committed theist.

Fact is that none of us know for sure, and we all either make a choice to believe or not believe in some version of events surrounding the origins of the universe, or choose to not come to a conclusion.

That's it.

Atheism is a religion, not completely unlike all the others, just with fewer details.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2011, 20:55
And if you were paying attention, you would note that philsophically, any pressumption about the metaphysical that leads to the paradigm in which the matrix of reality is viewed could easily be considered a religion. Ergo, Athiesm, by such a definition is a religion.

Ka-ching.



You get it. :wavey:



Religious zealots are sometimes blind to the truth, forgive them.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2011, 20:58
A couple of things...

1st, I really just need to leave this in my paste buffer, but atheism is nothing more than the rejection of the claims made by others that "god(s) exist". That is all, nothing more. There is no need to claim "no god(s) exist". This is a critical distinction.

Also, there is no requirement of atheism to explain anything that religion purports to explain. A claim can be rejected entirely by it's own lack of evidence. I don't have to know what 12345 raised to the power of 6789 is, but I can clearly reject somebody claiming that it is 9 with no further discussion.

BTW, plenty of believers in Christianity and other religions already accept the big bang and evolution.

2nd, you obviously don't understand how the terms "fact" and "theory" are used by the scientific community, so this video would be worth the 10 minutes to watch it. Only a Theory? (http://youtu.be/g7Ctl9nzEqs)

3rd, how much are you banking on science not having explained the origin of the cosmos and the origin of life and the variation of species? Would you be willing to reduce the magnitude and grandeur of God based on any scientific explanation? If not, what is the point arguing against science when you are predetermined to ignore it?

Of course, if science was to demonstrate that the Shroud of Turin or something else proved the existence of a historical Jesus, then Christians would be all over that piece of science, but until it can be used in their favor, Christians seem rather content to ignore science.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
Faith does not give you the answers, it just stops you asking the questions. – Frater Ravus

Repeatedly stating a belief in a passive sense, does not negate the positive expression of the same belief.

Do or has a deity or deities exist(ed)???????


If you believe one way or the other, you have made a choice. If you are not comfortable with that choice, abandon it, or at least admit you made it.

ArtificialGrape
05-09-2011, 21:24
Do or has a deity or deities exist(ed)???????
I see no evidence to support that assertion. Can I prove no deity exists/existed? Of course not, it cannot be proven.

I'm going to begin referring to this as the Lazarus thread -- it's shorter than the atheism is a religion thread.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

steveksux
05-09-2011, 21:38
Spoken like a true zealot. You ARE making an assumption about the metaphysical. You are declaring there is no God. That is a metaphysical presupposition. This defines the way in which you view reality. Therefore, it is your religion. I might add you seek to defend it. And ironically, it even has an evangeliical arm by often declaring Theories as if they were facts. The Big Bang Theory, Evolutionary Theory. So, in essence, this "religion" has, for lack of a better, term, a "bible".Spoken like true gibberish. Congratulations! :rofl::rofl:
Dismissing superstitions for lack of supporting evidence is not being superstitious. Regardless of your word games.

Randy

Guss
05-09-2011, 22:09
Repeatedly stating a belief in a passive sense, does not negate the positive expression of the same belief.

Do or has a deity or deities exist(ed)???????


...
I guess the atheists are making something of a positive statement:
"The case for a deity remains unproven."

How that is supposed to be a full-fledged religion is a mystery to me.

I wish I could find the old cartoon by Don Addis. It was a drawing of a church-like building with a sign out front that said something like "First Church of Atheism - No worship again this Sunday".

ArtificialGrape
05-09-2011, 22:32
Spoken like a true zealot. You ARE making an assumption about the metaphysical. You are declaring there is no God. That is a metaphysical presupposition. This defines the way in which you view reality. Therefore, it is your religion. I might add you seek to defend it. And ironically, it even has an evangeliical arm by often declaring Theories as if they were facts. The Big Bang Theory, Evolutionary Theory. So, in essence, this "religion" has, for lack of a better, term, a "bible".

Ka-ching.

You get it. :wavey:

Religious zealots are sometimes blind to the truth, forgive them.

So riddle me this, because I fear that I may be a heretical atheist not knowing all the doctrine that I should be observing and espousing?

What are the dogma, rites, holidays, unholy writ, etc. of the Church of Atheism?

Belief in neither the big bang nor evolution is required, and as previously mentioned, plenty of Christians believe in those -- perhaps they're Christian Atheists. :dunno:

Maybe one of the rites is mowing the lawn on Sunday morning? I actually prefer to mow the front on Saturday and the back on Sunday so that I don't accidentally keep one day holy.

If you could provide a succinct Atheist's Creed similar to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed, that would really be helpful, for I now fear that I may be excommunicated.

Thanks,
-ArtificialGrape

Note to self, begin drafting the Grapene Creed.

Smacktard
05-10-2011, 00:52
Maybe one of the rites is mowing the lawn on Sunday morning? I actually prefer to mow the front on Saturday and the back on Sunday so that I don't accidentally keep one day holy.


:rofl::rofl::rofl:

...

Smacktard
05-10-2011, 01:16
It all boils down to need, most people need to believe that Atheism is a religion. Just like they need to believe in God. People want to believe that mommy and daddy love them, and that they are safe.

...

Multiple Arms
05-10-2011, 01:37
I was sure that God didn't exist.

Then I saw this thread has gone on for 57 pages without getting locked.

Now I ain't so sure. :wavey:

If this thread ends up as long as the Caturday thread I will join the clergy. :whistling:

ftw13
05-10-2011, 03:03
Buddha said that questions about how things began or if there is a God or Gods were not important questions. He was absolutely correct because we'll never know in our lives,if there is indeed more we'll all find out when we pass. Not worth arguing over now.

Kingarthurhk
05-10-2011, 16:15
Buddha said that questions about how things began or if there is a God or Gods were not important questions. He was absolutely correct because we'll never know in our lives,if there is indeed more we'll all find out when we pass. Not worth arguing over now.

He also said that life is suffering, atachments to anything brings only pain, and the ultimate goal is nonexistance. I am not really a big fan of the Sidhartha Gatama reform movement of Hindusim. Though, they do share the same goal, to no longer exist as an individual or posses any conciousness.

ftw13
05-10-2011, 18:23
you have absolutely zero understanding of eastern or buddhist concepts

Cavalry Doc
05-18-2011, 20:37
I see no evidence to support that assertion. Can I prove no deity exists/existed? Of course not, it cannot be proven.

I'm going to begin referring to this as the Lazarus thread -- it's shorter than the atheism is a religion thread.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>
Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs.

It's not an assertion. Please remember that I am an agnostic. :wavey:

It's a question. I am not sure what the answer is, but the religious ones are.

If you Believe without proof....... Faith.... Google the Merriam-Webster's dictionary on the proper definitions. It's a mistake, either in American English comprehension, or in basic word usage to assume anything other than the truth.

Atheism is a religion, just like all the rest.

Syclone538
05-18-2011, 21:54
It's not an assertion. Please remember that I am an agnostic. :wavey:

It's a question. I am not sure what the answer is, but the religious ones are.

If you Believe without proof....... Faith.... Google the Merriam-Webster's dictionary on the proper definitions. It's a mistake, either in American English comprehension, or in basic word usage to assume anything other than the truth.

Atheism is a religion, just like all the rest.

Do you understand the difference between, "I don't believe in a god" and "I believe there are no gods"?

If I flip a coin, I do not believe it will land on heads, and I do not believe it will land on tails. I lack belief in what side it will land on. That doesn't mean I believe it won't land.

Absence of belief is not belief of absence.

Jayhawkai
05-18-2011, 22:08
If you Believe without proof....... Faith.....

You are beyond hope.

ArtificialGrape
05-18-2011, 22:22
Atheism is a religion, just like all the rest.
Then my previous (unanswered) questions still stand:
What are the dogma, rites, holidays, unholy writ, etc. of the Church of Atheism?

Belief in neither the big bang nor evolution is required, and as previously mentioned, plenty of Christians believe in those -- perhaps they're Christian Atheists.

Maybe one of the rites is mowing the lawn on Sunday morning? I actually prefer to mow the front on Saturday and the back on Sunday so that I don't accidentally keep one day holy.

If you could provide a succinct Atheist's Creed similar to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed, that would really be helpful, for I now fear that I may be excommunicated.
I suppose that I should figure out how to reap the tax benefits of this new religion.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

steveksux
05-19-2011, 04:37
Atheism is a religion, just like all the rest.Then you were lying when you previously stated something to the effect that atheism was a religion in a manner of speaking?

Or are you lying now?

Please list the other religions that are antonyms of religion like atheism is. Also list the superstitions, rituals, supernatural aspects of atheism, surely it must have them if its just like all the other religions.

I'm having trouble seeing how the only so-called "religion" that is specifically defined as the opposite of a religion could be a religion just like all the rest. Exactly how many beers did it take for you to come up with this revelation of yours?

But why focus on all those differences between atheism on one hand and all the other religions on the other hand that DO share lots of similarities, after all they both require belief... Kind of like Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny require belief... :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2011, 20:44
Then my previous (unanswered) questions still stand:
What are the dogma, rites, holidays, unholy writ, etc. of the Church of Atheism?

Belief in neither the big bang nor evolution is required, and as previously mentioned, plenty of Christians believe in those -- perhaps they're Christian Atheists.

Maybe one of the rites is mowing the lawn on Sunday morning? I actually prefer to mow the front on Saturday and the back on Sunday so that I don't accidentally keep one day holy.

If you could provide a succinct Atheist's Creed similar to the Nicene or Apostle's Creed, that would really be helpful, for I now fear that I may be excommunicated.
I suppose that I should figure out how to reap the tax benefits of this new religion.

-ArtificialGrape
<hr>"Atheism is nothing more than the noises reasonable people make in the presence of unjustified religious beliefs."

The dogma is that no deity(s) exist(ed).

There is no proof of that. It's a matter of faith.

It does not have to be intricate or complicated in order to meet the definition.

Pretty simple, really.

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2011, 20:45
You are beyond hope.

Nope. I have hope, for a lot of things. I am well within hope.


Firm and reasoned disagreement is a different thing.

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2011, 20:52
Do you understand the difference between, "I don't believe in a god" and "I believe there are no gods"?

If I flip a coin, I do not believe it will land on heads, and I do not believe it will land on tails. I lack belief in what side it will land on. That doesn't mean I believe it won't land.

Absence of belief is not belief of absence.

I think I understand it better than others.

It's all in the definition.

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


American English is what it is. So, at least in America, atheism is a religion.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1
a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2
: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3
archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion?show=0&t=1305946119)


It is what it is. It's hard to admit though.

Cavalry Doc
05-20-2011, 20:54
Just in case anyone is confused as to why I am not responding to steve.

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

No hard feelings.

Syclone538
05-20-2011, 22:20
I think I understand it better than others.

It's all in the definition.




American English is what it is. So, at least in America, atheism is a religion.




It is what it is. It's hard to admit though.

I don't believe in any god or gods.
I don't believe there are no gods.
I don't have a belief on the existence of a god or gods.
I don't believe it is knowable, and even if it is, I don't know.
I don't have the ability to believe something that I don't know, or at least think I know, and don't understand how anyone else could either.
I think the chances that it is all made up are so high, that if god spoke to me, I would probably assume I was hallucinating.

I say I'm an atheist. I'm simply not a theist. Maybe you would call me an agnostic, and while that's true, it's incomplete.

steveksux
05-21-2011, 01:29
Just in case anyone is confused as to why I am not responding to steve.



No hard feelings.It was too much to take being proven so wrong for so long.. :rofl::rofl::rofl: No hard feelings.

Randy

kc8ykd
05-21-2011, 09:40
It was too much to take being proven so wrong for so long.. :rofl::rofl::rofl: No hard feelings.

Randy

really, i don't think anyone would be confused why he tries to ignore you, he posts that same thing every couple of pages. it gets old and comes across as totally immature.

he probably logs out, and comes back and reads all your posts so he doesn't show up at the bottom of the page as reading the thread.

kc8ykd
05-21-2011, 09:57
it's not an assertion. Please remember that i am an agnostic. :wavey:

It's a question. I am not sure what the answer is, but the religious ones are.

If you believe without proof....... Faith.... Google the merriam-webster's dictionary on the proper definitions. It's a mistake, either in american english comprehension, or in basic word usage to assume anything other than the truth.

Atheism is a religion, just like all the rest.

then you were lying when you previously stated something to the effect that atheism was a religion in a manner of speaking?

Or are you lying now?

Please list the other religions that are antonyms of religion like atheism is. Also list the superstitions, rituals, supernatural aspects of atheism, surely it must have them if its just like all the other religions.

I'm having trouble seeing how the only so-called "religion" that is specifically defined as the opposite of a religion could be a religion just like all the rest. Exactly how many beers did it take for you to come up with this revelation of yours?

But why focus on all those differences between atheism on one hand and all the other religions on the other hand that do share lots of similarities, after all they both require belief... Kind of like santa clause and the easter bunny require belief... :rofl::rofl::rofl:


Randy

sometimes, i feel sad when i see religion twisted for suite people's personal needs. i never thought i'd see the dictionary used in the same manor :crying:

DrBob
05-21-2011, 12:34
You have to distinguish between Magic, Science and religion before you can say that atheism is functionaly equivalent to a religion.

" Magic, for Malinowski, is always utilitarian, whereas religion lacks all utility. Religion, he contends, must be seen as an end in-and-of-itself. Another distinguishing factor is that while magic can be amoral, religion is essentially moral. Although Malinowski's specific ethnographic examples have been criticized, he was effective in demonstrating that ritual activities are most often performed whenever the outcome of a human undertaking is uncertain. All rituals are performed in times of emotional distress, but—unlike magical rites—religious rituals are not expected to bring about clearly definable or direct results. He cites the example of death rituals, which do not bring about immortality but serve mainly to comfort the bereaved."

Atheism doesn't perform the functions of religion and science, like magic, is totally utilitarian.

Radcliffe-Brown, one of Malinowski's critics felt that the important thing about religion was the ritual.
"Radcliffe-Brown's functionalism was somewhat different in focus from Malinowski's. Whereas Malinowski was concerned with the ways in which social institutions functioned to meet individual needs, Radcliffe-Brown sought to demonstrate the role that institutions played in maintaining social structure and social solidarity. A key example of this difference can be found in the writings of the two men on the subject of magic and religion. Malinowski had argued that beliefs and practices connected with the supernatural served to allay fears and anxieties resulting from the inevitable limits of practical knowledge. Garden magic, for example, steps in to reassure farmers there will be a crop, assuming that everything technically possible has been done and one is now at the mercy of luck and the weather. Radcliffe-Brown disagreed with Malinowski concerning the function of religion. Radcliffe-Brown argued that religious beliefs generate at least as many anxieties as they assuage; one example of religiously-generated anxiety is the state of mind of a person who has sinned and fears eternal damnation or of one who has angered a neighbour and fears witchcraft or sorcery. The explanation offered by Radcliffe-Brown for religion was much closer to Durkheim's: Religion existed primarily to enhance social solidarity. "Ceremonies" said R-B, "are the glue which holds society together." Radcliffe-Brown explained taboos by remarking that people can be united as effectively by common hates as by common loves."

Either way, the psychological approach or the sociological approach, Religion and atheism are functinally dissimilar.

Kingarthurhk
05-21-2011, 13:04
you have absolutely zero understanding of eastern or buddhist concepts

Odd, since I have studied them, own a Bhagava Gita, and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I don't have a grasp of the philosophy. Also, I have read the Book of Tao-twice.

nmstew
05-21-2011, 16:13
Odd, since I have studied them, own a Bhagava Gita, and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance..

You realize even Pirsig says in the intro that the book has nothing to do with either zen or motorcycle maintenance. Reference Fail.

Smacktard
05-21-2011, 20:34
sometimes, i feel sad when i see religion twisted for suite people's personal needs. i never thought i'd see the dictionary used in the same manor :crying:

The dictionary is God's word?

..

sugarcreek
05-21-2011, 20:48
This entire thread is an exercise in something...I am just not sure what.

Animal Mother
05-21-2011, 22:31
Odd, since I have studied them, own a Bhagava Gita, and Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maitenance. Just because I don't agree with you does not mean I don't have a grasp of the philosophy. Also, I have read the Book of Tao-twice.

You realize even Pirsig says in the intro that the book has nothing to do with either zen or motorcycle maintenance. Reference Fail. And the Bhagavad Gita is a Hindu text. One wanting to learn about Buddhism might be better served by investigating the writings of D.T. Suzuki and Thich Nhat Hanh

kc8ykd
05-22-2011, 03:43
The dictionary is God's word?

..

is that seriously what you think i said or implied ?

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2011, 19:25
I don't believe in any god or gods.
I don't believe there are no gods.
I don't have a belief on the existence of a god or gods.
I don't believe it is knowable, and even if it is, I don't know.
I don't have the ability to believe something that I don't know, or at least think I know, and don't understand how anyone else could either.
I think the chances that it is all made up are so high, that if god spoke to me, I would probably assume I was hallucinating.

I say I'm an atheist. I'm simply not a theist. Maybe you would call me an agnostic, and while that's true, it's incomplete.

Problem is, you are stuck in digital, when you should be thinking analog.

Not believing in any certain god, or any of them does not make you an atheist. Believing that there are no gods, makes you an atheist.

That's a major point I have been making to the receptive/objective members. Many people have mistakenly labeled themselves as "Atheist", when they are truly agnostic.

Welcome friend. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2011, 19:27
The dictionary is God's word?

..

Nope, dictionary's are mans words. And men use them well.

We simply have to agree on what words mean, or we will not be able to have an adult conversation.

I'm just using the definitions as they are written, and all the people that are not religious zealots have agreed so far.

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2011, 19:32
You have to distinguish between Magic, Science and religion before you can say that atheism is functionaly equivalent to a religion.

" Magic, for Malinowski, is always utilitarian, whereas religion lacks all utility. Religion, he contends, must be seen as an end in-and-of-itself. Another distinguishing factor is that while magic can be amoral, religion is essentially moral. Although Malinowski's specific ethnographic examples have been criticized, he was effective in demonstrating that ritual activities are most often performed whenever the outcome of a human undertaking is uncertain. All rituals are performed in times of emotional distress, but—unlike magical rites—religious rituals are not expected to bring about clearly definable or direct results. He cites the example of death rituals, which do not bring about immortality but serve mainly to comfort the bereaved."

Atheism doesn't perform the functions of religion and science, like magic, is totally utilitarian.

Radcliffe-Brown, one of Malinowski's critics felt that the important thing about religion was the ritual.
"Radcliffe-Brown's functionalism was somewhat different in focus from Malinowski's. Whereas Malinowski was concerned with the ways in which social institutions functioned to meet individual needs, Radcliffe-Brown sought to demonstrate the role that institutions played in maintaining social structure and social solidarity. A key example of this difference can be found in the writings of the two men on the subject of magic and religion. Malinowski had argued that beliefs and practices connected with the supernatural served to allay fears and anxieties resulting from the inevitable limits of practical knowledge. Garden magic, for example, steps in to reassure farmers there will be a crop, assuming that everything technically possible has been done and one is now at the mercy of luck and the weather. Radcliffe-Brown disagreed with Malinowski concerning the function of religion. Radcliffe-Brown argued that religious beliefs generate at least as many anxieties as they assuage; one example of religiously-generated anxiety is the state of mind of a person who has sinned and fears eternal damnation or of one who has angered a neighbour and fears witchcraft or sorcery. The explanation offered by Radcliffe-Brown for religion was much closer to Durkheim's: Religion existed primarily to enhance social solidarity. "Ceremonies" said R-B, "are the glue which holds society together." Radcliffe-Brown explained taboos by remarking that people can be united as effectively by common hates as by common loves."

Either way, the psychological approach or the sociological approach, Religion and atheism are functinally dissimilar.

I distinguish between the three quite nicely. I have no reason to believe in fairies, but some have tried to equate that with some sort of religious belief.

The fact is that what is, IS. It either just happened, or it was helped along, or even created.

Personally, I don't feel a burning desire to claim that I know the truth of the origins of our reality, but it's a fact that atheists do, at least the ones that are not mislabeled.

Atheists believe there is no deity. Many agnostics have been fooled into thinking they are atheists. That's the trap the zealots want them to fall into.


The truth is the truth, words have meanings, and no matter how much people dislike the truth, it is what it is.
:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2011, 19:36
sometimes, i feel sad when i see religion twisted for suite people's personal needs. i never thought i'd see the dictionary used in the same manor :crying:

I feel sad when people quote steve. He has violated the posting rules constantly, in a vain and futile attempt to get the thread closed.

He's beyond reason, or discussion, which is why he has earned a very rare spot on my ignore list.

I've had thousands of disagreements on this site, and have less than 4 people on my ignore list, with a few thousand posts.

I'm just saying that I'm willing to have a polite conversation, on any subject, But steve is not able to be polite.

kc8ykd
05-22-2011, 19:47
I feel sad when people quote steve. He has violated the posting rules constantly, in a vain and futile attempt to get the thread closed.

He's beyond reason, or discussion, which is why he has earned a very rare spot on my ignore list.

I've had thousands of disagreements on this site, and have less than 4 people on my ignore list, with a few thousand posts.

I'm just saying that I'm willing to have a polite conversation, on any subject, But steve is not able to be polite.

if steve has violated posting rules why has he not been banned? or are you making up your own rules for him to 'violate' ?

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2011, 20:01
This entire thread is an exercise in something...I am just not sure what.

It's a search for the truth. It's just exceedingly hard to admit. The ones that can, have moved on. The ones that can't.......:dunno:

Atheism is a religion. Simple, clear, and accurate.

No one is saying they are wrong. I am just pointing out a simple fact, that is blasphemy to those that continue to deny the truth of the matter.

Atheists believe there is no deity. Sorry for my statement of fact, but that's the bottom line.



Agnostics AND Atheists do not believe in a particular deity or deities.

Atheists are convinced there are, or have not been a deity or deities.

:dunno: I get the fact that no one likes their religion described in terms that they do not agree with, but it's so simple.


Belief in a deity is a religion.
Belief that there is no deity is a religion.

Not taking a position is not atheism, it's agnosticism. Atheism is a belief system.


I still can't figure out why it's so hard to point that out to the pious.

Guess religion makes you blind to reason on occasion, whether you are a theist, or atheist.

I have respect for both positions. Why shouldn't I? I have freely admitted I don't know which religion is right.

Oh well, it is what it is, regardless of our opinions.




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

Cavalry Doc
05-22-2011, 20:06
if steve has violated posting rules why has he not been banned? or are you making up your own rules for him to 'violate' ?

Have you read them?

Personal attacks are a "no-no". Disagreeing politely is OK.

I have not complained about steve, because the rest of us were still having a conversation, and doing so might get an interesting discussion thread closed.

Which would be his reason for posting things in violation of the TOS, after it has been pointed out to him multiple times. Why do you think he feels a need to post here?

So, I ignore him, and continue to discuss the issue with those that can follow the TOS.

No hard feelings, honest. :wavey:

Smacktard
05-22-2011, 20:23
Those who need to believe that Atheism is a religion can do so, but it doesn't make it true, any more that believing in God makes God real.

"Some people will believe anything, and those on top will use them as tools". The Big Book of Smacktard, 7 11 22


...

kc8ykd
05-22-2011, 20:27
Have you read them?

Personal attacks are a "no-no". Disagreeing politely is OK.

I have not complained about steve, because the rest of us were still having a conversation, and doing so might get an interesting discussion thread closed.

Which would be his reason for posting things in violation of the TOS, after it has been pointed out to him multiple times. Why do you think he feels a need to post here?

So, I ignore him, and continue to discuss the issue with those that can follow the TOS.

No hard feelings, honest. :wavey:

i've read pretty much all the posts in this thread and haven't found any that i would consider a violation of the tos, however, i'm not a mod, so really, my opinion doesn't matter. (this keeping in mind that Eric would like to keep GT as family friendly as possible)

what i find interesting is your desire to reiterate your ignorance of his posts every few weeks (i'd say page, but i'm set to view the maximum amount of posts per page). that appears to invalidate your claim of ignorance of him and his posts. i'm a little confused by this.

i would be interested to see what posts of his you consider to have been a violation of the tos.

ksg0245
05-23-2011, 08:46
It's a search for the truth. It's just exceedingly hard to admit. The ones that can, have moved on. The ones that can't.......:dunno:

Atheism is a religion. Simple, clear, and accurate.

No one is saying they are wrong. I am just pointing out a simple fact, that is blasphemy to those that continue to deny the truth of the matter.

Atheists believe there is no deity. Sorry for my statement of fact, but that's the bottom line.



Agnostics AND Atheists do not believe in a particular deity or deities.

Atheists are convinced there are, or have not been a deity or deities.

:dunno: I get the fact that no one likes their religion described in terms that they do not agree with, but it's so simple.


Belief in a deity is a religion.
Belief that there is no deity is a religion.

Not taking a position is not atheism, it's agnosticism. Atheism is a belief system.


I still can't figure out why it's so hard to point that out to the pious.

Guess religion makes you blind to reason on occasion, whether you are a theist, or atheist.

I have respect for both positions. Why shouldn't I? I have freely admitted I don't know which religion is right.

Oh well, it is what it is, regardless of our opinions.




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

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

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnosticism
1: a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable

Cavalry Doc
05-23-2011, 20:04
Those who need to believe that Atheism is a religion can do so, but it doesn't make it true, any more that believing in God makes God real.

"Some people will believe anything, and those on top will use them as tools". The Big Book of Smacktard, 7 11 22


...


Those who need to believe that atheism is not a religion can do so, but it will contradict the normal dictionary use of the words.

Reality is what it is. Denying that a real atheist is not a religious person is an exercise in obfuscation.

Cavalry Doc
05-23-2011, 20:09
i've read pretty much all the posts in this thread and haven't found any that i would consider a violation of the tos, however, i'm not a mod, so really, my opinion doesn't matter. (this keeping in mind that Eric would like to keep GT as family friendly as possible)

what i find interesting is your desire to reiterate your ignorance of his posts every few weeks (i'd say page, but i'm set to view the maximum amount of posts per page). that appears to invalidate your claim of ignorance of him and his posts. i'm a little confused by this.

i would be interested to see what posts of his you consider to have been a violation of the tos.



Just pointing out the reality of the situation for others. Those that still read his posts may believe that I'm seeing them, and failing to respond. The reality, is that I've decided, that his posts are not worth reading.

If you can't see the attacks, maybe you have not read back far enough.

He gets very nasty when you disagree. :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
05-23-2011, 20:13
y tu dude



This message is hidden because ksg0245 is on your ignore list.



Lo siento mucho hombre.

Syclone538
05-23-2011, 23:45
Problem is, you are stuck in digital, when you should be thinking analog.
...

Would I be correct to assume you mean that there are more then two possible answers to the question "Do you believe in a god"? Just because many people are uncomfortable answering, doesn't mean it's not yes or no.

...
Not believing in any certain god, or any of them does not make you an atheist.
...

Well it sure doesn't make you theist.

...
Believing that there are no gods, makes you an atheist.
...

I agree, but think that it is under inclusive.

Smacktard
05-24-2011, 00:01
Those who need to believe that atheism is not a religion can do so, but it will contradict the normal dictionary use of the words.

Reality is what it is. Denying that a real atheist is not a religious person is an exercise in obfuscation.



I never exercise in obfuscation, that would be disgusting and most likely against the law in the United States and it's Territories.

...

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 01:54
C'mon guys, be gentle with Cavalry Doc -- he's still trying to come to terms with being an atheist.
:animlol:

ksg0245
05-24-2011, 07:30
y tu dude

Lo siento mucho hombre.

:wavey:

frank4570
05-24-2011, 08:18
I don't believe in bigfoot. I can't prove it. If you want to call that a religion go ahead. There is a very very very long list of things i can't prove don't exist. Is each of them a religion?

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 08:35
I don't believe in bigfoot. I can't prove it. If you want to call that a religion go ahead. There is a very very very long list of things i can't prove don't exist. Is each of them a religion?
Given Cavalry Doc's fondness for Merriam-Webster's 4th definition of religion:a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
If you hold the beliefs with ardor that there is no bigfoot, no Loch Ness monster, no chupacabra, and no aliens or alien spacecraft held in Area 51, then yes, each of those would be among your religions. You are likely also a member of the aSantaist and many other religions that you were not previously aware.

As mentioned before, I'm also a member of the Chili's-has-the-best-chips-and-salsa religion.

-ArtificialGrape<br>Only an atheist while I save up to become a Scientologist.

frank4570
05-24-2011, 09:09
It is my religious belief there is not a snake 10,000 feet long in the jungle of africa. I have faith, but i can't prove it.

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 10:01
It is my religious belief there is not a snake 10,000 feet long in the jungle of africa. I have faith, but i can't prove it.

Then from what I've seen on this thread, you're also an a-10k'-African-Jungle-Snake-istic agnostic -- you may want to update that on Facebook.

-ArtificialGrape

kc8ykd
05-24-2011, 14:49
Just pointing out the reality of the situation for others. Those that still read his posts may believe that I'm seeing them, and failing to respond. The reality, is that I've decided, that his posts are not worth reading.

If you can't see the attacks, maybe you have not read back far enough.

He gets very nasty when you disagree. :dunno:


i've read from the beginning to the end of this thread now.

what i see is you moving the goal posts, first he, according to you, violates the tos, yet he's still a member, then, he's personally attacked you, yet you won't provide evidence, and now, you just want me to believe you...

based on all this, and your other posts in this thread, i must conclude that you're displaying the behavior of a troll on purpose. for what reason i have yet to figure out exactly, since it doesn't match the posting style i've seen you represents on other parts of GT. again, very confusing.

what are your motivations and intentions for starting this thread?




(note, no feelings were hurt in the making of this post)

steveksux
05-24-2011, 19:32
I distinguish between the three quite nicely. I have no reason to believe in fairies, but some have tried to equate that with some sort of religious belief.

Which is odd since that is exactly your position with atheism... :rofl: No reason to believe in gods is EXACTLY what you call a religious belief, and a religion. "Stating it in a passive sense doesn't change anything". Where have I heard that before....


The truth is the truth, words have meanings, and no matter how much people dislike the truth, it is what it is.
:wavey:If only you followed your own words here.

Randy

steveksux
05-24-2011, 21:00
i've read from the beginning to the end of this thread now.

what i see is you moving the goal posts, first he, according to you, violates the tos, yet he's still a member, then, he's personally attacked you, yet you won't provide evidence, and now, you just want me to believe you...

based on all this, and your other posts in this thread, i must conclude that you're displaying the behavior of a troll on purpose. for what reason i have yet to figure out exactly, since it doesn't match the posting style i've seen you represents on other parts of GT. again, very confusing.

what are your motivations and intentions for starting this thread?




(note, no feelings were hurt in the making of this post)The belief with faith and ardor, as I pointed out, makes belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny both as much a religion as atheism. I believe he claimed I was somehow insulting religions, demeaning them by comparing them with belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Truth is I did no such thing. I'm merely pointing out the inescapable consequences of his claim. He's the one insulting religions, since that definition of his must include them both. As well as disbelievers in the Loch Ness Monster, and of course my favorite, anti-chupacabranarianism. :rofl:

His dictionary definition (merriam-Webster) also includes "Hockey is a religion in Canada", but that just gets ignored, as it makes the stupidity of the proposition plain as day.

MW even lists religion as an antonym of atheism, the opposite. His response was it can be the opposite of religion and still be a religion.

Clearly this level of disingenuous behavior is beyond mere mistake, and even when benefit of the doubt is given and these inconsistencies are pointed out and denied, that is clearly beyond merely obtuse.

Thus you concluded, as I did, its clearly just a troll thread. I have no more idea of the potential motivation for such odd behavior than you did. I think he gets some sort of strange thrill hoping to offend atheists.

Randy

ArtificialGrape
05-24-2011, 21:22
Text not shown because this member is now on double-secret probation for making a coherent argument.
:cool:

kc8ykd
05-24-2011, 22:42
The belief with faith and ardor, as I pointed out, makes belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny both as much a religion as atheism. I believe he claimed I was somehow insulting religions, demeaning them by comparing them with belief in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny.

Truth is I did no such thing. I'm merely pointing out the inescapable consequences of his claim. He's the one insulting religions, since that definition of his must include them both. As well as disbelievers in the Loch Ness Monster, and of course my favorite, anti-chupacabranarianism. :rofl:

His dictionary definition (merriam-Webster) also includes "Hockey is a religion in Canada", but that just gets ignored, as it makes the stupidity of the proposition plain as day.

MW even lists religion as an antonym of atheism, the opposite. His response was it can be the opposite of religion and still be a religion.

Clearly this level of disingenuous behavior is beyond mere mistake, and even when benefit of the doubt is given and these inconsistencies are pointed out and denied, that is clearly beyond merely obtuse.

Thus you concluded, as I did, its clearly just a troll thread. I have no more idea of the potential motivation for such odd behavior than you did. I think he gets some sort of strange thrill hoping to offend atheists.

Randy


honestly, it reminds me of some of the conversations i've had with my 5 year old. the logic and reasoning (or lack there of) and the intentional word-misunderstandings. and then when he doesn't get his way, he takes his ball and goes home.

i've seen many of Doc's posts over the years and have never see this kind of behavior, which leads me to a couple more possible scenarios. either this is intentional troll-like behavior for some unknown reason, somethings wrong medically, or his account's been compromised and someone else is making these posts. very very concerning.


if we remove the topic from the conversation, totally, and just look at the behavior, it's quite interesting, yet slightly depressing at the same time. we have on one side (most likely) intentionally misleading and misunderstanding language and on the other we have many many attempts point out these missteps and being derided for doing so.

steveksux
05-25-2011, 00:59
:cool::rofl:

There is nothing quite so insulting as being proven so wrong... Maybe that's what he means. :dunno:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2011, 19:51
Would I be correct to assume you mean that there are more then two possible answers to the question "Do you believe in a god"? Just because many people are uncomfortable answering, doesn't mean it's not yes or no.

There is more than one possible answer to "is there a god". Granted it is initially a yes or no question, but there is more to it than that. Maybe it's a goddess, maybe there were more than one, maybe there was one, or more, but they all have died off, maybe there are an infinite number of possible explanations to our origin, and current existence.

I don't feel that I have to know how it came to be as it is, because it simply is what it is.

In the purest sense of the words, atheists believe they know the truth of that question. It's a logical mistake to make that assumption. If you don't know, you don't know. But if you don't have enough proof to believe in one conclusion, that does not make the opposite true.

That's what makes atheists religious. They firmly believe in an unprovable conclusion, with faith and ardor.

Abandon the unprovable, and you end in agnosticism. Believe, with faith, and ardor, in an unprovable version of reality, and you are a religious person. Not that that is a bad thing, there are plenty of good atheists and theists out there. Even a few good agnostics. :wavey:




Well it sure doesn't make you theist.



The definition is what it is.

I'm OK with the language. :wavey:

Simply not believing in a particular explanation, makes you more of an agnostic, than it does an atheist.

Look back, and I've been very clear that many agnostics have been fooled into labeling themselves as atheists. :dunno:


I agree, but think that it is under inclusive.

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2011, 19:58
honestly, it reminds me of some of the conversations i've had with my 5 year old. the logic and reasoning (or lack there of) and the intentional word-misunderstandings. and then when he doesn't get his way, he takes his ball and goes home.

i've seen many of Doc's posts over the years and have never see this kind of behavior, which leads me to a couple more possible scenarios. either this is intentional troll-like behavior for some unknown reason, somethings wrong medically, or his account's been compromised and someone else is making these posts. very very concerning.


if we remove the topic from the conversation, totally, and just look at the behavior, it's quite interesting, yet slightly depressing at the same time. we have on one side (most likely) intentionally misleading and misunderstanding language and on the other we have many many attempts point out these missteps and being derided for doing so.

Wanna know the truth? I'm really a likeable fellow. Truth, justice, and the American way. No kidding, even when my reputation and mortal being have literally been on the line, I'll always do the right thing. I've been shot at several times by things you cannot buy at your local gun store, and have voluntarily placed myself in that position, because I knew that I am good at what I do, and that is putting hurt people back together, and the places I work, are necessarily places most people don't want to be.

If you are sure enough to challenge another belief system, and you choose to believe one way, whether we were created or just happened, you have chosen a religion, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Words mean things.

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

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2011, 20:22
I never exercise in obfuscation, that would be disgusting and most likely against the law in the United States and it's Territories.

...

The right to free speech is allowable. The expression of opinions is an important part of our ability to debate and fond solutions, even when we don' agree.

Cavalry Doc
05-25-2011, 20:26
It is my religious belief there is not a snake 10,000 feet long in the jungle of africa. I have faith, but i can't prove it.

And whether or not there is a 10,000 foot snake in the jungle of Africa would be interesting, but would be totally off subject.

You are a thinking being, you were either created, or just happened by accident. It's a complex question, with many possible answers.


If you are darn sure you know the answer, but can't prove it, you have faith.....




It's not nearly as difficult, or as insulting as many of my detractors in this thread would have you believe.

kc8ykd
05-25-2011, 20:41
Wanna know the truth? I'm really a likeable fellow. Truth, justice, and the American way. No kidding, even when my reputation and mortal being have literally been on the line, I'll always do the right thing. I've been shot at several times by things you cannot buy at your local gun store, and have voluntarily placed myself in that position, because I knew that I am good at what I do, and that is putting hurt people back together, and the places I work, are necessarily places most people don't want to be.

If you are sure enough to challenge another belief system, and you choose to believe one way, whether we were created or just happened, you have chosen a religion, whether you choose to admit it or not.

Words mean things.

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

so, i should take your misinterpretation of a dictionary due to your work history?

that's your compelling reason i should throw all critical thinking abilities aside ?

Cavalry Doc
05-26-2011, 16:04
so, i should take your misinterpretation of a dictionary due to your work history?

that's your compelling reason i should throw all critical thinking abilities aside ?

There are a couple of previous pages where I've pointed out the definitions of the words and they fit, as inconvenient as that is, it still is what it is.

kc8ykd
05-26-2011, 23:27
There are a couple of previous pages where I've pointed out the definitions of the words and they fit, as inconvenient as that is, it still is what it is.

s/inconvenient/fallacious

this is very contradictory to the behavior i'd expect someone with the resume you posted to exhibit.

ArtificialGrape
05-27-2011, 00:49
s/inconvenient/fallacious

this is very contradictory to the behavior i'd expect someone with the resume you posted to exhibit.
regexp nerd :thumbsup:

kc8ykd
05-27-2011, 01:09
regexp nerd :thumbsup:

vim :(

i had to learn to use either that or edlin when we changed the way our distributed dns system worked back in the day, heh. i'm much more in my element with a router or a switch (although the junipers' junos is/was basically a customized version of freebsd w/a cisco-esque cli shell).

ArtificialGrape
05-27-2011, 01:23
vim :(

i had to learn to use either that or edlin when we changed the way our distributed dns system worked back in the day, heh. i'm much more in my element with a router or a switch (although the junipers' junos is/was basically a customized version of freebsd w/a cisco-esque cli shell).
I almost asked "vi or emacs" or "System V or BSD"?

Since I'm relegated to a Windows laptop I still use cygwin for peace of mind -- command-line Unix for the win. Everybody should have to learn command-line on a dumb terminal (and a 2400 bps modem followed by 9.6k, 14.4, 19.2, 28.8, ...).

Good times.

kc8ykd
05-27-2011, 01:42
lol

you'll never know how many times i've typed 'ls' into a router, or 'sh conf' into a linux term

man, i remember a long time ago when you could get win nt3 to run a second linux-based kernel and you could even run gui applications on the 'desktop'


i game, a lot, so my daily drivers are windows, but all my 'work' has traditionally been through screens full of ssh and telnet sessions. (or console terms, ugh, 9.6k is so slow when sifting through a config)

it sure felt magical when i'd bring up a circuit that spanned a few hundred miles, but then i'd remember, i did it, and it wasn't magic :supergrin:

Smacktard
05-27-2011, 02:31
Does this mean nobody cares whether Atheism is a religion or not?

...

frank4570
05-27-2011, 07:04
Does this mean nobody cares whether Atheism is a religion or not?

...

Almost nobody. Almost.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2011, 13:55
s/inconvenient/fallacious

this is very contradictory to the behavior i'd expect someone with the resume you posted to exhibit.


Why is that? :dunno: All I asked is that you go back and look at what has already been covered dozens of times.

The definitions fit. As do the latin roots of the words. Atheists believe that there is no deity. Some have mislabeled themselves as atheists based on their lack of belief in any particular deity, but atheists believe there are none.

I guess it's convenient for the atheists to try to fool atheistic agnostics into believing they are atheists. Bolsters their numbers.


It's not my fault that it's inconvenient to come to the realization that atheism is just another -ism. A belief that cannot be proven, held to with ardor and faith.

I don't pretend to know whether there are, or have ever been deities. It doesn't really matter to me. It is what it is, we are what we are, and until some convincing piece of evidence shows up, I'm very comfortable with that.

I respect the beliefs of others, whether theists or atheists. There is nothing wrong with having faith in a particular origins of the universe story, especially if you are led to be nice to your fellow humans.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2011, 13:56
Does this mean nobody cares whether Atheism is a religion or not?

...

Is it ok if I care just a little, just as a point of fact, and not much else?

I do understand that it's very hard to admit, for some.

kc8ykd
05-28-2011, 18:13
Why is that? :dunno: All I asked is that you go back and look at what has already been covered dozens of times.

The definitions fit. As do the latin roots of the words. Atheists believe that there is no deity. Some have mislabeled themselves as atheists based on their lack of belief in any particular deity, but atheists believe there are none.

I guess it's convenient for the atheists to try to fool atheistic agnostics into believing they are atheists. Bolsters their numbers.


It's not my fault that it's inconvenient to come to the realization that atheism is just another -ism. A belief that cannot be proven, held to with ardor and faith.

I don't pretend to know whether there are, or have ever been deities. It doesn't really matter to me. It is what it is, we are what we are, and until some convincing piece of evidence shows up, I'm very comfortable with that.

I respect the beliefs of others, whether theists or atheists. There is nothing wrong with having faith in a particular origins of the universe story, especially if you are led to be nice to your fellow humans.


you talk a lot without saying much.


congratulations on perhaps, one of the best troll threads i've ever seen.



*remember, if you repeat the lie enough, eventually, someone somewhere might believe it.

Cavalry Doc
05-28-2011, 19:06
you talk a lot without saying much.


congratulations on perhaps, one of the best troll threads i've ever seen.



*remember, if you repeat the lie enough, eventually, someone somewhere might believe it.

et tu brute?

The sad fact is that it's not a lie. I'm only pointing out an inconvenient fact.

Atheists and Theists, are more alike than some of the self labeled atheists would like to admit.

They have both decided, without conclusive proof that a specific question about the origins of our existence is true. Some truly believe in an intelligent design, and some do not.


It's that simple. Some have faith in what they believe without conclusive proof, and they are all religious.



Still, the question is, why is it so hard to admit?

:dunno:

kc8ykd
05-28-2011, 20:32
et tu brute?

The sad fact is that it's not a lie. I'm only pointing out an inconvenient fact.

Atheists and Theists, are more alike than some of the self labeled atheists would like to admit.

They have both decided, without conclusive proof that a specific question about the origins of our existence is true. Some truly believe in an intelligent design, and some do not.


It's that simple. Some have faith in what they believe without conclusive proof, and they are all religious.



Still, the question is, why is it so hard to admit?

:dunno:


really, it's ok, you can tell me, did someone put you up to this?

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 09:09
really, it's ok, you can tell me, did someone put you up to this?

Nope. I don't even remember the thread, but some guy injected his religious beliefs, which was totally unrelated to the subject, and was rather rude in the way he ridiculed other religions. That thread didn't last long, so I started this one, which simply asks a question.

Why is it so hard to admit? Atheism is a religion, even though we have gotten stuck quite often debating that simple little fact, but it's a distraction.

My opinion has evolved a bit, and over this much time, my personal opinion is that some, not all, atheists see themselves as crusaders against religion, after all, they cannot be proven correct, and they all contain some hard to believe stories, and are often inconsistent. These guys pride themselves in being "anti-religion". It's a little shock to show them that they have bought into a fairy tale of their own. Their position is not any more logically valid than the most devout Baptist. They have both decided to believe, and if that makes them happy, I'm all for it. I think that on subjects that are truthfully not known, it matters not what the opinion is, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone.


I don't appreciate Muslims referring to others as infidels, Christians protesting at the funerals of fallen soldiers, or atheists protesting the presence of a cross at a graduation. Those are some of the examples of how people use their beliefs to attack others.

I'll admit, that on GTPI, some of the atheists proselytize more aggressively than any jehova's witness I've ever met.


It's just hard to admit. Maybe being a middle of the road agnostic just makes it easier for me to see it. :dunno:

steveksux
05-29-2011, 09:28
Why is it so hard to admit hockey is a religion in Canada?

Same definition you use to proclaim atheism is a religion.

The added bonus is that hockey is NOT specifically listed as the antonym of religion, so hockey is even MORE of a religion than atheism according to your Holy Dictionary Merriam Webster.

They firmly believe in an unprovable conclusion, with faith and ardor.Why is it so hard to admit believing in Santa Clause and the Easter Bunny are both religions then?

Just pointing out inconvenient facts. :rofl:

Randy

Smacktard
05-29-2011, 10:16
Why can't you admit you're a homosexual? Every homosexual knows you're attracted to those of your own gender, just like every religious person knows an Atheist has a religion.

Why can't you admit you hate your children?

Why can't you admit you beat your wife and cheat on her or want to?

Every body drinks, why can't you admit you're an alcoholic?

Why can't an agnostic admit that they're a Christian at heart?

Why can't an agnostic admit that they are too chicken to be an atheist?


Seek the truth, it's our only hope!

...

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 11:02
Why can't you admit you're a homosexual? Every homosexual knows you're attracted to those of your own gender, just like every religious person knows an Atheist has a religion.

Why can't you admit you hate your children?

Why can't you admit you beat your wife and cheat on her or want to?

Every body drinks, why can't you admit you're an alcoholic?

Why can't an agnostic admit that they're a Christian at heart?

Why can't an agnostic admit that they are too chicken to be an atheist?


Seek the truth, it's our only hope!

...
You've strayed off topic. If you don't like the thread, don't read it.

You're analogy composition chip is on the fritz again. Your response further confirms my belief that it is somehow irritating to discover that a system of belief that you thought of as anti-religion, is also one.

It's not my fault, it is what it is. I've been honest in my statements about what I believe. I'm sensing a bit of anger from you. You should probably work to control that.

If you can politely discuss the issue, I'll keep reading your posts.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 11:12
Atheists Seek Chaplain Role in the Military (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html)
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/04/27/us/ATHEIST1_span/ATHEIST-1-articleLarge.jpg

FAYETTEVILLE, N.C. — In the military, there are more than 3,000 chaplains who minister to the spiritual and emotional needs of active duty troops, regardless of their faiths. The vast majority are Christians, a few are Jews or Muslims, one is a Buddhist. A Hindu, possibly even a Wiccan may join their ranks soon.

But an atheist?

Strange as it sounds, groups representing atheists and secular humanists are pushing for the appointment of one of their own to the chaplaincy, hoping to give voice to what they say is a large — and largely underground — population of nonbelievers in the military.


.....

“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”


The rest is here: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html


:dunno: I guess it's only hard for some to admit......

Smacktard
05-29-2011, 11:21
You've strayed off topic. If you don't like the thread, don't read it.

You're analogy composition chip is on the fritz again. Your response further confirms my belief that it is somehow irritating to discover that a system of belief that you thought of as anti-religion, is also one.

It's not my fault, it is what it is. I've been honest in my statements about what I believe. I'm sensing a bit of anger from you. You should probably work to control that.

If you can politely discuss the issue, I'll keep reading your posts.


Dead on topic. You're being honest about your beliefs, so am I.

...

steveksux
05-29-2011, 11:49
:dunno: I guess it's only hard for some to admit......Jews don't want to listen to the Christian perspective when counseled from a Christian chaplain, they prefer a Jewish one.

Muslims don't want to listen to the Jewish perspective when counseled from a Jewish chaplain, they prefer a Muslim one.

Atheists don't want to listen to a religious perspective when counseled from a Jewish, Muslim, or Christian chaplain, or for that matter a Witch Doctor for a chaplain. They want someone who doesn't believe in superstitions giving them advice.

Nothing about that suggests that Atheism is a religion.

Randy