Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 7 - Glock Talk

PDA

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


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

steveksux
05-29-2011, 11:51
Dead on topic. You're being honest about your beliefs, so am I.

...Correction, YOU're being honest about your beliefs.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 12:15
Dead on topic. You're being honest about your beliefs, so am I.

...

So, implying that I must be a wife beating alcoholic christian philanderer that hates his kids because I disagree with you, is a relevant position in this discussion?

Sorry pal, the truth hurts. Atheism is a religion, and it's most devout have a hard time admitting it, to the point that they are unable to be polite.

So, Guess you and I are done talking about this. Where's that ignore list button again....

Have a nice life.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 12:24
In an attempt to not descend into petty name calling, and general poor behavior, I have ignored the posters that went there, so the rest of us can continue to have a polite conversation. Just in case you were wondering why I do not respond to certain people, the ignore list includes:

Glocked2223
ksg0245
Sarge1400
Smacktard
steveksux

It's not that I don't like these fellas or anything like that. It's not uncommon for people to get emotional when discussing religion, especially when you question aspects of their own. Some just can't remain calm, So really, no hard feelings on my part.

Look forward to discussing this with the rest any time.


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

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 12:27
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


I do find it interesting that some atheists have embraced the concept that they are allowed religious freedom, and should be allowed to have their own chaplain in the military. That's a much more polite and constitutional approach than trying to get rid of all of the other chaplains.

Remember, it's freedom of, not freedom from.

Good for them.

Any thoughts?

steveksux
05-29-2011, 12:28
So, implying that I must be a wife beating alcoholic christian philanderer that hates his kids because I disagree with you, is a relevant position in this discussion?

Sorry pal, the truth hurts. Atheism is a religion, and it's most devout have a hard time admitting it, to the point that they are unable to be polite.

So, Guess you and I are done talking about this. Where's that ignore list button again....

Have a nice life.of course, pretending he's accusing you of all those things is utterly dishonest of you. They're merely examples of how dishonest your thread is, in the exact same manner that your thread is dishonest.

Namely, asking why is it so hard to admit something that's not true. Troll thread is obvious troll.

Randy

steveksux
05-29-2011, 12:32
I do find it interesting that some atheists have embraced the concept that they are allowed religious freedom, and should be allowed to have their own chaplain in the military. That's a much more polite and constitutional approach than trying to get rid of all of the other chaplains.

Remember, it's freedom of, not freedom from.

Good for them.

Any thoughts?Of course, what they obviously want is counseling/counselors free FROM religion. Pretending otherwise is just more of the same disingenuous behavior we've come to expect.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 13:06
A thoughtful Athiest:


The Devout Atheist
Many atheists might disagree, but I think atheism is a religion and here's why.
The vast majority of atheists you meet will probably tell you that they are simply non-religious. Many have a burning hatred for organized religion, seeing it as the cause for all of the world's problems. Prominent atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens preach against organized religion and decry the religious as ignorant and uneducated.

Here's my take on it.

Atheism is a religion. It is a set of beliefs with a core philosophy that there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts or spirits, there is only the natural world which we can learn more about through scientific study. Saying atheism is not a religion is the same as saying Zen Buddhism isn't a religion either, because they, too, don't believe in a particular god. In fact, many American Zen practitioners are also Christians, and in Japan most Buddhists also hold traditional Shinto beliefs. And yet, we still consider Zen Buddhists to be religious. So, why not consider atheism a religion as well?

My main problem with those who claim that atheism is not a religion is that there are those who consider themselves truly "non-religious". They don't say they are atheist or agnostic. They simply don't care to be affiliated with any term or belief system. They don't care about scientific inquiry or whether or not there is a god. They are apathetic and prefer to focus on their lives, their work, their families, without giving much thought to any religion or reasoning as to why humanity exists.

Besides, if atheists would admit that their belief system is indeed a religion, I think it would help others to understand that we are not immoral, godless heathens. We simply believe differently than they do. We would be given more legal clout, too, as some of the religious type like to say that although we have freedom of religion in this country, we don't have "freedom from religion".

If religion is, as many define it, a belief system to explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and where we go when we die, then atheism is, by definition, a religion. We hold our beliefs, based on scientific theory, as to how the earth was created, how we evolved to become Homo sapiens, and that when we die our lives are over. Religion need not be supernatural, per se; religion is humanity's way of explaining where it came from and where we go when we die. Just because we don't believe that there is life after death or that a supreme being created us does not mean our beliefs can't be considered a religion.

Perhaps many of my fellow atheists would disagree with me because my beliefs are contrary to many of their anti-religious opinions. I certainly respect that, though it is my hope that other atheists might be open to the suggestion that we do hold a form of religious belief. If more of us did, those of more "traditional" faiths might not see us as mere heathens and accept us like they accept those of other religions where there is a belief in a god or gods. I understand that some religious people simply do not respect anyone who does not believe as they do, but many are respectful towards others and appreciate the diversity that all cultures have to offer.

This is simply my personal opinion. I don't expect all atheists to hold the same opinions as myself, but I do hope that those who are not atheists will realize that we are not all like Mr. Dawkins or Mr. Hitchens. Some of us do respect the religious faiths of others, as long as those of faith use that belief for good rather than for violence and hatred. If we are to express hatred towards others and their beliefs, how are we any better?

It will probably take some time for atheism to be considered either "mainstream", or at the very least, non-threatening. A University of Minnesota study done in 2006 found that atheists are the least-trusted minority in the United States. I just hope that if more dialogue and more acceptance can be found between atheists and those of faith, we will no longer face such distrust and misunderstanding. (http://www.buzzle.com/articles/the-devout-atheist.html)





There is nothing wrong with atheism, it's just as valid a belief system as any other religion. Agnostics do not have a superior claim either, they simply don't know what is the ultimate truth.

We are all on the planet, fact.
We all came to be, Fact.
The way we got here is not known, there are many theories, and arguing over them is a little pointless. You are what you are, you got here the way you got here, and when your mortal being stops all of it's metabolic processes, something will happen, or not, depending......


My point is very simple. Why is it so hard to admit? Any belief that you hold to with ardor and faith is a religion, and you are entitled to have your own religion and practice in any way you choose here, or at least you are supposed to.


Can we get past the simple little obvious fact that atheism is a religion, and discuss why it's so hard to admit for some? :wavey:

Guss
05-29-2011, 13:13
I do find it interesting that some atheists have embraced the concept that they are allowed religious freedom, and should be allowed to have their own chaplain in the military. That's a much more polite and constitutional approach than trying to get rid of all of the other chaplains.

Remember, it's freedom of, not freedom from.

Good for them.

Any thoughts?
The Army attempts to look after the "spiritual" needs of its employees to keep up morale. Atheists simply wanted a comparable counterpart for what would be poetically referred to as the human spirit. Personally, I think what they all need is a union.

Cavalry Doc
05-29-2011, 13:30
The Army attempts to look after the "spiritual" needs of its employees to keep up morale. Atheists simply wanted a comparable counterpart for what would be poetically referred to as the human spirit. Personally, I think what they all need is a union.

The Military is not a democracy, it was never meant to be. The members of the military willingly give up many of their rights in order to serve.

The U.S. Military is a totalitarian society designed to protect a democratic republic. It's all volunteer too.

Consider that this weekend...... It would be timely.

ksg0245
05-29-2011, 18:44
A thoughtful Athiest:

There is nothing wrong with atheism, it's just as valid a belief system as any other religion. Agnostics do not have a superior claim either, they simply don't know what is the ultimate truth.

We are all on the planet, fact.
We all came to be, Fact.
The way we got here is not known, there are many theories, and arguing over them is a little pointless. You are what you are, you got here the way you got here, and when your mortal being stops all of it's metabolic processes, something will happen, or not, depending......

My point is very simple. Why is it so hard to admit? Any belief that you hold to with ardor and faith is a religion, and you are entitled to have your own religion and practice in any way you choose here, or at least you are supposed to.

Can we get past the simple little obvious fact that atheism is a religion, and discuss why it's so hard to admit for some? :wavey:

From your "Devout Atheist": "Atheism is a religion. It is a set of beliefs with a core philosophy that there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts or spirits, there is only the natural world which we can learn more about through scientific study. Saying atheism is not a religion is the same as saying Zen Buddhism isn't a religion either, because they, too, don't believe in a particular god." Unfortunately, your devout atheist is wrong: atheism at its core is a lack of belief in deities. It is not a "set of beliefs," it is the rejection of the assertion of deities. The reason Buddhism is defined as a religion is because it IS a set of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism says nothing about the supernatural; there's no rule that says atheists can't believe in ghosts or magic or whatnot, they just tend to not. You know this, your devout atheist knows this; you both chose to ignore it.

She goes on: "If religion is, as many define it, a belief system to explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and where we go when we die, then atheism is, by definition, a religion." Unfortunately, your devout atheist is wrong again; atheism is not a belief system no matter how vehemently you try to redefine it, in no way tries to explain our existence on earth, says absolutely nothing about how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and says nothing about "where we go when we die." It says "I don't believe in deities." That's all. Anything extra is what we call "extra."

You've been repeatedly told why "it's so hard to admit," and why it is NOT in fact a "simple little obvious fact that atheism is a religion." You refuse to consider that you're wrong, to the point of ignoring people who try to explain your error to you. You equivocate definitions of religion and atheism to force them to fit your bigotry; you insist that atheism must be a religion because YOU define it as "a set of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (it's been repeatedly explained to you why it isn't), but that sports isn't because sports don't "explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and where we go when we die" (and it's been repeatedly explained to you that atheism doesn't do any of those things, either). Look at those amazing mobile goalposts. That's the mark of faith unshakable in the face of facts. That's the mark of a fundamentalist.

You'll now likely take time out of your day to remind everyone you've got me on ignore, which is fine by me; you won't be able to refute anything I've said, not that you ever did. Bravo, though, on being so open minded. Too bad you won't see me asking you if you read the follow-up comments to that little article; they're pretty interesting.

Edited to add: Oh, and the accusation of "petty name calling"? I called Cavalry Doc a liar because he was lying, he objected to having that pointed out, and rather than addressing the issue put me on ignore and claimed it was because I was "being immature." There's a certain irony to that.

steveksux
05-29-2011, 21:09
From your "Devout Atheist": "Atheism is a religion. It is a set of beliefs with a core philosophy that there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts or spirits, there is only the natural world which we can learn more about through scientific study. Saying atheism is not a religion is the same as saying Zen Buddhism isn't a religion either, because they, too, don't believe in a particular god." Unfortunately, your devout atheist is wrong: atheism at its core is a lack of belief in deities. It is not a "set of beliefs," it is the rejection of the assertion of deities. The reason Buddhism is defined as a religion is because it IS a set of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Atheism says nothing about the supernatural; there's no rule that says atheists can't believe in ghosts or magic or whatnot, they just tend to not. You know this, your devout atheist knows this; you both chose to ignore it.

She goes on: "If religion is, as many define it, a belief system to explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and where we go when we die, then atheism is, by definition, a religion." Unfortunately, your devout atheist is wrong again; atheism is not a belief system no matter how vehemently you try to redefine it, in no way tries to explain our existence on earth, says absolutely nothing about how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and says nothing about "where we go when we die." It says "I don't believe in deities." That's all. Anything extra is what we call "extra."

You've been repeatedly told why "it's so hard to admit," and why it is NOT in fact a "simple little obvious fact that atheism is a religion." You refuse to consider that you're wrong, to the point of ignoring people who try to explain your error to you. You equivocate definitions of religion and atheism to force them to fit your bigotry; you insist that atheism must be a religion because YOU define it as "a set of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" (it's been repeatedly explained to you why it isn't), but that sports isn't because sports don't "explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and where we go when we die" (and it's been repeatedly explained to you that atheism doesn't do any of those things, either). Look at those amazing mobile goalposts. That's the mark of faith unshakable in the face of facts. That's the mark of a fundamentalist.

You'll now likely take time out of your day to remind everyone you've got me on ignore, which is fine by me; you won't be able to refute anything I've said, not that you ever did. Bravo, though, on being so open minded. Too bad you won't see me asking you if you read the follow-up comments to that little article; they're pretty interesting.

Edited to add: Oh, and the accusation of "petty name calling"? I called Cavalry Doc a liar because he was lying, he objected to having that pointed out, and rather than addressing the issue put me on ignore and claimed it was because I was "being immature." There's a certain irony to that.

You're preaching to the "ignore" choir, my brother. Preach on!!! :rofl:

You hit the nail on the head on one point in particular. He was desperately ignoring anything that exposed him long before he finally put some of us on ignore. Civility had nothing to do with it. Embarrassment and lack of any sort of counter argument was all that amounted to.

Randy

Syclone538
05-29-2011, 22:37
So, implying that I must be a wife beating alcoholic christian philanderer that hates his kids because I disagree with you, is a relevant position in this discussion?

Sorry pal, the truth hurts. Atheism is a religion, and it's most devout have a hard time admitting it, to the point that they are unable to be polite.

So, Guess you and I are done talking about this. Where's that ignore list button again....

Have a nice life.

It's relevant because he is asking you questions that are based on false pretenses, exactly the same as you are doing to us.




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

You said it better then I was going to.






If religion is, as many define it, a belief system to explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, and where we go when we die, then atheism is, by definition, a religion.

I completely disagree. Atheism is not a belief system, and does not explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, or where we go when we die.

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2011, 04:18
It's relevant because he is asking you questions that are based on false pretenses, exactly the same as you are doing to us.

So he's not an atheist? He's said he is.

He intended to try to be rude by going personal. he wasn't trying to debate whether alcoholism was a disease or a choice.





You said it better then I was going to.




Except that there are already psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental hygiene specialists all over the place. I guess we could look up the definition of "chaplain".








I completely disagree. Atheism is not a belief system, and does not explain our existence on earth, how we should conduct ourselves while on earth, or where we go when we die.

There are many denominations, but at it's root, atheism makes a choice to believe that there was no intelligent design in creation. Not saying they are wrong, but it is there.

Smacktard
05-30-2011, 08:44
A little song, a little dance, a lot of self deception.

Atheist are not fools, or old women.

...

Syclone538
05-30-2011, 10:21
So he's not an atheist? He's said he is.

...

lol what? Can you quote where I said anything about if he is an atheist or not?



...
He intended to try to be rude by going personal. he wasn't trying to debate whether alcoholism was a disease or a choice.
...



I'm thinking everyone reading this thread except you understood exactly what he was doing. Do you know what a question based on false pretenses is?

Cavalry Doc
05-30-2011, 11:43
lol what? Can you quote where I said anything about if he is an atheist or not?







I'm thinking everyone reading this thread except you understood exactly what he was doing. Do you know what a question based on false pretenses is?



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

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

the·ism
noun \ˈthē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of THEISM
: 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

There is no proof as to whether a deity or deities has or does exist. So the belief that one does not exist is a matter of faith.

faith
noun \ˈfāth\
plural faiths
Definition of FAITH
1
a : allegiance to duty or a person : loyalty b (1) : fidelity to one's promises (2) : sincerity of intentions
2
a (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion b (1) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust
3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction; especially : a system of religious beliefs <the Protestant faith>

If you believe that there might have been a deity, but haven't met him/her/it yet, then maybe the definition of agnosticism fits better?

ag·nos·tic
noun \ag-ˈnäs-tik, əg-\
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
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>


Using the correct dictionary definition of words is not a false pretense, it's pointing out correct word usage. From the point of view of an agnostic, theists and atheists are simply different sides of the same coin.

By definition, atheists are religious. The belief in the supernatural is not necessary to fit the definition.

Both theism and atheism are valid belief systems, and I don't begrudge anyone their version of how the universe began. After all, it is what it is whether we wish to believe it or not. One person, or many people believing a story about the origins of the universe does not make it so.


I still fail to see the source of the irritation in coming to the realization that atheism is just another creation story, but without all the super powers.

If you have proof of a lack of intelligent design in the origins of the universe, please feel free to share.

Up to now, I've not seen any convincing evidence one way or the other.

steveksux
05-30-2011, 13:29
There is no proof as to whether a deity or deities has or does exist. So the belief that one does not exist is a matter of faith.



If you believe that there might have been a deity, but haven't met him/her/it yet, then maybe the definition of agnosticism fits better?




Using the correct dictionary definition of words is not a false pretense, it's pointing out correct word usage. From the point of view of an agnostic, theists and atheists are simply different sides of the same coin.

By definition, atheists are religious. The belief in the supernatural is not necessary to fit the definition.

Both theism and atheism are valid belief systems, and I don't begrudge anyone their version of how the universe began. After all, it is what it is whether we wish to believe it or not. One person, or many people believing a story about the origins of the universe does not make it so.


I still fail to see the source of the irritation in coming to the realization that atheism is just another creation story, but without all the super powers.

If you have proof of a lack of intelligent design in the origins of the universe, please feel free to share.

Up to now, I've not seen any convincing evidence one way or the other.From same definition, examples section"

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

I wonder which definition above these bolded examples apply to?
Food, Hockey, Football, Politics... Number 4, of course, 4
: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

The same definition he uses to claim Atheism is a religion in the same sense as actual religions like Christianity. :rofl:

Words have meanings. People have agendas. Trolls have word games.

Randy

ksg0245
05-30-2011, 16:39
So he's not an atheist? He's said he is.

He intended to try to be rude by going personal. he wasn't trying to debate whether alcoholism was a disease or a choice.

Kind of like how you aren't trying to debate, you're "going personal" by claiming any atheist who rejects your premise "can't admit" your definition is definitive, and "has a problem with it."

Except that there are already psychiatrists, psychologists, and mental hygiene specialists all over the place. I guess we could look up the definition of "chaplain".

So it's your opinion that the only counseling that should be available to atheist military should be spiritually based, since that's already available to them? Oh, yeah, you won't see this to be able to answer it. I forgot.

There are many denominations, but at it's root, atheism makes a choice to believe that there was no intelligent design in creation.

One cannot chose to believe, no matter how many times you claim otherwise.

Not saying they are wrong, but it is there.

In fact you ARE saying they're wrong when you tell them they're in denial about having "made a choice" and "have the religion of atheism." Which is funny, how you manage to type contradictory things with no hint of irony.

ksg0245
05-30-2011, 16:58
There is no proof as to whether a deity or deities has or does exist. So the belief that one does not exist is a matter of faith.

This is false. It is not a matter of faith to reject unsupported assertions. Rejecting unsupported assertions is disbelief. You should look up "disbelief" some time.

If you believe that there might have been a deity, but haven't met him/her/it yet, then maybe the definition of agnosticism fits better?

If you believe there might have been a deity, the definition of theism fits best. If you recognize that you don't know, THEN agnosticism fits, but if you believe anyway, you're still a theist. And if you don't know but don't believe, the definition of atheism fits best.

Why do you have such a difficult time accepting the dictionary definitions of words?

Using the correct dictionary definition of words is not a false pretense, it's pointing out correct word usage.

And what you're doing is called EQUIVOCATION.

From the point of view of an agnostic, theists and atheists are simply different sides of the same coin.

This is false. Atheism and theism are about belief. Agnosticism is about knowledge.

By definition, atheists are religious. The belief in the supernatural is not necessary to fit the definition.

By your loose definition, sports lovers are also religious, but because that doesn't work with your argument, you arbitrarily disallow things like sports as religion. That's called EQUIVOCATION. You don't get to impose a broad definition and then claim one group fits the definition and reject any other group that inconveniently also fits. At least, not if you want to remain honest.

Both theism and atheism are valid belief systems, and I don't begrudge anyone their version of how the universe began. After all, it is what it is whether we wish to believe it or not. One person, or many people believing a story about the origins of the universe does not make it so.

Atheism says nothing about the origins of the universe; that would be science. Something you actually admitted weeks ago, but have now conveniently forgotten.

I still fail to see the source of the irritation in coming to the realization that atheism is just another creation story, but without all the super powers.

You don't "fail to see." You refuse to admit you're wrong. Atheism says NOTHING about creation; it says "I don't believe in deities." Every other claim you've made for it is something you've added to try and wedge it into your argument.

If you have proof of a lack of intelligent design in the origins of the universe, please feel free to share.

Why is proof against something required when there's no evidence for it in the first place?

Up to now, I've not seen any convincing evidence one way or the other.

And yet, you refuse to actually say "I see no convincing evidence of deities." Why is that?

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 05:13
of course, pretending he's accusing you of all those things is utterly dishonest of you. They're merely examples of how dishonest your thread is, in the exact same manner that your thread is dishonest.

Namely, asking why is it so hard to admit something that's not true. Troll thread is obvious troll.

Randy

yes, there is no doubt at this point. this is one big troll thread.

for the sake of the thread, perhaps doc should be excluded from the discussion since he's displaying very obvious troll-like behavior for whatever reason?

the most efficient method would be simple ignorance of his posts in this thread and everybody else who can utilize sane logic and reasoning can carry on the discussing amongst themselves.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 09:14
yes, there is no doubt at this point. this is one big troll thread.

for the sake of the thread, perhaps doc should be excluded from the discussion since he's displaying very obvious troll-like behavior for whatever reason?

the most efficient method would be simple ignorance of his posts in this thread and everybody else who can utilize sane logic and reasoning can carry on the discussing amongst themselves.

:dunno: Just discussing a question. Which seems to be difficult for some without getting personal.

No one forces anyone to come here and read any of the posts, or to post a response, it's a strictly voluntary affair.

I do agree with you on one point, I think it's best if you and stevek placed me on your ignore list too.

Have a nice life.:wavey:

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 09:44
:dunno: Just discussing a question. Which seems to be difficult for some without getting personal.

No one forces anyone to come here and read any of the posts, or to post a response, it's a strictly voluntary affair.

I do agree with you on one point, I think it's best if you and stevek placed me on your ignore list too.

Have a nice life.:wavey:


the problem is, you aren't "discussing" the topic. you're trolling, as incredibly evident over the last page or two.

to clarify, what i suggested is that everybody ignore you regarding this topic.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 10:22
I guess everyone has their own perspective. I have been sticking to the subject, while you have pretty much stuck to criticizing me personally.

I think your idea is a grand one, how 'bout you go first to show that you are not just an instigator, and are a man of action, and place me on your ignore list first. Anyone else that wants to can do the same. Who knows, you might start a trend?

No hard feelings http://fc05.deviantart.net/fs36/f/2008/246/2/1/_bye__by_Kiyi_chan.gif

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 10:47
i've not been criticizing you personally, but your complete dishonesty whilst 'discussing' the topic.


and, i've been loving all your little jabs here and there, very mature. a shame as i used to have a lot of respect for you as a poster here on GT.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 11:14
It seems that you have been mistaking a difference if opinion with dishonesty.

If not, could you please point to examples of "complete dishonesty" on my part?

Don't worry, I still like you.

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 11:41
It seems that you have been mistaking a difference if opinion with dishonesty.

If not, could you please point to examples of "complete dishonesty" on my part?

Don't worry, I still like you.

well, for instance, your post here, mistaking difference of opinion with dishonesty (you're being dishonest, really). another, is your willfully misinterpreting definitions from a dictionary. another, is your willfully miss-characterizing smacktard's post pointing out your dishonest attempts at analogies. i could go on further, but the reality is, you're trolling. plain and simple.


don't worry, i really don't care what you think of me, or my feelings. those things you seem greatly concerned about for some reason, to the point it's..unusual. i don't care about you or your emotions or your life. what i care about is seeing other people who come to legitimately discuss the topic being sucked in to your massive black-hole of a troll thread.

what happened to you man? you used to be beautiful.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 12:13
Hmmm.

Looks like your conclusions are greatly slanted. The dictionary says what it says, and it doesn't require twisting to see that atheism is a religion, just an unemotional and objective observer, at least in my honest humble opinion.


I'm starting to get the feeling that your plan to ignore me was an idle theat, or were you honestly intending to carry through?

Now, can we get back on topic?

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 12:25
Hmmm.

Looks like your conclusions are greatly slanted. The dictionary says what it says, and it doesn't require twisting to see that atheism is a religion, just an unemotional and objective observer, at least in my honest humble opinion.


I'm starting to get the feeling that your plan to ignore me was an idle theat, or were you honestly intending to carry through?

Now, can we get back on topic?

no, it wasn't a threat. i'm simply discussing your dishonest troll-like behavior in this thread. i'm ignoring your posts in regard to trying to refute your ridiculous misinterpretations because they are, ridiculous.


you were never on topic to being with, i'm simply drawing conclusions based on your behavior.

unemotional, honest? really, did it hurt when you typed those words? you're constantly talking about feelings (which leads to the problem with the second word).

Smacktard
05-31-2011, 12:27
Now, can we get back on topic?

We are now and have been on topic.

...

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 12:52
Let's see....

User CP, oh here it is. Edit Ignore List. See ya around Kc. Disagreeing politely is a virtue that leads to healthy debate. Off topic ad hominem attacks just lead you to my ignore list.

Anything to get back on topic. Maybe you, smacktards and steveK could start another thread to complain about me and let the adults here continue having our conversation in peace?

Really, you don't even have to read this thread if it causes anger management or impulse control issues when you do, it's best to just avoid the triggers for problems like that.

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 13:29
Let's see....

User CP, oh here it is. Edit Ignore List. See ya around Kc. Disagreeing politely is a virtue that leads to healthy debate. Off topic ad hominem attacks just lead you to my ignore list.

Anything to get back on topic. Maybe you, smacktards and steveK could start another thread to complain about me and let the adults here continue having our conversation in peace?

Really, you don't even have to read this thread if it causes anger management or impulse control issues when you do, it's best to just avoid the triggers for problems like that.


anger and impulse control issues? brother, you're less lucid than i thought. see, it's you who goes off the deep end when challenged about your dishonest and trolling behavior.

hope you have a good life and your feelings aren't hurt and all that other stuff you're so concerned about *cough*offtopic*cough*.


bye bye!

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 14:09
Mr. Murphy Has some interesting ideas on the subject.

Dogmatic Atheism and Scientific Ignorance

by Peter Murphy

The repeated arguments presented by atheists using science as evidence against the existence of God is erroneous -- and can be demonstrated such. This paper will first define the terms agnosticism, deism, theism, and atheism. Second, this paper will summarize a number of scientific concepts and ideas to put science into its proper and correct context. And third, this paper will demonstrate that active atheism (as opposed to passive atheism) for all its pretensions to scientific literacy is in effect composed of people scientifically illiterate, illogical, and cynical.

Religious views on the subject of a God fall into four general categories. Agnosticism is the belief that the question of whether a God exists or not cannot be known. Theism is the belief in a personal God who is interested in the minute details of daily life and who intervenes in the workings of nature through miracles. Other aspects of theism are the acceptance of direct revelation from God to prophets and holy men in times past, the importance of ritual, the leadership of a clerical body, and government support; all of these aspects exist in all theistic religions to some degree. Deism is a rational religion where God is generally seen as impersonal and nature accepted as the only true revelation, the very handiwork of God; holy books, ritual, and clerics are viewed as superstition. Atheism has two practical meanings: one is the lack of belief concerning God, and the other is the certainty that God does not exist. As such, atheism can be divided into passive atheism and active atheism. Passive atheism is merely the lack of belief, and children are born passive atheists -- of course this is not a justification for atheism because children are also born unable to take care of themselves. Active atheists are not people merely lacking a belief in God, but people dogmatically declaring God does not exist through positively worded statements like:

a) There is no scientific evidence for a Creator.

b) Science proves there is no Creator.

c) All things have naturalistic explanations.

...


Carl Sagan wrote the following concerning the question of atheism, God, and science:

An [dogmatic] atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists…." ²

In conclusion, the dogmatic atheist’s assertions on the creator issue are invalid as demonstrated in this paper. Every argument presented by dogmatic atheists involving science to disprove a Creator is fallacious; there is no scientific evidence proving or even demonstrating a Creator does not exist, and there is no scientific research into the “God” issue. The shameful misuse of science by dogmatic atheists is due to their failing to make distinctions between science fiction and science (nonfiction). Dogmatic atheism, for all its pretensions to scientific literacy, is in effect composed of people scientifically illiterate, illogical, and addicted to argumentum ad verecundiam (arguments from modesty). These people are not skeptics or freethinkers but modern cynics -- the great naysayers. Deism is the only religion which is science friendly. The naturalistic approach to science should be encouraged because eventually by the process of elimination, it can indirectly provide evidence for a Creator and with time maybe find not only evidence of a Creator, but the Creator itself. (http://www.deism.com/dogmaticatheism.htm)


Interesting take on the subject. I really don't approve of using "In conclusion" to begin your conclusion, but it's interesting how he breaks atheism down to passive and active, and separates deism from theism.

It's worth reading the whole article, which is linked.


I really liked his take on the expected reaction when confronting a dogmatic atheist. Seems is on to something here.

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 14:26
We are now and have been on topic.

...

so, let's do as doc suggests and continue with the just the adults talking..

atheism, not a religion as defined by m&w.

concurrence?

Smacktard
05-31-2011, 15:15
I think Doc found Jesus and doesn't want to admit it.

You know once you've found God you have to ask: Who created God? Then who created God's creator?

And so on for ever and ever.

Take that believers!

ksg0245
05-31-2011, 15:52
so, let's do as doc suggests and continue with the just the adults talking..

atheism, not a religion as defined by m&w.

concurrence?

I concur.

Syclone538
05-31-2011, 16:12
so, let's do as doc suggests and continue with the just the adults talking..

atheism, not a religion as defined by m&w.

concurrence?

I concur.

steveksux
05-31-2011, 17:46
so, let's do as doc suggests and continue with the just the adults talking..

atheism, not a religion as defined by m&w.

concurrence?In fact, listed as the opposite of religion.

The only "religion" based on belief held with faith and ardor is CD's belief that atheism is a religion.

Randy

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 19:06
so, it looks like the aye's have it.


and smack, i dunno what he's found but i want some of it, my arm's been killing me all week and it would be nice to take my mind off reality for a while too.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 19:38
I concur.

Wow, simple small disagreement over the obvious meaning of words that some find irritating, and the hate comes out.

Not very intellectual, but occasionally when an inconvenient truth is pointed out, in this case that the belief that there is no deity is not a matter of scientific fact, but a matter of faith, and that makes atheists religious is evidently hostile.

As a middle of the road agnostic, I don't get the whole "hatred of religion" thing. Why bother other people that are comfortable in their beliefs. But the hardcore atheists that hang out here seem to revel in pointing out inconsistencies in other peoples religious belief, which I find rude. Just as I'd find it rude if a Christian told an atheist they were going to hell. Or a Muslim told you that you would either convert, become dhimmi, or be put to the sword.

So, as an Agnostic, it strikes me odd that a religious belief, such as atheism, would choose to ridicule others for making up a story about the origins of the universe, when they have also chosen to believe in made up story. It lacks a lot of details, but it is what it is, and we are what we are, regardless of any belief system.

It all seemed highly hypocritical to me, so I talked to a fellow about it (see the first post in the thread) and decided that it was a good topic to discuss on its own. So here we are.

Many people have shown up and had a vigorous discussion, and it's been educational for me, and hopefully some others.



Other people have decided that they don't like people speaking such things out loud, and instead of moving along, or ignoring the conversation, have taken a course of action bent on taking the subject off course, or to disrupt the conversation, leading to personal attacks on those having an honest conversation.

Fear is a powerful motivator I guess.


If you don't like the subject, go read some other threads. Don't even click on this one. Let the ones that want to discuss it do it in peace.

There is no mandate that you have to agree. There are rules about being polite on this board though.

Let it go.......


http://blogs.technet.com/photos/gray_knowlton/images/2998979/original.aspx


Not everyone is going to agree with you, but trying to silence them is a sign of fear, not of intellect.

Syclone538
05-31-2011, 19:49
Wow, simple small disagreement over the obvious meaning of words that some find irritating, and the hate comes out.
...

Can you quote me where I've been hateful to anyone here?

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 19:59
Can you quote me where I've been hateful to anyone here?

or, better yet, where anyone has been.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 20:02
Can you quote me where I've been hateful to anyone here?

Not you, I was talking about the poster you quoted.

There are plenty of examples on the previous pages.

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 20:02
..
Not everyone is going to agree with you, but trying to silence them is a sign of fear, not of intellect.

last i checked, it was you who's putting everybody on your ignore list as they challenge your misinterpretation of the dictionary. so, based on your own words, how does that reflect on your intellect?

fear? by your definition, you're full of it.

Cavalry Doc
05-31-2011, 20:25
This message is hidden because kc8ykd is on your ignore list.

I know you are on a mission to get the thread closed, don't mind us and have fun elsewhere on the forum...

Catch ya later. Best wishes.

kc8ykd
05-31-2011, 20:29
I know you are on a mission to get the thread closed, don't mind us and have fun elsewhere on the forum...

Catch ya later. Best wishes.

so, you either choose not to ignore my posts, or you automatically assume i'm responding to something you've said and feel the need to tell everybody you're ignoring me (which is not really ignoring someone, fyi), or you do logout and read the thread, ha!


get the thread closed? i'm merely following your suggestion and talking with the other 'adults', as you so kindly put it.

you suggested it, i followed your suggestion.

RC-RAMIE
06-01-2011, 08:20
Not everyone is going to agree with you, but trying to silence them is a sign of fear, not of intellect.

How many people you have on ignore?

steveksux
06-01-2011, 14:39
Not everyone is going to agree with you, but trying to silence them is a sign of fear, not of intellect.

last i checked, it was you who's putting everybody on your ignore list as they challenge your misinterpretation of the dictionary. so, based on your own words, how does that reflect on your intellect?

fear? by your definition, you're full of it.

How many people you have on ignore?
:rofl::rofl:

How many times can one poster be hoisted by his own petard? His definitions turn against him, his very words turn against him. No wonder he's so sensitive to being "attacked". His own posts betray him... :rofl:

He doesn't have too many people on ignore yet. Just the ones that were exposing his misrepresentations and logical fallacies.

I've never seen such viciousness on the internet before, where do people get off showing him where he's wrong??? How dare people disagree on a discussion forum!!!

If there is anyone left out there that's not on his ignore list, feel free to quote this so he can exercise his intellect and respond to these questions, rather than ignore them... :rofl:

Please be careful and ration your responses, you only expose so many errors before you end up on the ignore list too.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2011, 17:22
How many people you have on ignore?

Total of six. But if you'll read back, it was because they lowered the level of the discussion to ad hom attacks and abandoned the topic.

Paraphrasing, but it tended to go like this....

Me: I think "a"
Them: well I think "b"

Me: Well, I still think "a" because "c"

Them: well then you're a "d".


My ignoring them doesn't stop them from exercising their full rights to free speech or expression. In fact, I encourage them to keep on expressing their views on the subject, but if all they are going to do is stalk me and sling insults, then I'd really appreciate it if they went to another thread to have that discussion, but just to keep this one on topic. It's rather interesting to see how people define their own beliefs, even if it is contrary to the dictionary definitions of the words they use.

After reading the recent article I posted a link to, I do feel that some of them may actually be "passive atheists", but that passive atheists are remarkably close to agnostics, and I'm really not sure if both can't coexist in the same person at the same time.

It's at least something to consider.

Maybe the correct question is why it is so hard to admit active atheism is a religion?

I haven't decided myself.

RC-RAMIE
06-01-2011, 17:36
Total of six. But if you'll read back, it was because they lowered the level of the discussion to ad hom attacks and abandoned the topic.

Paraphrasing, but it tended to go like this....

Me: I think "a"
Them: well I think "b"

Me: Well, I still think "a" because "c"

Them: well then you're a "d".


My ignoring them doesn't stop them from exercising their full rights to free
speech or expression. In fact, I encourage them to keep on expressing their views on the subject, but if all they are going to do is stalk me and sling
insults, then I'd really appreciate it if they went to another thread to have that
discussion, but just to keep this one on topic. It's rather interesting to see how people define their own beliefs, even if it is contrary to the dictionary definitions of the words they use.

After reading the recent article I posted a link to, I do feel that some of them may actually be "passive atheists", but that passive atheists are remarkably close to agnostics, and I'm really not sure if both can't coexist in the same person at the same time.

It's at least something to consider.

Maybe the correct question is why it is so hard to admit active atheism is a religion?

I haven't decided myself.

I been following since the first post.

Cavalry Doc
06-01-2011, 17:39
I been following since the first post.

So then you know what I mean.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2011, 19:32
http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs13/f/2007/003/f/4/Bump_jumb_by_the_ace_chef.gif

http://fc08.deviantart.net/fs32/f/2008/195/c/4/I_has_Alien_by_Droneguard.gif

http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs49/f/2009/230/5/4/54092d536c2f84430743dafdde0a0983.gif


:milestone:

Cavalry Doc
06-14-2011, 19:35
The zealots abandon the field of discussion.

Passively admitting that the initial hypothesis is correct,


By their very definition, The American English definition of the words, used plainly, includes atheism as a religion.


Have faith brothers....

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

Smacktard
06-14-2011, 20:46
Your not fooling anyone, even a believer can see the truth if they open their eyes.

You can save yourself from "The Greatest Con Ever Sold", all it takes is some courage.

...

kc8ykd
06-14-2011, 23:49
it's pretty easy to say 'everybody else gave up, i win!' when you put everybody on your ignore list...

by your own definition, as sure sign of fear.

ArtificialGrape
06-15-2011, 00:40
The zealots abandon the field of discussion.

Passively admitting that the initial hypothesis is correct,

By their very definition, The American English definition of the words, used plainly, includes atheism as a religion.

Have faith brothers....

Speaking for myself, the thread has grown particularly tiresome. You initiated the thread under the guise of a question, but based on a false premise that you won't let go of, nor does it appear that you've given any consideration to the hundreds of contrary posts that have been made in the ensuing 7 months.

Why must you qualify the *American English* definition of words? Does this mean that your argument that atheism is a religion only applies in America? Is atheism not a religion in the UK, or in perhaps Spanish speaking countries? What other religion is only a religion when using the *American English* definition of words?

Of course the answer to the original question above is that it is your attempt to exclude the Oxford English Dictionary definition of atheist as, "a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods".

You typically invoke the 4th Merriam-Webster definition of religion which is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" -- a definition loose enough that Merriam-Websters' own examples include "Hockey is a religion in Canada." If that's the loose interpretation that you require for your argument, then this becomes an even less interesting discussion (if you can imagine) since participants in caliber wars have chosen a religion, Ford vs. Chevy is religious, etc.

But then you reply that "atheism is a religion, not completely unlike all the others, just with fewer details (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=17323177#post17323177)" which would liken it to being Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, etc., but you haven't at all supported this higher standard. So shortly thereafter you're back to the "ardor and faith" interpretation.

What is the definition of "a-" used as a prefix? From Merriam-Webster, atypical means "not typical"; asocial is "not social", stands to reason that atheist means not a theist.

The entry from the Merriam-Webster app on my iPhone lists "atheism" as an antonym to "religion" while you insist that atheism is a religion. Which of you should I believe?
http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l591/ArtificialGrape/faith/mw-def.jpg

You have regularly brought up the issue of the origin of the universe or life. Atheism has nothing to say on these matters. Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of claims made by others that "god(s) exist." An atheist can completely reject all religious claims of creation without accepting any alternate explanation.

If your posts had come from a new member it would be hard to conclude that they were not a troll, but fortunately you don't demonstrate trollish behavior elsewhere on other GT.

You, however, don't appear to have come to have a discussion, rather you came with a conclusion in mind (atheism is a religion) or else you could as easily have asked "who thinks atheism is a religion?" You practically boast of the members that you've blocked (forum equivalent of covering your ears with your hands and singing, "la la la") because of their "attacks" which have been tame by most forum standards. You don't participate in other Religious Issues threads, so it appears that your sole purpose with the thread was nothing more than to take a jab at atheists while elevating yourself into a uniquely impartial status because of your agnostic -- unwilling to commit -- position.

In the time that I wasted with this response, I could have read other threads that I actually care about, read from my growing backlog of books, talked with the wife, watched a rerun of Joanie Loves Chachi, experimented with parting my hair on the wild side, bathed the cat, or any number of more interesting endeavors.

If you care to participate in any of the other threads here on RI, I would be more than happy to engage.

regards,
-ArtificialGrape

steveksux
06-15-2011, 06:49
The zealots abandon the field of discussion.

Passively admitting that the initial hypothesis is correct, Yet another incorrect assumption on your part, if not yet another deliberate misrepresentation. Par for the course for the entire thread, including the premise of it..

The truth? There's only one reason there's no new posts lately.

http://i23.tinypic.com/29lg4ew.jpg



By their very definition, The American English definition of the words, used plainly, includes atheism as a religion.


Have faith brothers....

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/CavDoc.gifAs is hockey and football by that same definition, even lists them in the examples. Odd how it also lists atheism as the antonym of religion in the same place.

Anyone care to salvage the thread and make it interesting again? Lets discuss why its so hard for CD to admit he's a troll.

Randy

ksg0245
06-15-2011, 08:21
The zealots abandon the field of discussion.

Passively admitting that the initial hypothesis is correct,

By their very definition, The American English definition of the words, used plainly, includes atheism as a religion.

Have faith brothers....

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

The only person who abandoned the discussion was you when you couldn't get everyone to agree with your arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently contradictory definitions.

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 10:01
KSG convinced me to bump this thread back up, since he wants to re-hash things in all the other threads.

Just wondering, do you think It would be a good idea to clear out the ignore list to see if people can refrain from personal attacks now? I'm considering it.

steveksux
08-13-2011, 10:11
Ksg is another one. He doesn't agree with Merriam-Webster, I accurately explained the words to him, and somehow I was the dishonest one.

Atheism is a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Just look up the definition of each of the words, it's a simple reality that atheism is a religion.

If they choose to disagree that's OK. But, I find I have much more meaningful conversations when I filter out all the "you're a doody-head" comments by those that have run out of honest arguments.

Nice to know I still have your attention KSG. Guess I should head over to the old thread and give it a bump so we can have this conversation over there, well, not "we" I guess. :wavey:

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

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 »
See religion defined for kids »
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.
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.
Origin of RELIGION

Middle English religioun, from Anglo-French religiun, Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back — more at rely
First Known Use: 13th century
Related to RELIGION

Synonyms: credo, creed, cult, faith, persuasion
Antonyms: atheism, godlessness
[+]more
Other Religion (Eastern and Other) Terms

Zen, antinomian, avatar, gnosticism, illuminati, ineffable, karma, koan, mantraColors point out the obvious connections between different connotations of the word religion, and what they refer to in the examples. And highlighted the portion where atheism is the opposite of religion.

You love the fragment of Merriam-Webster definition it seems. I would suggest instead of taking people off your ignore list, perhaps you should take the sections of Merriam-Webster that you've been ignoring off your ignore list.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 10:14
Artificial grape,

Sorry, didn't see your last post.

Life is full of little inconsistencies. It is very possible for atheism to be a religion, and an antonym at the same time. It depends on the context. Language is like that some of the time. "Bad" can mean good, "hot" can mean pretty.

In the context of my initial question, atheism, as a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith, is indeed a religion. In another sentence, atheism could also be an antonym of religion.

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 10:25
It's not just me either. The issue has already been decided in the American court system.



LAW OF THE LAND
Court rules atheism a religion
Decides 1st Amendment protects prison inmate's right to start study group

Read more: Court rules atheism a religion http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895#ixzz1UvV2ZchQ


The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.

Read more: Court rules atheism a religion http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895#ixzz1UvWdz69c




Now that the issue has been settled, tell me what is so uncomfortable about someone else on the internet pointing out that it is grammatically correct to state: "atheism is a religion"??

steveksux
08-13-2011, 10:32
Another failure.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular%20humanismDefinition of SECULAR HUMANISM

: humanism 3; especially : humanistic philosophy viewed as a nontheistic religion antagonistic to traditional religion
— secular humanist noun or adjectiveYour beloved merriam webster doesn't mention anything about atheism in its definition of secular humanism. Neither does the definition for religion mention anything about secular humanism. Only states that atheism is the opposite of religion. Hmmm..

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 10:41
OK, ignore list is cleared. Will only add those that can't discuss things without personal attacks.

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 10:48
Another failure.http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/secular%20humanismYour beloved merriam webster doesn't mention anything about atheism in its definition of secular humanism. Neither does the definition for religion mention anything about secular humanism. Only states that atheism is the opposite of religion. Hmmm..

Randy

First off, your post would have been clearer without the attempt to get things emotionally charged. It's incorrect to assume that I "love" anything other than what I have stated I love. K?

Language is a funny thing, it's not like math or chemistry, where both sides of an equation must balance. It is just a bunch of words, and although it's understandably confusing, in the English language, the same word can mean different things, and many different words can mean the same thing.

The post you were responding too, stated that the SUPREME COURT described secular humanism as a religion. That's a settled piece of case law. It is a belief system without a deity, so I'd say that it is an atheistic belief system. Wouldn't you?

steveksux
08-13-2011, 12:52
First off, your post would have been clearer without the attempt to get things emotionally charged. It's incorrect to assume that I "love" anything other than what I have stated I love. K?

Language is a funny thing, it's not like math or chemistry, where both sides of an equation must balance. It is just a bunch of words, and although it's understandably confusing, in the English language, the same word can mean different things, and many different words can mean the same thing.

The post you were responding too, stated that the SUPREME COURT described secular humanism as a religion. That's a settled piece of case law. It is a belief system without a deity, so I'd say that it is an atheistic belief system. Wouldn't you?Read the definition of secular humanism. Then comment when you understand. No mention of atheism. If all you need is a belief system, then we're right back to Santa Clause being a religion among young people. Is Santa Clause a theistic or atheistic belief system? Nobody really thinks he is a deity.

Ignoring the dictionary quote still? Maybe you need to look up antonym if you think sometimes it means things that are antonyms are the same thing.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 13:11
Read the definition of secular humanism. Then comment when you understand. No mention of atheism. If all you need is a belief system, then we're right back to Santa Clause being a religion among young people. Is Santa Clause a theistic or atheistic belief system? Nobody really thinks he is a deity.

Ignoring the dictionary quote still? Maybe you need to look up antonym if you think sometimes it means things that are antonyms are the same thing.

Randy

I'd agree with you about santa, if he was supposed to have created the universe and life as we know it.

Pixies, santa, elves, unicorns, all trivialize the profound nature of belief in a deity, or that there have never been deities.

But, just to settle it, if you want to call Santa a religion, you have my permission. Football too.

I don't agree, but we are straying from the question, about what is so uncomfortable about the thought of atheism being a religion too?

steveksux
08-13-2011, 13:18
I'd agree with you about santa, if he was supposed to have created the universe and life as we know it.

Pixies, santa, elves, unicorns, all trivialize the profound nature of belief in a deity, or that there have never been deities. That's your doing when you relax the definition of religion to merely a belief held with faith and ardor. No mention of creating the universe or life as we know it. Based on that, football, santa, and christianity are all the same. That's your position based on your definition, based on the very definition you keep posting. I'm pointing out its so ridiculous BECAUSE you have to include santa, football, and pixies based on your position.



But, just to settle it, if you want to call Santa a religion, you have my permission. Football too.

I don't agree, but we are straying from the question, about what is so uncomfortable about the thought of atheism being a religion too?
You can believe whatever you want, no matter how silly, its merely uncomfortable to watch you try to justify it.

When you post it as a point of discussion, don't be offended when people point out the flaws in your pet theory.

I pointed out very early on in this thread that you're mixing up connotations of the word religion that refer to very different concepts in order to pretend that atheism is a religion in the same sense that real religions are a religion as opposed to the point that atheism could be considered a religion in the sense that hockey is a religion in Canada.

Randy

RC-RAMIE
08-13-2011, 13:20
The belief in a god is not profound in my life or has any bearing on my life and I see no reasons it should.

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 13:34
The belief in a god is not profound in my life or has any bearing on my life and I see no reasons it should.


I think you have a typo in there, did you mean to day "disbelief"?

OK, lets talk about someone else. Pick an evangelist, christian. Do you think that their belief in a god has anything to do with the way they make decisions?

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 13:41
That's your doing when you relax the definition of religion to merely a belief held with faith and ardor. No mention of creating the universe or life as we know it. Based on that, football, santa, and christianity are all the same. That's your position based on your definition, based on the very definition you keep posting. I'm pointing out its so ridiculous BECAUSE you have to include santa, football, and pixies based on your position.


You can believe whatever you want, no matter how silly, its merely uncomfortable to watch you try to justify it.

When you post it as a point of discussion, don't be offended when people point out the flaws in your pet theory.

I pointed out very early on in this thread that you're mixing up connotations of the word religion that refer to very different concepts in order to pretend that atheism is a religion in the same sense that real religions are a religion as opposed to the point that atheism could be considered a religion in the sense that hockey is a religion in Canada.

Randy

I still see it differently. From an agnostic point of view, atheism is a religion. It lacks a lot of the superficial trappings, but there are gatherings, agendas, and a belief in a profound question that none of us know the truth of. To pretend to know, faith is required.

Football/hockey is a sport, and I can see someone becoming fanatical about watching or playing it, but it does not explain the origins of the universe, specifically the question of whether it just happened, or was made.

Atheists have staked out a position. There is no way for them to know.

RC-RAMIE
08-13-2011, 14:13
Pixies, santa, elves, unicorns, all trivialize the profound nature of belief in a deity, or that there have never been deities.


I think you have a typo in there, did you mean to day "disbelief"?

OK, lets talk about someone else. Pick an evangelist, christian. Do you think that their belief in a god has anything to do with the way they make decisions?

No I meant what I said I find nothing profound in believing in a deity. My lack of belief in one has no effect on my every day life at all I find believing in a deity as unnecessary as believing in Greek mythology.

Yes and they have a right to use those beliefs in they way they make decision, does not mean I have to consider somebody else unsupported ideas on how we got here in the way i make decision. All I want is to keep it at home and church, religion should be private and personal.

steveksux
08-13-2011, 14:16
I still see it differently. From an agnostic point of view, atheism is a religion.From a "true" point of view, it is not. The dictionary makes that clear. It lacks a lot of the superficial trappings, What superficial trappings? ritual? creation myths? worship? prayer? Its missing ALL the trappings, and none of those trappings are superficial, they are central to what constitutes a religion.

but there are gatherings, agendas, and a belief in a profound question that none of us know the truth of. To pretend to know, faith is required. There are no gatherings, no agendas. You won't find a thread in religious issues debating the proper day you're not supposed to go to church. And what profound questions are you talking about? Atheism has no position or creation myths, either of life, or the universe.

Football/hockey is a sport, and I can see someone becoming fanatical about watching or playing it, but it does not explain the origins of the universe, specifically the question of whether it just happened, or was made.

Atheists have staked out a position. There is no way for them to know.Atheism does not stake out any position on the origins of life or the universe. You're no less ignorant on atheism than people arguing evolution doesn't explain how life began are ignorant about evolution. You're as ignorant about atheism as those arguing the Big Bang theory can't be right because it doesn't describe how the universe began.

BB and evolution theories do not even address how the universe or life began, they describe how they changed over time after they were already there.

Atheism does not even have a position on those theories, let alone things those theories do not even attempt to explain.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-13-2011, 14:24
From a "true" point of view, it is not. The dictionary makes that clear. What superficial trappings? ritual? creation myths? worship? prayer? Its missing ALL the trappings, and none of those trappings are superficial, they are central to what constitutes a religion.

There are no gatherings, no agendas. You won't find a thread in religious issues debating the proper day you're not supposed to go to church. And what profound questions are you talking about? Atheism has no position or creation myths, either of life, or the universe.

Atheism does not stake out any position on the origins of life or the universe. You're no less ignorant on atheism than people arguing evolution doesn't explain how life began are ignorant about evolution. You're as ignorant about atheism as those arguing the Big Bang theory can't be right because it doesn't describe how the universe began.

BB and evolution theories do not even address how the universe or life began, they describe how they changed over time after they were already there.

Atheism does not even have a position on those theories, let alone things those theories do not even attempt to explain.

Randy

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

http://twitter.com/#!/AtheistAgenda


Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

Kingarthurhk
08-13-2011, 14:46
From a "true" point of view, it is not. The dictionary makes that clear. What superficial trappings? ritual? creation myths? worship? prayer? Its missing ALL the trappings, and none of those trappings are superficial, they are central to what constitutes a religion.

There are no gatherings, no agendas. You won't find a thread in religious issues debating the proper day you're not supposed to go to church. And what profound questions are you talking about? Atheism has no position or creation myths, either of life, or the universe.

Atheism does not stake out any position on the origins of life or the universe. You're no less ignorant on atheism than people arguing evolution doesn't explain how life began are ignorant about evolution. You're as ignorant about atheism as those arguing the Big Bang theory can't be right because it doesn't describe how the universe began.

BB and evolution theories do not even address how the universe or life began, they describe how they changed over time after they were already there.

Atheism does not even have a position on those theories, let alone things those theories do not even attempt to explain.

Randy

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

ksg0245
08-13-2011, 16:25
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=all

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895

http://twitter.com/#!/AtheistAgenda


Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.

So a student group for discussion of issues concerning atheists, a World Net Daily article that deliberately misstates a court ruling, and an article about atheists in the miliarty looking for non-religious counseling are evidence of an "atheist agenda"?

ksg0245
08-14-2011, 08:17
I still see it differently. From an agnostic point of view, atheism is a religion. It lacks a lot of the superficial trappings, but there are gatherings, agendas, and a belief in a profound question that none of us know the truth of. To pretend to know, faith is required.

Football/hockey is a sport, and I can see someone becoming fanatical about watching or playing it, but it does not explain the origins of the universe, specifically the question of whether it just happened, or was made.

Atheists have staked out a position. There is no way for them to know.

I asked you this before, but don't recall getting a clear answer: are the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution exclusively atheist theories, such that no theist is willing or able to accept them as the best explanations for the observations? Is atheism an integral part of those theories such that they cannot function without the premise of the nonexistence of deities?

If not, and if as atheists have told you atheism is merely the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deities, please clearly explain, with sufficient detail and evidence to support your assertion, how atheism "explains the origins of the universe, specifically the question of whether it just happened, or was made."

ksg0245
08-14-2011, 08:19
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations

Secular is not equivalent to atheist.

ksg0245
08-14-2011, 08:20
I'd agree with you about santa, if he was supposed to have created the universe and life as we know it.

Pixies, santa, elves, unicorns, all trivialize the profound nature of belief in a deity, or that there have never been deities.

But, just to settle it, if you want to call Santa a religion, you have my permission. Football too.

I don't agree, but we are straying from the question, about what is so uncomfortable about the thought of atheism being a religion too?

What makes you so uncomfortable about atheism NOT being a religion?

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 08:22
No I meant what I said I find nothing profound in believing in a deity. My lack of belief in one has no effect on my every day life at all I find believing in a deity as unnecessary as believing in Greek mythology.

Yes and they have a right to use those beliefs in they way they make decision, does not mean I have to consider somebody else unsupported ideas on how we got here in the way i make decision. All I want is to keep it at home and church, religion should be private and personal.


How's that mesh with "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Any problems with a copy of the 10 commandments in a court house?

How about a cross at ground zero?

ksg0245
08-14-2011, 08:24
KSG convinced me to bump this thread back up, since he wants to re-hash things in all the other threads.

Just wondering, do you think It would be a good idea to clear out the ignore list to see if people can refrain from personal attacks now? I'm considering it.

Just to be clear, you were the one who brought the issue back up. I'm under no obligation to ignore that happening.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 08:42
What makes you so uncomfortable about atheism NOT being a religion?

No discomfort at all. It's just something that I realized.
I probably always knew that it was, but thought about it for a while after having a conversation in another thread quite a while ago. See the first post.


I'm OK if people disagree. It doesn't change anything. Our existence is still what it is, and we got here exactly the way that it happened, I'm just comfortable not being able to claim that I know whether there is/was or is/was not a deity or deities.

I'd not try to convince an atheist to be a theist, or a theist to be an atheist. I take the constitutional approach, don't declare a state religion, but let people be free in their practice of that religion, even if it happen in public.

The recent flap over the ground zero cross is a perfect example. John Stewart had a good analysis.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/05/jon-stewart-atheists-world-trade-center-cross_n_919196.html

I see this kind of stuff just as offensive as the westboro baptist church.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 08:46
Just to be clear, you were the one who brought the issue back up. I'm under no obligation to ignore that happening.

It is what it is. The issue didn't go away, it's still there, and makes a lot of the atheist organizations agenda a little more interesting when considering the unknown assumptions made by both sides that tend to bicker a lot.

You did not bump the thread, you just provided the motivation to do so.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 08:52
I asked you this before, but don't recall getting a clear answer: are the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution exclusively atheist theories, such that no theist is willing or able to accept them as the best explanations for the observations? Is atheism an integral part of those theories such that they cannot function without the premise of the nonexistence of deities?

If not, and if as atheists have told you atheism is merely the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deities, please clearly explain, with sufficient detail and evidence to support your assertion, how atheism "explains the origins of the universe, specifically the question of whether it just happened, or was made."

I may have answered that to someone else in another thread, but to be clear, it is possible that the reason for the current expansion of the universe (some believe because of a big bang), and the way live has adapted and evolved (not completely explained in the current theory) may have had the involvement of an intelligence, and maybe it didn't.

I heard a story, not sure if it is true, but it was about a Clergy man and a subscriber of the BBT having an argument, at the end, the clergy says, "fine, you win, with a big bang, god created the heavens and the earth".

Fact is, none of us know. The fact that none of us knows, should not lead us into open conflict with people that choose to believe another way than we choose to believe.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 08:54
So a student group for discussion of issues concerning atheists, a World Net Daily article that deliberately misstates a court ruling, and an article about atheists in the miliarty looking for non-religious counseling are evidence of an "atheist agenda"?

http://www.atheists.org/
http://www.atheistalliance.org/
http://www.atheists-online.com/links.asp


Browse around. If you think these organizations are aimless, please provide supporting arguments.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 09:04
From a "true" point of view, it is not. The dictionary makes that clear. What superficial trappings? ritual? creation myths? worship? prayer? Its missing ALL the trappings, and none of those trappings are superficial, they are central to what constitutes a religion.

There are no gatherings, no agendas. You won't find a thread in religious issues debating the proper day you're not supposed to go to church. And what profound questions are you talking about? Atheism has no position or creation myths, either of life, or the universe.

Atheism does not stake out any position on the origins of life or the universe. You're no less ignorant on atheism than people arguing evolution doesn't explain how life began are ignorant about evolution. You're as ignorant about atheism as those arguing the Big Bang theory can't be right because it doesn't describe how the universe began.

BB and evolution theories do not even address how the universe or life began, they describe how they changed over time after they were already there.

Atheism does not even have a position on those theories, let alone things those theories do not even attempt to explain.

Randy

Steve,

http://www.atheists-online.com/links.asp

Follow the link, and tell me how aimless each of these organizations is, and how they have no goals, plans or changes that they want to make. They also meet.

The only myth, is that there is no god. It may be correct, but it is an unsupported position, as there is no way to know for sure. Simply not accepting a being as divine is a passive position, an agnostic position.

But when you are darn sure, and you take action on that position, then it may indicate that you have become a believer in a position that cannot be proven. Faith achieved.

But what the heck. It's only my observations of the issue. You are not required to agree, and I'll still respect you if you choose not to.

RC-RAMIE
08-14-2011, 09:04
How's that mesh with "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

Any problems with a copy of the 10 commandments in a court house?

How about a cross at ground zero?

It has nothing to do with that because I was responding directly to you saying

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Pixies, santa, elves, unicorns, all trivialize the profound nature of belief in a deity, or that there have never been deities.

I was telling you I don't find anything profound in it. Stop takin post and jumping to other discussions.

The problem is a cross and 10 commandments in a court house are from only one religion and no government should endorse a certain religion over others. The cross at ground zero I personally have no problem with. Atheist also have extremist groups that don't speak for all atheist just like westbro church does not represent all christians.

Now explain why the believe in a god is a profound one and do you hold the Greeks gods to the same level of profound belief?

Kingarthurhk
08-14-2011, 09:11
Secular is not equivalent to atheist.

I guess you missed the long laundry list that was included in that thread of distinctly Atheist organizations. If you scroll through the list the majority of the countries listed had an Atheist organization.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 09:44
It has nothing to do with that because I was responding directly to you saying

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Pixies, santa, elves, unicorns, all trivialize the profound nature of belief in a deity, or that there have never been deities.

I was telling you I don't find anything profound in it. Stop takin post and jumping to other discussions.

The problem is a cross and 10 commandments in a court house are from only one religion and no government should endorse a certain religion over others. The cross at ground zero I personally have no problem with. Atheist also have extremist groups that don't speak for all atheist just like westbro church does not represent all christians.

Now explain why the believe in a god is a profound one and do you hold the Greeks gods to the same level of profound belief?

When did I say those were the only things of religious origin?

I just asked if you had a problem with those specific items.

I think the belief is a deity, predisposes one to specific thought patterns. The opposite is also true. There are differences depending on which deity or deities you choose to believe in, or the choice to believe that none have existed.

It is profound, because it effects all other beliefs. Still, people of any faith, can still do good or bad things.

steveksux
08-14-2011, 09:56
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=allDo you think Christians in the army want a witch doctor for a chaplain? Why should an atheist want to confide in someone they consider just as superstitious? As stated in the article, the other chaplains don't even think its a "faith group". The article does nothing to state atheism is a religion, just that atheists want to be on an equal footing, and not discriminated against, and not have to be pressured with superstitious mumbo jumbo when they seek guidance.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895Ah yes, the article that says your position that atheism is a religion is ridiculous... It is difficult not to be somewhat jaundiced about our courts when they take clauses especially designed to protect religion from the state and turn them on their head by giving protective cover to a belief system, that, by every known definition other than the courts' is not a religion

Read more: Court rules atheism a religion http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895#ixzz1V1CZtbAtGreat that atheism, which is freedom FROM religion gets equal protection to religion finally on a first amendment basis.

http://twitter.com/#!/AtheistAgendawhat do you think this shows? An atheist can have a twitter account?

Randy


Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]

steveksux
08-14-2011, 10:01
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_secularist_organizations
So the chess club would also be a religion now?

Randy

RC-RAMIE
08-14-2011, 10:01
When did I say those were the only things of religious origin?

I just asked if you had a problem with those specific items.

I think the belief is a deity, predisposes one to specific thought patterns. The opposite is also true. There are differences depending on which deity or deities you choose to believe in, or the choice to believe that none have existed.

It is profound, because it effects all other beliefs. Still, people of any faith, can still do good or bad things.

I answered you they are the only one in a courthouse want to show me a case of a another religion symbol being removed that wasn't christian. The reason they are not common is because it is mostly chrisianity that is trying to push its way into every other Americans lives.

I see the world just fine with out the idea of a god of any kind I also don't find the belief in one profound or consider it in my life making decisions.

steveksux
08-14-2011, 10:05
I asked you this before, but don't recall getting a clear answer: are the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution exclusively atheist theories, such that no theist is willing or able to accept them as the best explanations for the observations? Is atheism an integral part of those theories such that they cannot function without the premise of the nonexistence of deities?

If not, and if as atheists have told you atheism is merely the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deities, please clearly explain, with sufficient detail and evidence to support your assertion, how atheism "explains the origins of the universe, specifically the question of whether it just happened, or was made."
It would be interesting to find out how atheism has a position of the beginning of life, the universe based on theories that don't explain the beginning of life or the universe. I believe I asked about this already, still waiting on an answer.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 10:37
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/27/us/27atheists.html?pagewanted=allDo you think Christians in the army want a witch doctor for a chaplain? Why should an atheist want to confide in someone they consider just as superstitious? As stated in the article, the other chaplains don't even think its a "faith group". The article does nothing to state atheism is a religion, just that atheists want to be on an equal footing, and not discriminated against, and not have to be pressured with superstitious mumbo jumbo when they seek guidance.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=31895Ah yes, the article that says your position that atheism is a religion is ridiculous... Great that atheism, which is freedom FROM religion gets equal protection to religion finally on a first amendment basis.

http://twitter.com/#!/AtheistAgendawhat do you think this shows? An atheist can have a twitter account?

Randy


Looks like we are going to have to agree to disagree.[/QUOTE]



As is painfully obvious, it is a controversial view. But when examined objectively, it is still correct word usage, and correct in the spirit of the words to point out that atheism is a religion. If you want to think of chess club and hockey as a religion, that is fine with me, but I see it as an attempt to trivialize the assumption made by the true atheist, the one that they cannot prove. That belief, effects all others. It has a metaphysical origin that is lacking in the typical sports fan.

http://www.atheists-online.com/links.asp

You do have access to google, right? If you cannot find atheist organizations, and cannot find their agendas, then maybe you need to work on your google-fu.

It's easy to find.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 10:42
I answered you they are the only one in a courthouse want to show me a case of a another religion symbol being removed that wasn't christian. The reason they are not common is because it is mostly chrisianity that is trying to push its way into every other Americans lives.

I see the world just fine with out the idea of a god of any kind I also don't find the belief in one profound or consider it in my life making decisions.

It's a simple question. I'll add in some details if it will make it easier for you to answer.

Would there be a problem if there were the 10 commandments, a collection of American Indian moral guidelines, a copy of The Prayer of Eusebius, a collection of a Buddhist proverbs, and The Magna Cartaon prominent display in a courthouse atrium.

I've never felt pressured by Christianity. Anything specific?

ArtificialGrape
08-14-2011, 11:13
Would there be a problem if there were the 10 commandments, a collection of American Indian moral guidelines, a copy of The Prayer of Eusebius, a collection of a Buddhist proverbs, and The Magna Cartaon prominent display in a courthouse atrium.
Yes or No, do you believe that this list would be inclusive of the beliefs of the entire population?

Invert that answer and you will have the answer to your question -- assuming that you will provide a yes or no answer.

-ArtificialGrape

steveksux
08-14-2011, 11:15
As is painfully obvious, it is a controversial view. But when examined objectively, it is still correct word usage, and correct in the spirit of the words to point out that atheism is a religion. If you want to think of chess club and hockey as a religion, that is fine with me, but I see it as an attempt to trivialize the assumption made by the true atheist, the one that they cannot prove. That belief, effects all others. It has a metaphysical origin that is lacking in the typical sports fan.Perhaps you need to learn to read your dictionary. You seem to keep having a problem with the very definition that you posted.

Football, hockey, etc are all religions, every bit as much as atheism according to that. They're listed specifically pertaining to the belief held with faith and ardor definition you are forced to resort to to preserve this illusion of yours. Perhaps a remedial reading-fu class is in order?

You can't pick and choose the convenient parts when they suit you.

Oh, I forgot, you can, you seem to think antonyms mean either the opposite or the same. Yes. your reading-fu is weak. Or your honesty-fu.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 11:30
Perhaps you need to learn to read your dictionary. You seem to keep having a problem with the very definition that you posted.

Football, hockey, etc are all religions, every bit as much as atheism according to that. They're listed specifically pertaining to the belief held with faith and ardor definition you are forced to resort to to preserve this illusion of yours. Perhaps a remedial reading-fu class is in order?

You can't pick and choose the convenient parts when they suit you.

Oh, I forgot, you can, you seem to think antonyms mean either the opposite or the same. Yes. your reading-fu is weak. Or your honesty-fu.

Randy


Now steve, you're losing your composure again. If you have a problem with my position, fine, point it out. If you have a problem with me personally, you're heading back to the ignore list. I'm a fair guy, and you are illustrating a lack of personal control that makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation. Try not to get so emotional.

So, back to the subject. Language is what it is. English is particularly complex. Context is the key. In proper context, atheism is a religion, and can also be used as an antonym of religion.

This should be interesting....

Please expand, and explain how any of those sports constitutes a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Add as much detail as you feel needs to be convincing.

steveksux
08-14-2011, 11:36
Now steve, you're losing your composure again. If you have a problem with my position, fine, point it out. If you have a problem with me personally, you're heading back to the ignore list. I'm a fair guy, and you are illustrating a lack of personal control that makes it difficult to have a meaningful conversation. Try not to get so emotional.Show me where I'm wrong then. The truth is the truth, sorry you're uncomfortable with the hole you dig yourself into.



So, back to the subject. Language is what it is. English is particularly complex. Context is the key. In proper context, atheism is a religion, and can also be used as an antonym of religion.

This should be interesting....

Please expand, and explain how any of those sports constitutes a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith. Add as much detail as you feel needs to be convincing.read the definition. Its right there. Examples of religions. From the definition you yourself rely on, that seems to be enough detail for your position. How do you explain your apparent lack of knowledge of this? You looked it up. I've posted it and highlighted the relevant parts for you. I can't think of other options besides deliberately ignoring them because they don't fit your agenda. If there's another option, share it.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 11:36
Yes or No, do you believe that this list would be inclusive of the beliefs of the entire population?

Invert that answer and you will have the answer to your question -- assuming that you will provide a yes or no answer.

-ArtificialGrape

Is it inclusive enough? How much would be enough?

ArtificialGrape
08-14-2011, 12:34
Is it inclusive enough? How much would be enough?
Your questions underlie the heart of the problem. Any degree of inclusion is most likely at the exclusion of others. If it can't be all, it should be none.

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 12:58
Your questions underlie the heart of the problem. Any degree of inclusion is most likely at the exclusion of others. If it can't be all, it should be none.

Ahh, but there's the rub. None is the atheist point of view. Can't have one without the others.

Why not allow for a reasonable amount. There is wisdom that has been spoken by many theists. Thou shalt not murder, is an OK concept.

What is reasonable? Whatever the community finds reasonable.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

That's the contract. Free exercise is guaranteed.

This flap with the ground zero cross has illustrated the nasty nature of some of the atheist leadership. It would be in everyone's best interest for them to dial it back a bit. Give people some room and freedom.

There's room for all ideas in the world.

Smacktard
08-14-2011, 13:01
What makes you so uncomfortable about atheism NOT being a religion?

There it is!

...

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 13:04
There it is!

...

You read my answer too, didn't you?

No discomfort, just honest objective analysis of the situation without any emotional baggage from a person that can admit they don't know the origins of the universe.

It started as a simple question. No one has answered that yet, we are still stuck on denying the observation has validity.
:wavey:

Smacktard
08-14-2011, 13:24
You read my answer too, didn't you?

No discomfort, just honest objective analysis of the situation without any emotional baggage from a person that can admit they don't know the origins of the universe.

It started as a simple question. No one has answered that yet, we are still stuck on denying the observation has validity.
:wavey:


In the beginning, you made a statement and pretended it was a question.

Pretending is what religion is all about.


...

Cavalry Doc
08-14-2011, 13:33
In the beginning, you made a statement and pretended it was a question.

Pretending is what religion is all about.


...

I agree. Do you know how the universe began, and how life came to be as it is on Earth? I don't. I have no problem with that.

Those religious fellows though, they are sure they know, if not the whole story, some pretty important details. Yup. They do.

RC-RAMIE
08-14-2011, 20:16
I agree. Do you know how the universe began, and how life came to be as it is on Earth? I don't. I have no problem with that.

Those religious fellows though, they are sure they know, if not the whole story, some pretty important details. Yup. They do.

Atheist make no assertion on how the universe came to be or how human life came to be. That is science nothing to do with atheism.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

steveksux
08-14-2011, 20:53
Now steve, you're losing your composure again. If you have a problem with my position, fine, point it out. .

Here's my problem with your position. You post a definition for religion from the dictionary. The exact examples in that definition you claim are not religions, and the exact thing listed as the opposite of religion in that definition you claim is a religion. Them make the outrageous claim that sometimes the opposite of a religion is a religion in the right context. Well, the context is that of a bald faced liar. And I'm sure you won't take offense at that because the antonym of a liar is one who tells the truth, so who could be offended by that? I'm sure you can find a context where that's a complement. Its the same trollish behavior all over again. Thanks for playing, but the obvious troll is obvious.

Actual debate requires honesty. Sorely lacking here.

Randy

ArtificialGrape
08-14-2011, 21:41
Why not allow for a reasonable amount. There is wisdom that has been spoken by many theists. Thou shalt not murder, is an OK concept.
Where do you think the admonishment not to murder originated? The Torah / Old Testament? Bill & Ted's "be excellent to each other" encapsulates more morality.

What is reasonable? Whatever the community finds reasonable.
Sounds like a perfect recipe for theocracy.

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 04:47
Atheist make no assertion on how the universe came to be or how human life came to be. That is science nothing to do with atheism.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Well, they do make an assumption about one very important detail.

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 04:49
Where do you think the admonishment not to murder originated? The Torah / Old Testament? Bill & Ted's "be excellent to each other" encapsulates more morality.


Sounds like a perfect recipe for theocracy.

-ArtificialGrape

I'm co with bill and Ted.

Sounds like a democratic republic. No established religion, but the freedom to acknowledge and practice it, whatever it may be.

RC-RAMIE
08-15-2011, 08:25
Well, they do make an assumption about one very important detail.

No theist make a assumption about it atheist just reject their unsupported assumption. That is all atheism is.
Atheist may have personal beliefs how everything got here but they come from other sources.

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 08:29
Well, they do make an assumption about one very important detail.

No, they say "there's no objective, verifiable evidence supporting that assertion." Deities are the assumption, since there is no objective, verifiable evidence.

Do you have any objective, verifiable evidence to be considered?

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 08:38
You read my answer too, didn't you?

No discomfort, just honest objective analysis of the situation without any emotional baggage from a person that can admit they don't know the origins of the universe.

It started as a simple question. No one has answered that yet, we are still stuck on denying the observation has validity.
:wavey:

This is false; you've gotten multiple clear, concise, well-supported answers, and yet you persist in claiming otherwise. Atheism is not a religion in the same sense Christianity is a religion; at best it's a "religion" in the same sense sports, politics, or food are "religion." Atheism makes no claims about the origins of life or the Universe; those are scientific theories. Atheism is not a belief system; it is the rejection of a single assertion. Atheism is not "held to with ardor and faith," because if objective, verifiable evidence were presented, most atheists would believe.

What objections do you have to those answers?

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 08:45
I guess you missed the long laundry list that was included in that thread of distinctly Atheist organizations. If you scroll through the list the majority of the countries listed had an Atheist organization.

Certainly there are atheist organizations in that list, but that doesn't make secular equivalent to atheist

From your link:

Secularist organizations promote the view that moral standards should be based solely on concern for the good of humanity in the present life, without reference to supernatural concepts, such as God or an afterlife. The term secularism, as coined and promulgated by George Jacob Holyoake, originally referred to such a view.[1] Secularism may also refer to the belief that government ought to be neutral on matters of religion, and that church and state ought to be separate. The term is here used in the first sense, though most organizations listed here also support secularism in the second sense.

It is trivial true that atheist organizations believe "moral standards should be based solely on concern for the good of humanity in the present life, without reference to supernatural concepts, such as God or an afterlife" and "that government ought to be neutral on matters of religion, and that church and state ought to be separate," because atheists reject the assertion of deities. But there are also theists who think "government ought to be neutral on matters of religion, and that church and state ought to be separate."

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 08:48
I may have answered that to someone else in another thread, but to be clear, it is possible that the reason for the current expansion of the universe (some believe because of a big bang), and the way live has adapted and evolved (not completely explained in the current theory) may have had the involvement of an intelligence, and maybe it didn't.

I heard a story, not sure if it is true, but it was about a Clergy man and a subscriber of the BBT having an argument, at the end, the clergy says, "fine, you win, with a big bang, god created the heavens and the earth".

Fact is, none of us know. The fact that none of us knows, should not lead us into open conflict with people that choose to believe another way than we choose to believe.

Let's try again: are the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution exclusively atheist theories? Either "Yes" or "No" will be satisfactory.

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 10:02
Let's try again: are the Big Bang theory and the theory of evolution exclusively atheist theories? Either "Yes" or "No" will be satisfactory.

I am sure I answered your question. Read the answer again. If you can only accept one word answers after reading it again, let me know.

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 10:08
This is false; you've gotten multiple clear, concise, well-supported answers, and yet you persist in claiming otherwise. Atheism is not a religion in the same sense Christianity is a religion; at best it's a "religion" in the same sense sports, politics, or food are "religion." Atheism makes no claims about the origins of life or the Universe; those are scientific theories. Atheism is not a belief system; it is the rejection of a single assertion. Atheism is not "held to with ardor and faith," because if objective, verifiable evidence were presented, most atheists would believe.

What objections do you have to those answers?

Christianity is different from Islam, which is different from bhuddism, which is different than Wicca, which is different from atheism.

All make a claim about the origins of the universe that cannot be proven. So, they are all alike too.

It's very clear to me, and some others. I don't think any less if you choose to disagree, but from my perspective, you are the one that is refusing to admit that atheism can be correctly described as a religion.

Really, no hard feelings or ill will.

RC-RAMIE
08-15-2011, 10:14
Christianity is different from Islam, which is different from bhuddism, which is different than Wicca, which is different from atheism.

All make a claim about the origins of the universe that cannot be proven. So, they are all alike too.

It's very clear to me, and some others. I don't think any less if you choose to disagree, but from my perspective, you are the one that is refusing to admit that atheism can be correctly described as a religion.

Really, no hard feelings or ill will.

Atheist make no claim about the origins of the universe just reject the unsupported claims of theist.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Roering
08-15-2011, 10:42
Should we be discussing atheism in the "religious issues" forum???

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 10:49
I am sure I answered your question. Read the answer again. If you can only accept one word answers after reading it again, let me know.

I have no problem with wordy answers; I tend to expand on my answers, too. However, I don't believe your response addresses my question at all, which is why I requested a "yes" or "no" answer. I'm not asking for your opinion about the possibility of whether a deity may or may not have been involved; I'm asking if either of the theories are exclusively atheist. If you'd like to explain how your response addresses whether the BBT or ToE are exclusively atheist or in some way require atheism for acceptance, that would be fine, but if you could indulge me and give something like a clear and concise "yes, the BBT/ToE is/are exclusively atheist theories" or ""no, the BBT/ToE aren't exclusively atheist theories," that would be appreciated.

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 10:50
Christianity is different from Islam, which is different from bhuddism, which is different than Wicca, which is different from atheism.

All make a claim about the origins of the universe that cannot be proven. So, they are all alike too.

It's very clear to me, and some others. I don't think any less if you choose to disagree, but from my perspective, you are the one that is refusing to admit that atheism can be correctly described as a religion.

Really, no hard feelings or ill will.

What claim does atheism make about the origins of the Universe?

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 12:14
I have no problem with wordy answers; I tend to expand on my answers, too. However, I don't believe your response addresses my question at all, which is why I requested a "yes" or "no" answer. I'm not asking for your opinion about the possibility of whether a deity may or may not have been involved; I'm asking if either of the theories are exclusively atheist. If you'd like to explain how your response addresses whether the BBT or ToE are exclusively atheist or in some way require atheism for acceptance, that would be fine, but if you could indulge me and give something like a clear and concise "yes, the BBT/ToE is/are exclusively atheist theories" or ""no, the BBT/ToE aren't exclusively atheist theories," that would be appreciated.

And as I pointed out, some believe that a deity may have created the universe with the big bang, and some believe that a deity may have created life through an evolutionary process.

Atheism is a belief system where people are sure no deity was involved.

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 13:09
And as I pointed out, some believe that a deity may have created the universe with the big bang, and some believe that a deity may have created life through an evolutionary process.

I'm just going to assume for the sake of argument that your response means "No, the BBT or the ToE are not exclusively atheist theories." If that's incorrect, please clarify.

Atheism is a belief system where people are sure no deity was involved.

Could you please cite where either the BBT or the ToE say ANYTHING about deities?

If it is true the BBT and the ToE aren't atheist theories and don't require atheism to accept, what claim does atheism make about the origins of life or the universe?

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 14:16
I'm just going to assume for the sake of argument that your response means "No, the BBT or the ToE are not exclusively atheist theories." If that's incorrect, please clarify.



Could you please cite where either the BBT or the ToE say ANYTHING about deities?

If it is true the BBT and the ToE aren't atheist theories and don't require atheism to accept, what claim does atheism make about the origins of life or the universe?

Why don't you save us the trip. Whether or not BBT or evolution are correct or not, is about as important to atheism being a religion as the current price of tea in China. Theists and atheists subscribe to both theories.

The difference between a theist and an atheist, is that a theist knows a deity was involved in creation, and an atheist knows that deities don't exist, and therefore could not have been involved.

Who's right, the theist or the atheist?

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 14:57
Why don't you save us the trip. Whether or not BBT or evolution are correct or not, is about as important to atheism being a religion as the current price of tea in China.

What is it about my questions that compels you to ignore them and go off on tangents? My question didn't haven't anything to do with whether or not the theories are correct. They're simple questions that often can be adequately answered with one or two or three words.

You're the one insisting that one of the reasons atheism is a religion is because it makes claims about the origins of the Universe and life; you've insisted other subjects (sports, politics, santa, etc) aren't religions specifically because they don't make claims about the origins of life and the Universe.

So if it's irrelevant those other subjects miss being religions by virtue of their not making claims about the origins of life and the Universe (again, according to you), why is it relevant in atheism's case? If it's relevant for atheism, why not the others?

Theists and atheists subscribe to both theories.

So since both theists and atheists accept the BBT and the ToE, they aren't atheist theories, correct? They're scientific theories. Which means atheism isn't making those claims, science is.

The difference between a theist and an atheist, is that a theist knows a deity was involved in creation, and an atheist knows that deities don't exist, and therefore could not have been involved.

Wrong. Why do you keep insisting atheists claim to know, when you've been told by atheists that isn't the case?

As has been repeated essentially ad nauseum, atheism isn't a claim of knowledge. The vast majority of atheists don't claim to know deities don't exist; they merely reject the unsupported assertion of deities.

Who's right, the theist or the atheist?

Well, it depends, doesn't it? The atheists are right when they say "I'm not claiming deities don't exist, I'm saying you've given me no valid reason to think they do." The theists are right when they say "I don't have any objective, verifiable evidence to give you, but I believe anyway."

I don't have any real problem with that answer, although if I'm then asked to accept, say, a 10,000 year old Earth based upon it, I'm asking for evidence. None forthcoming yet.

So. Could you please cite where either the BBT or the ToE say ANYTHING about deities? Feel free to answer with a simple "yes, I can" or "no, I can't." Feel free to add as much detail as you'd like.

If it is true (you did agree it's true, right?) the BBT and the ToE aren't atheist theories, don't require atheism to accept, and don't say anything about deities, what claim does atheism make about the origins of life or the universe?

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 15:10
What is it about my questions that compels you to ignore them and go off on tangents? My question didn't haven't anything to do with whether or not the theories are correct. They're simple questions that often can be adequately answered with one or two or three words.

You're the one insisting that one of the reasons atheism is a religion is because it makes claims about the origins of the Universe and life; you've insisted other subjects (sports, politics, santa, etc) aren't religions specifically because they don't make claims about the origins of life and the Universe.

So if it's irrelevant those other subjects miss being religions by virtue of their not making claims about the origins of life and the Universe (again, according to you), why is it relevant in atheism's case? If it's relevant for atheism, why not the others?



So since both theists and atheists accept the BBT and the ToE, they aren't atheist theories, correct? They're scientific theories. Which means atheism isn't making those claims, science is.



Wrong. Why do you keep insisting atheists claim to know, when you've been told by atheists that isn't the case?

As has been repeated essentially ad nauseum, atheism isn't a claim of knowledge. The vast majority of atheists don't claim to know deities don't exist; they merely reject the unsupported assertion of deities.



Well, it depends, doesn't it? The atheists are right when they say "I'm not claiming deities don't exist, I'm saying you've given me no valid reason to think they do." The theists are right when they say "I don't have any objective, verifiable evidence to give you, but I believe anyway."

I don't have any real problem with that answer, although if I'm then asked to accept, say, a 10,000 year old Earth based upon it, I'm asking for evidence. None forthcoming yet.

So. Could you please cite where either the BBT or the ToE say ANYTHING about deities? Feel free to answer with a simple "yes, I can" or "no, I can't." Feel free to add as much detail as you'd like.

If it is true (you did agree it's true, right?) the BBT and the ToE aren't atheist theories, don't require atheism to accept, and don't say anything about deities, what claim does atheism make about the origins of life or the universe?

Are you willing to accept that maybe god created the universe and life on earth?

If it's possible, but you don't necessarily agree, is it possible you are agnostic, instead of atheist. Be sure to review the definitions of atheism and atheist, to be sure we are using the words the same way.

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 15:37
Are you willing to accept that maybe god created the universe and life on earth?

Even though I've already answered that question a few times, I'll answer your question once more after you've answered these two:

Where do either the BBT or ToE mention deities?

What claim does atheism make about the origins of the Universe?

If it's possible, but you don't necessarily agree, is it possible you are agnostic, instead of atheist. Be sure to review the definitions of atheism and atheist, to be sure we are using the words the same way.

First please provide a cite supporting your assertion atheism claims knowledge of deities.

creaky
08-15-2011, 15:43
What claim does atheism make about the origins of the Universe?



They claim God didn't do it.

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 15:48
They claim God didn't do it.

They claim there's no evidence a deity did it.

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 16:50
Even though I've already answered that question a few times, I'll answer your question once more after you've answered these two:

Where do either the BBT or ToE mention deities?

What claim does atheism make about the origins of the Universe?



First please provide a cite supporting your assertion atheism claims knowledge of deities.


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



athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1362573&page=6)

Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1362573&page=6)


It's perfectly clear to me. Maybe you aren't really an atheist? You have a right to call yourself whatever you want, but if you don't fit the definition, what can I say?

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 18:09
Definition of ATHEIST

So is it you refuse to answer any direct questions, just the ones you find uncomfortable, or just the ones from me?


: one who believes that there is no deity

Yes, I know: you've determined "believe"="disbelieve."


athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1362573&page=6)

Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1362573&page=6)


It's perfectly clear to me.

Given that I've clearly stated several times that I reject the unsupported assertion of deities, it should be.

Maybe you aren't really an atheist?

Sure, I could be lying. But I'm not.

You have a right to call yourself whatever you want, but if you don't fit the definition, what can I say?

Which part don't I fit? The part that says I disbelieve, or the part where I'm disbelieving?

Still no cite for the definition "atheists know deities don't exist," or is that just another area that makes you uncomfortable?

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 18:24
So is it you refuse to answer any direct questions, just the ones you find uncomfortable, or just the ones from me?



Yes, I know: you've determined "believe"="disbelieve."



Given that I've clearly stated several times that I reject the unsupported assertion of deities, it should be.



Sure, I could be lying. But I'm not.



Which part don't I fit? The part that says I disbelieve, or the part where I'm disbelieving?

Still no cite for the definition "atheists know deities don't exist," or is that just another area that makes you uncomfortable?

I answered your question quite clearly.

It's evident that you can't see the answer to your question within the definitions of the words. I don't know how to help you see it.

I did not mean to imply that you were lying, only that maybe you are mistaken.



If you only have a passive lack of belief in an unknown deity, that, to me, and the way I understand the definitions, is not atheism. It would be closer to agnostic. True agnostics wouldn't be so fired up about the subject to try to convert an atheist into a theist, or the other way around, because they have already admitted they don't know. But hey, that's just my personal opinion.

Not you, but lets say there is this guy.....:cool:

If he lives his life and makes decisions on the assumption that there is not a deity, and believed that to the point that he felt obligated to challenge people that believe in deities, claiming intellectual superiority of his position, and inferiority of their belief, occasionally using ridicule & condescension, then he would be more than a passive non-acceptor, he would believe that there was not a deity, and he would be an atheist. In my humble personal opinion only, of course.


I just call them like I see them.

ksg0245
08-15-2011, 18:50
I answered your question quite clearly.

Not yet you haven't.

Are disbelief and belief equivalent?

Do either the BBT or the ToE reference deities in any way?

If the BBT and the ToE are theories of science, rather than atheism, what claim does atheism make regarding the origins of the Universe and life?

Do you have a cite supporting your assertion that atheism is a statement of knowledge, rather than belief?

If it's irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a religion that the BBT or the ToE are not atheistic theories of creation, why is it relevant to other religions such as sports or politics?

It's evident that you can't see the answer to your question within the definitions of the words.

Because it isn't there.

I don't know how to help you see it.

Please, just answer the questions.

I did not mean to imply that you were lying, only that maybe you are mistaken.

But given the definitions you've provided, I'm not; I disbelieve in the existence of deities.

If you only have a passive lack of belief in an unknown deity, that, to me, and the way I understand the definitions, is not atheism. It would be closer to agnostic.

You're incorrect. Agnosticism is about knowledge; atheism is about belief.

True agnostics wouldn't be so fired up about the subject to try to convert an atheist into a theist, or the other way around, because they have already admitted they don't know.

And yet you're "fired up" over getting atheists to accept your definition of atheism despite getting clear answers as to why they don't.

But hey, that's just my personal opinion.

Yep.

Not you, but lets say there is this guy.....:cool:

If he lives his life and makes decisions on the assumption that there is not a deity, and believed that to the point that he felt obligated to challenge people that believe in deities, claiming intellectual superiority of his position, and inferiority of their belief, occasionally using ridicule & condescension, then he would be more than a passive non-acceptor, he would believe that there was not a deity, and he would be an atheist. In my humble personal opinion only, of course.

For the most part, the only things atheists challenge are claims that contradict the law, facts, and science.

However, not accepting the assertion of deities is not a demarkation that prevents some atheists from claiming they know deities don't exist; both reject the assertion, one does farther.

I just call them like I see them.

Right.

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 18:52
Brought over from another thread in order not to take it more off topic than it already was.


What more appropriate word should I use to indicated I disbelieve something?



Which is why I've used the phrase "rejecting unsupported assertions" so many time. Non-acceptance means I don't accept something, in this case the assertion of deities.



A disbelief in the existence of deity (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism) is equivalent to belief there is no deity. Correct?



So again, you're claiming opposites are equivalent; disbelief and belief are identical. I've asked you to clarify that disparity before; can I assume for future reference this is definitive?

A disbelief is the act of disbelieving, or a mental rejection of something as untrue.



If it were a simple question.

Is there now, or has there ever been one or more deities? Being as honest as you can, would you answer yes, no, or I don't know? What do you really believe, deep down inside?

Cavalry Doc
08-15-2011, 19:36
Not yet you haven't.

Are disbelief and belief equivalent?
They are just about opposite.

Do either the BBT or the ToE reference deities in any way?
Depends on who is talking about it. I don't know if there is an official read only copy of the theories in an archive somewhere.

If the BBT and the ToE are theories of science, rather than atheism, what claim does atheism make regarding the origins of the Universe and life?
That no deity was involved in either.

Do you have a cite supporting your assertion that atheism is a statement of knowledge, rather than belief?
I have this:

Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

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

I guess to know, you'd have to be right. To believe, you could be wrong. The definitions use belief, or derivatives of belief.

If it's irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a religion that the BBT or the ToE are not atheistic theories of creation, why is it relevant to other religions such as sports or politics?
Well, because the belief that there is no deity, is a metaphysical unknown, it requires faith, and it is a basis for all other knowledge. It is a fairly profound question. If you want to claim ping pong is a religion, That's OK. If the definition is that loose, atheism should slide in with a mile to spare on all sides. right?


Because it isn't there.
Horse, water? :dunno:


Please, just answer the questions.
Done


But given the definitions you've provided, I'm not; I disbelieve in the existence of deities.
Passive. If it is passive, well, see the other post.....


You're incorrect. Agnosticism is about knowledge; atheism is about belief.
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
2
: a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something <political agnostics>

Actually, Looks like atheism is about belief and knowledge. Imagine that.
Try not to get too wrapped up in contrarianism.


And yet you're "fired up" over getting atheists to accept your definition of atheism despite getting clear answers as to why they don't.
Actually, I'm trying to find out why it is so hard to admit. That point, I think I have proven quite well. I haven't ran into anyone that has answered the initial question.


Yep.



For the most part, the only things atheists challenge are claims that contradict the law, facts, and science.
But, if a deity existed, that would be a fact of science.

However, not accepting the assertion of deities is not a demarkation that prevents some atheists from claiming they know deities don't exist; both reject the assertion, one does farther.



Right.


I do just call them like I see them. Whether you see it or not.

bmylesk
08-15-2011, 19:43
hope you got some running shoes, cause you'll be running in circles with this all day long.

ksg0245
08-16-2011, 07:50
Brought over from another thread in order not to take it more off topic than it already was.

A disbelief is the act of disbelieving, or a mental rejection of something as untrue.

If it were a simple question.

Is there now, or has there ever been one or more deities? Being as honest as you can, would you answer yes, no, or I don't know? What do you really believe, deep down inside?

I've answered the question several times before. Here it is, one more time.

I DON'T KNOW, AND HAVE NEVER CLAIMED TO KNOW, IF ANY DEITIES EXIST, BUT HAVE NEVER SEEN ANY OBJECTIVE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE THAT THEY DO, AND SO REJECT THE ASSERTION OF THE EXISTENCE OF DEITIES. ATHEISM ADDRESSES BELIEF; AGNOSTICISM ADDRESSES KNOWLEDGE. THE TERMS ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.

You didn't answer the questions I asked; I expected that.

ksg0245
08-16-2011, 08:44
Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
Not yet you haven't.

Are disbelief and belief equivalent?

They are just about opposite.

Thank you. If one disbelieves a claim, is that the equivalent of believing the opposite claim?

Do either the BBT or the ToE reference deities in any way?

Depends on who is talking about it. I don't know if there is an official read only copy of the theories in an archive somewhere.

Have you ever seen someone other than theists inserting reference to deities in the BBT or the ToE? Do you know of any scientists in the respective fields who insert references to deities into those theories?

If the BBT and the ToE are theories of science, rather than atheism, what claim does atheism make regarding the origins of the Universe and life?

That no deity was involved in either.

Back to the previous question: do either the BBT or the ToE assert no deity was involved in either?

Do you have a cite supporting your assertion that atheism is a statement of knowledge, rather than belief?

I have this:

Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

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

I guess to know, you'd have to be right. To believe, you could be wrong. The definitions use belief, or derivatives of belief.

Are all derivatives of the word "belief" equivalent?

Can I assume this means "No, I don't have a cite for my assertion that atheism is a statement of knowledge"?

If it's irrelevant to the question of whether atheism is a religion that the BBT or the ToE are not atheistic theories of creation, why is it relevant to other religions such as sports or politics?

Well, because the belief that there is no deity, is a metaphysical unknown, it requires faith,

What faith does it take to reject an unsupported assertion?

and it is a basis for all other knowledge.

What "all other knowledge" is atheism the basis for? BBT? ToE? What I should have for lunch?

It is a fairly profound question.

Only for theists.

If you want to claim ping pong is a religion, That's OK. If the definition is that loose, atheism should slide in with a mile to spare on all sides. right?

Which is the point several atheists have been making for months; for some reason, you disputed that point.

Because it isn't there.

Horse, water?

It's possible atheists are blind to it, sure, but it seems remarkable to me that NONE of them can see it; it seems far more likely that the problem is many theists can't imagine anyone not needing religion/deities of some sort, and you certainly haven't demonstrated the answer is where you claim it is.

Please, just answer the questions.
Done

Thank you.

But given the definitions you've provided, I'm not; I disbelieve in the existence of deities.

Passive. If it is passive, well, see the other post.....

It doesn't matter if it's passive or active; disbelief is disbelief. Present objective, verifiable evidence of deities, and then we can talk about those stubborn atheists rejecting that evidence.

You're incorrect. Agnosticism is about knowledge; atheism is about belief.

Definition of AGNOSTIC
1 : a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and probably unknowable;

What does that first sentence say?

broadly : one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god
2 : a person who is unwilling to commit to an opinion about something

Are all those definitions equivalent? When scientists use the word "theory" to describe the explanation for observed facts, does it mean the same thing as when some guy on the street uses it to explain how he hits on women, for example?

Actually, Looks like atheism is about belief and knowledge. Imagine that.

I'm sorry, I must have missed where you provided your cite demonstrating atheism is about knowledge. Could you please repeat it?

Try not to get too wrapped up in contrarianism.

You're being ironic, right?

And yet you're "fired up" over getting atheists to accept your definition of atheism despite getting clear answers as to why they don't.

Actually, I'm trying to find out why it is so hard to admit. That point, I think I have proven quite well. I haven't ran into anyone that has answered the initial question.

This continues to be false; you've had several people tell you point blank that if you weaken the definition of religion to the point that sports or politics qualify, then atheism also qualifies. You repeatedly rejected that very point. Are you now changing your mind?

You also repeatedly claimed religion requires that it be held to with ardor and faith, which, according to you, encompasses atheism; you were then told if evidence were presented, most atheists would believe, demonstrating that it isn't a position held to with ardor and faith.

You also repeated claimed that atheism makes assertions about the origins of the Universe and life, but it turns out those are scientific, not exclusively atheist, theories. The only claim atheism makes is "I disbelieve your assertion of deities."

Yep.

For the most part, the only things atheists challenge are claims that contradict the law, facts, and science.
But, if a deity existed, that would be a fact of science.

It sure would. Is there any objective, verifiable evidence to support that possibility?

I do just call them like I see them. Whether you see it or not.

I'm not sure what you're seeing.

Cavalry Doc
08-16-2011, 09:44
You're going to have to just read the definitions, and get what you can out of them. They are very clear to me.

There are scientists that are theists.

The BBT and ToE are what they are. Theories with holes. Whether or not they mention deities, has nothing to do with the metaphysical belief of atheists that no deities exist. Again, I refer you to the definition of atheist.


Disbelief is defined as an act. It's not a passive thing.

I have not included sports as religions, you did that. I disagree. No hard feelings though.

I'm seeing that you can't see what I see in the definitions. Atheists, according to the definition of atheist, believe there is no god. I think we could have this conversation for a thousand years, and you would disagree with me about this.

Your argument is with Merriam Websters, not with me.

I am just pointing out that the belief that there is no deity, is a belief based on faith, and is a religious belief.

Smacktard
08-16-2011, 10:26
Does any of us know if the Invisible Pink Unicorn exists? Can't prove she doesn't! She's standing behind you right now, watching you to see if you deserve salvation, making a list of your sins, preparing to judge you when you die. May the Invisible Pink Unicorn have mercy on our souls.

...

Cavalry Doc
08-16-2011, 11:04
Mocking the question doesn't make it go away.

The atheistic belief system is a religion too. You can claim intellectual superiority in your belief all you want, but if you are an atheist (according to the correct definition) you have made a leap of faith too.

From an agnostic point of view, it's very clear. The intolerance expressed by some atheists is in conflict with our constitution..... Hmmmm that may be the beginning of another thread. I'll think about it. Thanks smack.

Cavalry Doc
08-16-2011, 11:36
Smack, your always good for a laugh.

ksg0245
08-16-2011, 12:44
You're going to have to just read the definitions, and get what you can out of them.

You aren't required to do the same?

They are very clear to me.

And yet you reject the examples given in the definitions you've referenced.

There are scientists that are theists.

The BBT and ToE are what they are. Theories with holes.

You haven't demonstrated any holes.

Whether or not they mention deities, has nothing to do with the metaphysical belief of atheists that no deities exist.

And atheist disbelief in deities has nothing to do with the observations that lead to the BBT and the ToE; atheism says nothing about the origins of life or the Universe.

Again, I refer you to the definition of atheist.

I'll do the same for you.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
1. a person who does not believe in God or gods

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atheist
atheist - someone who denies the existence of god

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Disbelief is defined as an act. It's not a passive thing.

How about disbelieve and not believe, are those defined as acts?

I have not included sports as religions, you did that. I disagree. No hard feelings though.

YOUR provided definition of religion taken from Merriam-Websters includes sports as an example of religion. You arbitrarily exclude it.

I'm seeing that you can't see what I see in the definitions. Atheists, according to the definition of atheist, believe there is no god.

According to the definition in the on-line Merriam-Websters, which you have arbitrarily declared definitive. There are other valid dictionaries.

I think we could have this conversation for a thousand years, and you would disagree with me about this.

Your argument is with Merriam Websters, not with me.

My argument is with your arbitrary restrictions on which dictionaries can be used to define terms, and which definitions in those dictionaries can be applied to which terms.

I am just pointing out that the belief that there is no deity, is a belief based on faith, and is a religious belief.

Another question you refuse to answer: what faith is required to reject an unsupported assertion?

Cavalry Doc
08-16-2011, 13:03
We've been through this over and over.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of deities. The universe is what it is one way or another. A lack of belief is a passive approach, that leads one to skeptical agnosticism. However, an active belief that there is not a deity or deities is necessary for true atheism.

It's my informed opinion, that theism & atheism are religious beliefs, both based on faith.
That's just the way it is for me. Re-read the entire thread. It's a justified position.

RC-RAMIE
08-16-2011, 17:49
We've been through this over and over.

You cannot prove or disprove the existence of deities. The universe is what it is one way or another. A lack of belief is a passive approach, that leads one to skeptical agnosticism. However, an active belief that there is not a deity or deities is necessary for true atheism.

It's my informed opinion, that theism & atheism are religious beliefs, both based on faith.
That's just the way it is for me. Re-read the entire thread. It's a justified position.

As a atheist my thoughts on how we got here are I don't know and if I don't know nobody else does either.

I ask you where is the faith in that?

Cavalry Doc
08-16-2011, 18:02
As a atheist my thoughts on how we got here are I don't know and if I don't know nobody else does either.

I ask you where is the faith in that?

Atheists go a bit farther than saying they don't know. It's all in the definitions.

RC-RAMIE
08-16-2011, 18:12
Atheists go a bit farther than saying they don't know. It's all in the definitions.

No I'm a atheist and I'm saying it's I don't know and if it's impossible for me to know than it is also impossible for a theist to know so their claim of a god is unsupported, that's why I don't believe them.

All that other stuff you try to add to atheism is not there.

ksg0245
08-16-2011, 19:38
Atheists go a bit farther than saying they don't know. It's all in the definitions.

None of which saying anything about atheists knowing whether deities exist.

Cavalry Doc
08-16-2011, 21:15
Atheists go a bit farther than saying they don't know. It's all in the definitions.



None of which saying anything about atheists knowing whether deities exist.

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

I did not mean to say that they said they know. That would require that they are correct. Fact is, that they believe. Without proof that they are correct. It's a religious belief, about a metaphysical truth, about the origins of the universe and the origins of life on our planet.

They do believe though.

I see that it is hard to admit this. My question is why?

ksg0245
08-17-2011, 07:55
I did not mean to say that they said they know. That would require that they are correct. Fact is, that they believe. Without proof that they are correct. It's a religious belief, about a metaphysical truth, about the origins of the universe and the origins of life on our planet.

No, it isn't. It's the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deities.

Atheism makes no claims about the origins of life or the Universe, no matter how many times you insist it does.

They do believe though.

I see that it is hard to admit this. My question is why?

I can't be clearer than this: it's "hard to admit" because it isn't a religious belief, it's the rejection of an unsupported assertion. That's the answer you've repeatedly gotten to the question, yet you claim you haven't gotten any answer; obviously, what you mean is that you haven't gotten the answer you were hoping for. You reject the actual answer, not because it's false or incorrect, but because you need to for some unfathomable reason.

Smacktard
08-17-2011, 09:11
This thread is closed, cause I just don't care anymore.

...

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2011, 12:42
Have a nice day. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2011, 12:52
No, it isn't. It's the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deities.

Atheism makes no claims about the origins of life or the Universe, no matter how many times you insist it does.



I can't be clearer than this: it's "hard to admit" because it isn't a religious belief, it's the rejection of an unsupported assertion. That's the answer you've repeatedly gotten to the question, yet you claim you haven't gotten any answer; obviously, what you mean is that you haven't gotten the answer you were hoping for. You reject the actual answer, not because it's false or incorrect, but because you need to for some unfathomable reason.

Well, just for the sake of argument, if we assumed that through a bizarre quirk of the English language, atheism could be accurately described as a religion, why would that bother you?

ksg0245
08-17-2011, 13:22
Well, just for the sake of argument, if we assumed that through a bizarre quirk of the English language, atheism could be accurately described as a religion, why would that bother you?

For the same reason not collecting stamps isn't accurately described as a hobby; because it isn't.

Why does it bother you that people have rejected your assertion?

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2011, 14:14
For the same reason not collecting stamps isn't accurately described as a hobby; because it isn't.

Why does it bother you that people have rejected your assertion?

It's not a bother. I'm ok with people not agreeing on things. Happens all the time. Just curious why it would be a problem. I have some of my own ideas why it is hard to admit, but they are also just opinions.

RC-RAMIE
08-17-2011, 14:15
It's not a bother. I'm ok with people not agreeing on things. Happens all the time. Just curious why it would be a problem. I have some of my own ideas why it is hard to admit, but they are also just opinions.

It is not just a opinion when you try to use it as facts in every discussion.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2011, 18:56
It is not just a opinion when you try to use it as facts in every discussion.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Oh, I see some people bringing their religious beliefs into discussions all the time, at least I try to only do that in the Religious Issues forum, after all, it's a discussion about religious beliefs. I will continue to describe the true atheist as a person that has a religious belief; that there is and has not been a deity or deities. I don't see any intellectual high ground in an atheist claiming that someone's religious beliefs are invalid, when the atheist has begun the same way, with an assumption about something that they cannot possibly know the truth about. Some people choose to believe what they want to believe, and I support their right to do that.

I don't want to cause you any undue discomfort. If it makes you more comfortable, you can just put me on your ignore list. Thanks for the discussion.

RC-RAMIE
08-17-2011, 18:59
Oh, I see some people bringing their religious beliefs into discussions all the time, at least I try to only do that in the Religious Issues forum, after all, it's a discussion about religious beliefs. I will continue to describe the true atheist as a person that has a religious belief; that there is and has not been a deity or deities. I don't see any intellectual high ground in an atheist claiming that someone's religious beliefs are invalid, when the atheist has begun the same way, with an assumption about something that they cannot possibly know the truth about. Some people choose to believe what they want to believe, and I support their right to do that.

I don't want to cause you any undue discomfort. If it makes you more comfortable, you can just put me on your ignore list. Thanks for the discussion.

It causes me no discomfort at all I could care less what you think atheist is you are the one who asked a question and did not agree with the answer whybask if if you only want one answer

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Cavalry Doc
08-17-2011, 19:29
It causes me no discomfort at all I could care less what you think atheist is you are the one who asked a question and did not agree with the answer whybask if if you only want one answer

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Oh, I'd be happy to explore the original question, but the atheists that have participated, have refused to see the truth of the issue.

I already know that atheism is a religion, I was just curious as to why it is so hard to admit. It's just a matter of correct word usage.

But that's water under the bridge for the two of us. We have respectfully disagreed with one another.

Paul7
08-17-2011, 21:00
Well, just for the sake of argument, if we assumed that through a bizarre quirk of the English language, atheism could be accurately described as a religion, why would that bother you?

Great question. Another one would be why the 'tolerant ones' are so obsessed with the beliefs of others.

IMHO atheism is a moral rebellion against God.

Sarge1400
08-17-2011, 21:16
Great question. Another one would be why the 'tolerant ones' are so obsessed with the beliefs of others.

It's a ridiculous question.
I'm also not obsessed with anyone's beliefs. You can believe whatever fairy tale you want, just don't try to pass it off as fact, teach it in public schools, or use it to enact laws. You know, the same way you feel about (insert opposing religious viewpoint here).

IMHO atheism is a moral rebellion against God.[/QUOTE]

That's hilarious. Are you rebelling against Odin or the Easter Bunny? Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of the unsupported assertion that gods exist. Really, that's all it is, no matter how much you really really really really want it to be something else.

Syclone538
08-17-2011, 21:49
...
IMHO atheism is a moral rebellion against God.

It's really hard for me to believe that someone could actually believe that.

What I believe and what I don't are not choices that I have made. When I believe something, it's because I think that it is most likely true. When I don't believe something it's because I think it is unlikely to be true. I could not chose to believe something that I thought to be unlikely to be true even if I really wanted it to be true. If I believed in a god, I would not be able to stop believing simply because I didn't want to anymore. I don't believe in a god, and couldn't even if I wanted to.

You can't get to the truth by simply believing what you want to be true.

The only reason that you can comprehend for someone not to believe in a god is a moral rebellion against God? Are you serious? Do you really believe that there are no atheists that that don't believe simply because of a lack of evidence?

Is not believing in the FSM or IPU a moral rebellion against them?

Cavalry Doc
08-18-2011, 04:41
It's a ridiculous question.
I'm also not obsessed with anyone's beliefs. You can believe whatever fairy tale you want, just don't try to pass it off as fact, teach it in public schools, or use it to enact laws. You know, the same way you feel about (insert opposing religious viewpoint here).


IMHO atheism is a moral rebellion against God.

That's hilarious. Are you rebelling against Odin or the Easter Bunny? Atheism is nothing more than the rejection of the unsupported assertion that gods exist. Really, that's all it is, no matter how much you really really really really want it to be something else.


Maybe he meant a moral rebellion against deities?

Cavalry Doc
08-18-2011, 04:44
It's really hard for me to believe that someone could actually believe that.

What I believe and what I don't are not choices that I have made. When I believe something, it's because I think that it is most likely true. When I don't believe something it's because I think it is unlikely to be true. I could not chose to believe something that I thought to be unlikely to be true even if I really wanted it to be true. If I believed in a god, I would not be able to stop believing simply because I didn't want to anymore. I don't believe in a god, and couldn't even if I wanted to.

You can't get to the truth by simply believing what you want to be true.

The only reason that you can comprehend for someone not to believe in a god is a moral rebellion against God? Are you serious? Do you really believe that there are no atheists that that don't believe simply because of a lack of evidence?

Is not believing in the FSM or IPU a moral rebellion against them?

Just my viewpoint, but a lack of evidence leads to skepticism and agnosticism. Atheists, by definition have concluded that there are no deities. And to me, that looks like a choice, as there is no evidence to support that stance.

Syclone538
08-18-2011, 05:52
Just my viewpoint, but a lack of evidence leads to skepticism and agnosticism. Atheists, by definition have concluded that there are no deities. And to me, that looks like a choice, as there is no evidence to support that stance.

Well the vast majority of atheists do not believe it can be known so they are agnostic.

Yeah I'm skeptic, skeptic to the point that it's absurd to consider an extraordinary claim made without any evidence at all, let alone any extraordinary evidence.

Is it a choice to not believe in the FSM or IPU since there is no evidence that they don't exist?

Cavalry Doc
08-18-2011, 05:55
Well the vast majority of atheists do not believe it can be known so they are agnostic.

Yeah I'm skeptic, skeptic to the point that it's absurd to consider an extraordinary claim made without any evidence at all, let alone any extraordinary evidence.

Is it a choice to not believe in the FSM or IPU since there is no evidence that they don't exist?

It's also my opinion that many people who call themselves atheists, are not.

Atheism >> Atheistic Agnosticism >> Agnostic << Theistic Agnosticism << Theism


FSM and IPU have a history that can be tracked to their origins. What god someone chooses to believe is what they choose to believe. Believing that there is not a god, same thing, what they choose to believe.

Fact is, that a deity or deities either exist(ed), or not. Either a deity or deities were involved in creation, or not. There is no evidence either way, except the testimony of other individuals.

No evidence either way, led me to land in the middle. The ones that choose Theism have their motivations and agendas, same goes for the ones that Choose Athesim.

Rebellion? Schadenfreude? Fear? Antisocial personality disorder? Who knows. I'd guess there are examples of all of the above, among others depending on the individual.

Syclone538
08-18-2011, 06:00
Do you believe?
Yes = theist
No = atheist

Do you know? (Or believe you know, claim to know, ect.)
Yes = gnostic
No = agnostic

This has been pointed out many times.

I do not believe so I am atheist. I do not know, and do not believe it is possible to know so I am agnostic.

Sarge1400
08-18-2011, 09:18
Maybe he meant a moral rebellion against deities?

Is Odin not a deity?

RC-RAMIE
08-18-2011, 09:52
Is Odin not a deity?

No that's not gods that mythology that is totally different than modern gods.

Sarge1400
08-18-2011, 10:47
No that's not gods that mythology that is totally different than modern gods.

Mythology? Really. Tell that to the vikings. Hope you were intentionally being ironic.
What separates 'mythology' from modern gods/religion? There is no evidence for either one; to me, they're ALL mythology.

Cavalry Doc
08-18-2011, 11:14
Is Odin not a deity?

Actually, I meant that as all inclusive.

A moral rebellion against all deities.

RC-RAMIE
08-18-2011, 11:26
Mythology? Really. Tell that to the vikings. Hope you were intentionally being ironic.
What separates 'mythology' from modern gods/religion? There is no evidence for either one; to me, they're ALL mythology.

Yeah I was being sarcastic.

Sarge1400
08-18-2011, 11:27
Actually, I meant that as all inclusive.

A moral rebellion against all deities.

Deity, sea monster, space alien; all the same to me. The notion that one would rebel against something he doesn't see any evidence of, is absurd. Regardless of what role in the universe the alleged being allegedly plays.

Sarge1400
08-18-2011, 11:28
Yeah I was being sarcastic.

Ok, sorry.

steveksux
08-18-2011, 18:56
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-18-2011, 19:15
Deity, sea monster, space alien; all the same to me. The notion that one would rebel against something he doesn't see any evidence of, is absurd. Regardless of what role in the universe the alleged being allegedly plays.

Some things are trivial. Like sea monsters. Whether they exist or not means nothing to the question of how we came to be. A lack of evidence and some honest evaluation led me to beleive that I don't know if there is a deity or not. No evidence does not logically lead to the opposite assumption.

So, why did you choose to believe there was no intelligence involved in creation?

Animal Mother
08-18-2011, 19:25
Some things are trivial. Like sea monsters. Whether they exist or not means nothing to the question of how we came to be. A lack of evidence and some honest evaluation led me to beleive that I don't know if there is a deity or not. No evidence does not logically lead to the opposite assumption. Do you have evidence that we were not created by sea monsters?

Cavalry Doc
08-18-2011, 19:46
Do you have evidence that we were not created by sea monsters?

No, but I have some evidence that we are here. Is it not a profound thing to consider whether we were made, or just happened?


I have no evidence that has convinced me either way. So, I have remained uncommitted.

You have decided that that we just happened (please correct me if I am mistaken), and chosen to believe in a version of creation that you have no proof of.

:dunno:

Sarge1400
08-18-2011, 22:47
Some things are trivial. Like sea monsters. Whether they exist or not means nothing to the question of how we came to be.


What part of "Regardless of what role in the universe the alleged being allegedly plays." did you not understand? The supposed weight you have assigned to a deity you're not even sure exists has no bearing on what I believe.

A lack of evidence and some honest evaluation led me to beleive that I don't know if there is a deity or not. No evidence does not logically lead to the opposite assumption.

It has led me to the same conclusion; that I don't know, and therefore can't say with any certainty, that deities do or do not exist. I have not concluded that there are no deities, I have only concluded that I don't believe there are.


So, why did you choose to believe there was no intelligence involved in creation?

I did not choose to believe that any more than I choose to believe you didn't kill JFK. The evidence doesn't support the assertion, so I don't believe it. Simple as that.

Cavalry Doc
08-19-2011, 04:30
Ah, my apologies, I thought I had already established that you were an atheist.

Animal Mother
08-19-2011, 04:33
No, but I have some evidence that we are here. Is it not a profound thing to consider whether we were made, or just happened? Following your "reasoning" we must then consider the proposition that "sea monsters made us all" as equal in weight to "God (Christian version) made us) and "God (Muslim version) made us".
You have decided that that we just happened (please correct me if I am mistaken), and chosen to believe in a version of creation that you have no proof of. I accept the proposition for which we have evidence, that the universe began with a singularity and underwent rapid expansion and that Homo Sapiens developed through an evolutionary process into the species we have today.

Cavalry Doc
08-19-2011, 04:35
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."

Randy

Steve,

Are you ok buddy?

Doc

ksg0245
08-19-2011, 08:17
Ah, my apologies, I thought I had already established that you were an atheist.

Saying "I don't believe deities exist" means one is an atheist.

steveksux
08-19-2011, 17:01
Steve,

Are you ok buddy?

DocI think I'm fine, Humpty. Thank you for asking.

But that really depends on what you have decided the word fine means, doesn't it? Please enlighten us, and I'll revise my answer.

Because the opposite of fine means I'm not doing well, and as you stated, sometimes antonyms sometimes mean the same thing depending on the context. So why don't you define the context and we'll see how that shakes out.

I'm fine in the context that fine means I'm doing ok, but if the context of fine in your mind means I"m not doing well at all, then no, I'm not doing fine at all, I'm doing great in that case.

Unless in that context great means really bad... oh dear, here we go again.

Come to think of it, its kind of hard to say, sort of how when you say religion, the antonym of atheism, means that atheism is a religion. Kind of hard to have a meaningful conversation when you make stuff up like that that make absolutely no sense at all.

But thanks for asking.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-19-2011, 18:31
I think I'm fine, Humpty. Thank you for asking.

But that really depends on what you have decided the word fine means, doesn't it? Please enlighten us, and I'll revise my answer.

Because the opposite of fine means I'm not doing well, and as you stated, sometimes antonyms sometimes mean the same thing depending on the context. So why don't you define the context and we'll see how that shakes out.

I'm fine in the context that fine means I'm doing ok, but if the context of fine in your mind means I"m not doing well at all, then no, I'm not doing fine at all, I'm doing great in that case.

Unless in that context great means really bad... oh dear, here we go again.

Come to think of it, its kind of hard to say, sort of how when you say religion, the antonym of atheism, means that atheism is a religion. Kind of hard to have a meaningful conversation when you make stuff up like that that make absolutely no sense at all.

But thanks for asking.

Randy



Good, for a minute there I was worried that we weren't still BFF. :cool:

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 06:47
Saying "I don't believe deities exist" means one is an atheist.

Well.... :dunno:

That's almost the same as saying "I believe that deities don't exist", which I believe fits the definition a little better.

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 06:58
Following your "reasoning" we must then consider the proposition that "sea monsters made us all" as equal in weight to "God (Christian version) made us) and "God (Muslim version) made us".
I accept the proposition for which we have evidence, that the universe began with a singularity and underwent rapid expansion and that Homo Sapiens developed through an evolutionary process into the species we have today.

Actually, if you really want to follow my reasoning, it's about individual liberty. You have a constitutional right to practice your religion in any way that you see fit as long as it does not cause anyone else actual harm. I support that right for everyone else too. If you want to not pray and not go to church, and not put up religious symbols, you go right ahead, with my blessing. The problem I have with some of the more rabidly zealous atheists is that they want to remove religion from every aspect of American life and culture. That's arse backwards. We should strive to allow diversity and increase tolerance. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, only a very clear limit on picking favorites and inhibiting others from practicing their own religion.


Now, considering that, if you want to believe that sea monsters created the universe, and picked the third rock from our sun to reside on, well, more power to you. I don't even mind if you try to convince others that you are right. If it makes you happy, and leads you & others to being nicer to your fellow man, I'm gonna support ya brother. Now, if it leads you into becoming a Dr. Evil wannabe, or encourages you & others to not be nice to other people, well, I'm gonna have to withdraw my support.

Animal Mother
08-20-2011, 08:19
Actually, if you really want to follow my reasoning, it's about individual liberty. You have a constitutional right to practice your religion in any way that you see fit as long as it does not cause anyone else actual harm. I support that right for everyone else too. If you want to not pray and not go to church, and not put up religious symbols, you go right ahead, with my blessing. The problem I have with some of the more rabidly zealous atheists is that they want to remove religion from every aspect of American life and culture. That's arse backwards. We should strive to allow diversity and increase tolerance. There is no separation of church and state in the constitution, only a very clear limit on picking favorites and inhibiting others from practicing their own religion.


Now, considering that, if you want to believe that sea monsters created the universe, and picked the third rock from our sun to reside on, well, more power to you. I don't even mind if you try to convince others that you are right. If it makes you happy, and leads you & others to being nicer to your fellow man, I'm gonna support ya brother. Now, if it leads you into becoming a Dr. Evil wannabe, or encourages you & others to not be nice to other people, well, I'm gonna have to withdraw my support. You're going off on a tangent. Let's stick to the conversation at hand for now. Is "sea monsters made us all" equally valid to all other viewpoints?

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 08:30
You're going off on a tangent. Let's stick to the conversation at hand for now. Is "sea monsters made us all" equally valid to all other viewpoints?

The right to believe Sea monsters made us all is equally valid.


Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are slowly trying to build a straw man. :dunno:

ksg0245
08-20-2011, 08:57
Well.... :dunno:

That's almost the same as saying "I believe that deities don't exist", which I believe fits the definition a little better.

Depending on the dictionary, perhaps, and "almost the same" isn't "the same."

Animal Mother
08-20-2011, 09:03
The right to believe Sea monsters made us all is equally valid. That isn't the question I asked you. Why do you find it so difficult to answer direct questions?
Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that you are slowly trying to build a straw man. :dunno: You're wrong, I'm trying to explore your reasoning.

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 09:52
That isn't the question I asked you. Why do you find it so difficult to answer direct questions?
You're wrong, I'm trying to explore your reasoning.

I think I explained that. Whether I personally believe in someone's religious beliefs, is immaterial. If people want to be Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Wicca, atheists.... I think they have a right to. If you want to believe that sea monsters (which do exist by the way) created the universe, and you want to build a system of beliefs based on that, I'm OK with it.

Even if I consider a particular portion of a person's religious belief as highly improbable, they have the right to believe it, and I do not feel compelled to criticize them for that belief. I certainly would not be so rude as to argue that my belief system is better than theirs due to my superior evidence, that I read in a book somewhere, that someone told me about, or that I copied from the internets.

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 09:54
Depending on the dictionary, perhaps, and "almost the same" isn't "the same."


I know, that's why I used the word "almost".

I've read the definitions, posted them many times.

RC-RAMIE
08-20-2011, 10:03
I think I explained that. Whether I personally believe in someone's religious beliefs, is immaterial. If people want to be Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, Wicca, atheists.... I think they have a right to. If you want to believe that sea monsters (which do exist by the way) created the universe, and you want to build a system of beliefs based on that, I'm OK with it.

Even if I consider a particular portion of a person's religious belief as highly improbable, they have the right to believe it, and I do not feel compelled to criticize them for that belief. I certainly would not be so rude as to argue that my belief system is better than theirs due to my superior evidence, that I read in a book somewhere, that someone told me about, or that I copied from the internets.

Atheism has nothing to do with respecting their beliefs it is believing their beliefs to be true.

Do you think the belief in a sea monster creating the world to be true. I don't care if you respect their right to believe it or not the question is do you think it is true and if not is it because they have nothing to back up their claims?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

steveksux
08-20-2011, 11:42
Good, for a minute there I was worried that we weren't still BFF. :cool:Now Humpty, I think you should know I'm happily married.

Do you have any other examples of antonyms that mean the same thing? Otherwise I'm forced to conclude you're just trolling when you say religion and atheism can be antonyms and still be the same thing. If there's any hope for us to actually be BFFs, you can't be a troll. I'm old fashioned that way.

I'm sure you can conjure up a context where a troll is a good thing to be, btw. So its all good.

Randy

steveksux
08-20-2011, 11:43
Well.... :dunno:

That's almost the same as saying "I believe that deities don't exist", which I believe fits the definition a little better.
It's a little difficult to take your analysis of "almost the same' seriously when you think antonyms are "the same" sometimes.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 12:01
It's a little difficult to take your analysis of "almost the same' seriously when you think antonyms are "the same".

Randy

It's the English language. It depends on context.

steveksux
08-20-2011, 12:04
It's the English language. It depends on context.Still waiting for the context where any other antonyms become the same thing.

Come to think of it, still waiting for the context where religion is the same as its antonym atheism. You've surprisingly never provided that, Humpty.

Perhaps you can share a dictionary definition that lists antonyms as being the same thing in some contexts?

Its interesting that you keep trying to distance football and hockey as not quite religions, when by your very own definition, they're actually MORE of a religion than atheism, the opposite of religion, according to your definition. They are at least considered religions in some context, even if its obviously not the context of a genuine religion like Christianity.

In fact, despite your appeals to context, the only way you seem to be able to justify using merriam webster to support your position is to deliberately ignore the parts of the definition that specifically falsify your position, and then taking bits of the rest of the definition out of context, and making up stuff on your own out of thin air.

Having a hard time reconciling that behavior with something other than trolling, Humpty.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 12:12
Now Humpty, I think you should know I'm happily married.

Do you have any other examples of antonyms that mean the same thing? Otherwise I'm forced to conclude you're just trolling when you say religion and atheism can be antonyms and still be the same thing. If there's any hope for us to actually be BFFs, you can't be a troll. I'm old fashioned that way.

I'm sure you can conjure up a context where a troll is a good thing to be, btw. So its all good.

Randy

Aloha,


Google is your friend. Try "auto-antonym" for lists of examples.


Happy to hear about the happy marriage. Hope the better half is happy too.



So, now that you have multiple examples, are you forced to conclude that I am not trolling and have a valid point?

Try to be fair, and think about it for a while. I understand it is very uncomfortable for you to think about atheism being accurately described as a religion, but it's not my fault. Don't shoot the messenger.

Aloha.

steveksux
08-20-2011, 12:20
Aloha,


Google is your friend. Try "auto-antonym" for lists of examples.


Happy to hear about the happy marriage. Hope the better half is happy too.



So, now that you have multiple examples, are you forced to conclude that I am not trolling and have a valid point?

Try to be fair, and think about it for a while. I understand it is very uncomfortable for you to think about atheism being accurately described as a religion, but it's not my fault. Don't shoot the messenger.

Aloha.I guess Google is not going to be your BFF. Now Humpty, if those are your examples, then tell me which word, religion, atheism, or antonym, has another meaning which is the complete opposite? Or is an example of different words with different meanings with the same spelling. Like all those examples of auto-antonyms.

Examples do have to actually resemble the thing you're using them as examples of. Like football is an example of a religion.

Still trolling. What a disappointment, Humpty, I thought you were going to come clean instead of doubling down.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 12:27
Now Humpty, if those are your examples, then tell me which word, religion, or antonym, has another meaning which is the complete opposite? Examples have to actually resemble the thing you're using them for examples of. Like football and religion.

Still trolling. What a disappointment, Humpty, I thought you were going to come clean instead of doubling down.

Randy

You can lead a horse to water. :dunno: you asked for other examples of words that can be the opposite of themselves depending on context, I gave you what you needed to find several lists of them.

I still like you bunches. But it's becoming obvious that your emotions are about to get the better of you. Enhance your calm. :)

steveksux
08-20-2011, 12:30
You can lead a horse to water. :dunno: you asked for other examples of words that can be the opposite of themselves depending on context, I gave you what you needed to find several lists of them.
And of course, you can't find any resemblence between those and the words in question that you claim are auto-antonyms. And now dodge the point when that's pointed out. I think the point here is I can lead the horse to water, but cannot make him think rather than drink. Of course this would be an opportune moment to admit you are wrong. Honesty is always the best policy.

I still like you bunches. But it's becoming obvious that your emotions are about to get the better of you. Enhance your calm. :)I still like you. Even when you're trolling. I'm just trying to help you become a better person.

So how about it, Humpty? if those are your examples of auto-antonyms, then tell me which word, religion, atheism or antonym, has another meaning which is the complete opposite, like all the examples of auto-antonyms?

Sounds like another auto-Humptyism, where you declare a word means exactly what you say it means, at any particular time, whatever suits your shifting definitions.

Why is it that every auto-antonym depends on different words with the same spelling or a word with two opposite meanings, yet you are unable to demonstrate that trait in any of the words involved in what you claim is the same phenomenon? Eh Humpty? I'm attempting to lead you to water here, but you seem unable or unwilling to drink. Pick one, antonym, atheism, religion.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 12:41
Glad to hear it. I have already explained how atheism is an auto-antonym when it comes to the word religion, both in spirit (if you'll pardon the expression) and literally.

Guess we are just going to have to disagree. Calling an honest observation trolling is not a counter argument. It is what it is. It's ok to have a different opinion.

steveksux
08-20-2011, 12:55
Glad to hear it. I have already explained how atheism is an auto-antonym when it comes to the word religion, both in spirit (if you'll pardon the expression) and literally. Humpty, surely you can do better than that? You have merely stated it with no basis in fact. All the other examples of auto-antonyms have a common characteristic lacking in the words atheism, antonyms, and religion which do not share that common characteristic.



Guess we are just going to have to disagree. Calling an honest observation trolling is not a counter argument. It is what it is. It's ok to have a different opinion.Do you disagree the examples of auto-antonyms share nothing in common with your purported example?

Lets break it down, Humpty. There's no need to run away.

Or is there? Is running away really preferable to admitting your error?

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 13:12
Humpty, surely you can do better than that? You have merely stated it with no basis in fact. All the other examples of auto-antonyms have a common characteristic lacking in the words atheism, antonyms, and religion which do not share that common characteristic.

Do you disagree the examples of auto-antonyms share nothing in common with your purported example?

Lets break it down, Humpty. There's no need to run away.

Or is there? Is running away really preferable to admitting your error?

Randy

OK. last time you asked for words that can be an antonym of themselves. I gave you what you asked for, you declared that I have not.


What we have is "word A", and "Word B". "Word B" can be the same as "Word A", or the antonym of "Word A".



In the current topic, "Religion" is word A. Atheism is Word B.

Atheism can be a religion in one context, and be the antonym of religion in another. You have not accepted the dictionary definitions of those words, so lets use another word as an example.

Try "Moving" as "word A". "Bound" as "word B".
I was bound for Dallas. Bound = Moving.
I was bound with rope. Bound = not moving.

Bound is the antonym of moving in one sentence, and is the same as moving in another.



Oh, did you like the use of aloha. It means hello and goodbye. :wavey:

Language is complex, but I'm sure you can see how a word can be an antonym of another word, and be the same thing depending on the context now.

Glad I could help.

steveksux
08-20-2011, 13:46
OK. last time you asked for words that can be an antonym of themselves. I gave you what you asked for, you declared that I have not. That is a lie. You don't have to lie to stay in the game, do you, Humpty? I agreed you gave examples of words that can be antonyms of themselves. However I pointed out that for all those words, the only way that occurs is when the word has multiple, contradictory meanings, and they rely on having multiple meanings that create the conflict. Neither atheism nor religion have multiple meanings to create that situation, now, do they Humpty? Do they? What are they? Which word has more than one meaning?

What we have is "word A", which can be defined as a "word B", and can also be an antonym to "word B".

In the current topic, "Religion" is word A. Atheism is Word B. The auto-antonyms all rely on multiple definitions of the word. You have yet to show another meaning of the word atheism or religion that is opposite in meaning to the commonly accepted definition. Do try to keep up, it is your example after all, Humpty. Is it really that complicated that you cannot understand your own example? It kind of reminds me of how you can't understand your own definition of religion from Merriam Webster. Once again, you simply ignore the parts that prove you wrong, as if they didn't exist. Come on Humpty, I expect more of you.

Atheism can be a religion in one context, and be the antonym of religion in another.You have yet to show any context. Do I need to post a definition of the word "context" for you? Surely if it's so easy to use "bound" in a sentence to demonstrate how its an auto-antonym you can come up with similar contexts to show atheism is the opposite of religion and the same, right, Humpty? Would that demonstrate the two meanings of religion, or of atheism?

You have not accepted the dictionary definitions of those words, so lets use another word as an example.That's another lie. I'm the one using the dictionary definition. Including the parts that prove you wrong.

Try "Moving" as "word A". "Bound" as "word B".
I was bound for Dallas. Bound = Moving.
I was bound with rope. Bound = not moving.

Bound is the antonym of moving in one sentence, and is the same as moving in another.Because bound means 2 different things in 2 different contexts. Essentially two different words that are spelled the same. Which word has 2 contradictory meanings in your example, atheism or religion, Humpty? Has to be one or the other? Which is it, Humpty?



Oh, did you like the use of aloha. It means hello and goodbye. :wavey:Another word with 2 different meanings to set up the conflict.

Which word, religion or atheism has two conflicting meanings to set up the same duality?

Language is complex, but I'm sure you can see how a word can be an antonym of another word, and be the same thing depending on the context now. "A" word. I'm looking for "the" word religion. Or "the" word atheism. Which word has multiple meanings that would conflict with each other like "bound", Humpty?

Why do you keep dodging the question? Is the language too complex for you?

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 14:37
That is a lie. You don't have to lie to stay in the game, do you, Humpty? I agreed you gave examples of words that can be antonyms of themselves. However I pointed out that for all those words, the only way that occurs is when the word has multiple, contradictory meanings, and they rely on having multiple meanings that create the conflict. Neither atheism nor religion have multiple meanings to create that situation, now, do they Humpty? Do they? What are they? Which word has more than one meaning?

The auto-antonyms all rely on multiple definitions of the word. You have yet to show another meaning of the word atheism or religion that is opposite in meaning to the commonly accepted definition. Do try to keep up, it is your example after all, Humpty. Is it really that complicated that you cannot understand your own example? It kind of reminds me of how you can't understand your own definition of religion from Merriam Webster. Once again, you simply ignore the parts that prove you wrong, as if they didn't exist. Come on Humpty, I expect more of you.

You have yet to show any context. Do I need to post a definition of the word "context" for you? Surely if it's so easy to use "bound" in a sentence to demonstrate how its an auto-antonym you can come up with similar contexts to show atheism is the opposite of religion and the same, right, Humpty? Would that demonstrate the two meanings of religion, or of atheism?

That's another lie. I'm the one using the dictionary definition. Including the parts that prove you wrong. Because bound means 2 different things in 2 different contexts. Essentially two different words that are spelled the same. Which word has 2 contradictory meanings in your example, atheism or religion, Humpty? Has to be one or the other? Which is it, Humpty?

Another word with 2 different meanings to set up the conflict.

Which word, religion or atheism has two conflicting meanings to set up the same duality?

"A" word. I'm looking for "the" word religion. Or "the" word atheism. Which word has multiple meanings that would conflict with each other like "bound", Humpty?

Why do you keep dodging the question? Is the language too complex for you?

Randy

Steve,

I edited my post, The first version wasn't as clear as I liked on a second reading. You must have been working on your reply when I did that.

Check the times, it was not meant to try to change the past.

What we have is "word A", and "Word B". "Word B" can be the same as "Word A", or the antonym of "Word A".



As far as the dictionary definitions go, I guess I'll post them again.

(wonder if I can get a Mod to make the definitions a sticky in this post?)

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

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity. This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.
None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in. It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

athe·ism
noun \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving. Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \ˈdäk-trən\
Definition of DOCTRINE
1archaic : teaching, instruction
2a : something that is taught b : a principle or position or the body of principles in a branch of knowledge or system of belief : dogma c : a principle of law established through past decisions d : a statement of fundamental government policy especially in international relations e : a military principle or set of strategies

ar·dor
noun \ˈär-dər\
Definition of ARDOR
1a : an often restless or transitory warmth of feeling <the sudden ardors of youth>
b : extreme vigor or energy : intensity
c : zeal
d : loyalty

Ardor is also necessary. Zeal, vigor, intensity, loyalty. This has been evident throughout the thread. The true atheist (also by definition above) is committed in his belief that there is no deity.

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


It all fits. It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion.

Now, I am seeking to understand your discomfort with that reality. That was the original question, which has yet to be answered. I've been asking it for a while now.

So Steve, if you disagree, that's OK with me. You have not convinced me with your arguments, not even with the snide remarks.



Originally posted by Steveksux
Because bound means 2 different things in 2 different contexts. Essentially two different words that are spelled the same. Which word has 2 contradictory meanings in your example, atheism or religion, Humpty? Has to be one or the other? Which is it, Humpty?

You said it. Bound means two different things in two different contexts.
It's really the same word, with two different definitions. There is more than one acceptable uses for the word religion. For example
"b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

Well, in that context, obviously, atheism would not be a religion.

However, this one:

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

That one fits quite nicely. In the context of Atheism being a doctrine that there is no deity, it is also a system of beliefs held to with ardor & faith. Faith that the holders of this system of belief are correct in their position that there is no deity.


It is very clear to me. However, from my perspective, saying atheism is a religion is a simple matter of fact, one that causes me no emotional distress, it is only an observation.

It's obviously getting you a little irritated. I think you are losing your sense of humor over this.

If you would like to agree to disagree in a gentlemanly way about this that would be cool with me. If it really bothers you, you are welcome to place me on your ignore list, then you would never have to worry about reading something I post that may irritate you. That is not the goal here.

No hard feelings.

Lotiki
08-20-2011, 15:02
I always thought I was an atheist. Guess not. Guess I learned something today.

At the beginning of this thread I thought atheism was not a religion but Cal Doc has changed my mind.
Atheism is clearly a set of beliefs with no evidence, much like most religions.

I am man enough to admit I don't believe anything, only have opinions.

ksg0245
08-20-2011, 17:28
I know, that's why I used the word "almost".

So you agree that "I don't believe deities exist" is not equivalent to "I believe deities don't exist." What have the people here who self-identify as atheists told you their position is?

I've read the definitions, posted them many times.

And definitions that contradict yours have also been posted many times. For example:

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

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Why do you presume to tell atheists what their position really is, and then feign surprise when they correct you?

ksg0245
08-20-2011, 17:40
There is more than one acceptable uses for the word religion. For example
"b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

Well, in that context, obviously, atheism would not be a religion.

However, this one:

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

That one fits quite nicely. In the context of Atheism being a doctrine that there is no deity, it is also a system of beliefs held to with ardor & faith. Faith that the holders of this system of belief are correct in their position that there is no deity.

Except that, when pressed, the only "system of beliefs" you can ascribe to atheists that isn't "I reject the unsupported assertion of deities" are actually scientific theories, not exclusively or even primarily atheist beliefs. And when atheists point out that, if contrary evidence were presented, they would abandon this "system of beliefs" you claim they hold to "with ardor and faith," you merely wait for a while and then repeat the claim.

Maybe you should define your terms "system of beliefs" and "held to with ardor and faith," because they appear to mean something different to you from what they mean to everybody else. I don't think most theists, for example, are amenable to abandoning their faith in the face of contradictory evidence, but please, feel free to present examples if you know of any.

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 22:09
So you agree that "I don't believe deities exist" is not equivalent to "I believe deities don't exist." What have the people here who self-identify as atheists told you their position is?



And definitions that contradict yours have also been posted many times. For example:

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

http://www.yourdictionary.com/atheist
An atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/atheist
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.

Why do you presume to tell atheists what their position really is, and then feign surprise when they correct you?

Passive and active. You do realize that even some of the of the definitions you posted describe the active belief that there were no deities?

Cavalry Doc
08-20-2011, 22:15
Except that, when pressed, the only "system of beliefs" you can ascribe to atheists that isn't "I reject the unsupported assertion of deities" are actually scientific theories, not exclusively or even primarily atheist beliefs. And when atheists point out that, if contrary evidence were presented, they would abandon this "system of beliefs" you claim they hold to "with ardor and faith," you merely wait for a while and then repeat the claim.

Maybe you should define your terms "system of beliefs" and "held to with ardor and faith," because they appear to mean something different to you from what they mean to everybody else. I don't think most theists, for example, are amenable to abandoning their faith in the face of contradictory evidence, but please, feel free to present examples if you know of any.


I have not felt pressed. Don't worry about that at all.

Lack of evidence does not lead to the assumption that the opposite is true.

We've been through this already, I thought we had agreed to disagree.
You are entitled to form your own opinion on the subject. And I'm entitled to objectively point out what is plainly evident to me and others that do not share the discomfort some others apparently feel about this very simple revelation.

Cavalry Doc
08-21-2011, 06:29
Atheism has nothing to do with respecting their beliefs it is believing their beliefs to be true.

Do you think the belief in a sea monster creating the world to be true. I don't care if you respect their right to believe it or not the question is do you think it is true and if not is it because they have nothing to back up their claims?


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Sorry, must have missed this one yesterday.

I concur with your first statement.

The bold part (emphasis added by me), is one of the things that led me to ask the question.

An absence of evidence does not lead one, logically, to complete belief in an opposite premise, at least not where there are spaces in between.

There is no objective evidence that there is no deity or intelligence involved in how we came to be here, and yet an atheist believes that there are no deities. Why react with aggression and opposition to claims of deities. The passive approach when I hear a religious belief that I find improbable, is to think, "well good for you", and move on to whatever I was doing. I do not understand the compulsion to openly challenge other belief systems that have little or no impact on atheists. I'm getting there though. Some posters have explained that they were abused by some very bad people that should have not done what they did, and at least verbalized that their Christian faith supported the bad behavior. I can understand how one would work against a system where that was a norm. But not unlike the recent story about the couple that beat their daughter to death, and the "minister" that participated in serial "marriage" of children, these cases are grotesque as they are rare. The vast majority of people are pretty good, regardless of their faith.

It may be a case of digital thinking, where the tendance is to look for all or none solutions, when the reality, is that we are analog, not digital.

ksg0245
08-21-2011, 07:36
I have not felt pressed. Don't worry about that at all.

I'm not "worried" about it; I'm pointing it out.

Lack of evidence does not lead to the assumption that the opposite is true.

True enough, but atheists aren't "assuming the opposite," which was the point of another question you never answered.

We've been through this already, I thought we had agreed to disagree.
You are entitled to form your own opinion on the subject. And I'm entitled to objectively point out what is plainly evident to me and others that do not share the discomfort some others apparently feel about this very simple revelation.

And I'm entitled to objectively point out why you're wrong.

ksg0245
08-21-2011, 07:37
Passive and active. You do realize that even some of the of the definitions you posted describe the active belief that there were no deities?

You again ignore that significant little "or."

Cavalry Doc
08-21-2011, 08:04
I'm not "worried" about it; I'm pointing it out.



True enough, but atheists aren't "assuming the opposite," which was the point of another question you never answered.



And I'm entitled to objectively point out why you're wrong.

http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/095/d/1/agree_2_disagree_plz_by_mirz123-d3d9nad.gif

I'm just applying the definitions. It's an honest observation. If you don't agree with my assessment, it's OK.

Cavalry Doc
08-21-2011, 08:07
You again ignore that significant little "or."

Which little "or" is that?

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious 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
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

ArtificialGrape
08-21-2011, 09:27
Passive and active. You do realize that even some of the of the definitions you posted describe the active belief that there were no deities?

ksg0245 has pointed out a number of citations for definitions of "atheist" as merely rejecting claims that god(s) exist. On several occasions I have provided the Oxford English Dictionary for atheist as: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods (your "knock me up" anecdote has no relevance on this definition). Atheist is rooted in the Greek "atheos" meaning "without god". The fact is that your entire argument is wrapped up in the Merriam-Webster definition and completely falls apart using more accurate definitions such as the OED.

Are you adamant in insisting that those vocal in the 9mm vs. .45 have made a religion of it, or that Chevy vs. Ford is a religious discussion, or are you content as long as you can ascribe one religion to everybody.

Though you generally rely on M-W's 4th definition involving "ardor and faith", you have also claimed that "atheism is a religion, not completely unlike all the others, just with fewer details", and you've done nothing to support the argument to this higher standard.

When it is pointed out that your own favored source, Merriam-Webster, lists atheism as an antonym to religion you dismiss it as context because it does not serve your purpose.

What is the definition of "a-" used as a prefix? From Merriam-Webster, atypical means "not typical"; asocial is "not social", it should be obvious that atheist means not a theist.

Can you build your argument around atheism being a religion using the definition of an atheist as: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods?

-ArtificialGrape

steveksux
08-21-2011, 09:44
Which little "or" is that?

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious 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
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
:rofl: Now posting copied definitions from merriam-webster without attribution? I guess its the only way to conceal the fact that the "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" refers to things like "hockey is a religion in Canada" rather than actual "religious" religions.


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

And at least those are actually listed as examples of religion by that dictionary, as opposed to atheism, specifically mentioned as the opposite of religion.

You keep downplaying the hockey/football/politics when they are even closer to religion, by definition, than atheism.
Randy

steveksux
08-21-2011, 09:49
ksg0245 has pointed out a number of citations for definitions of "atheist" as merely rejecting claims that god(s) exist. On several occasions I have provided the Oxford English Dictionary for atheist as: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods (your "knock me up" anecdote has no relevance on this definition). Atheist is rooted in the Greek "atheos" meaning "without god". The fact is that your entire argument is wrapped up in the Merriam-Webster definition and completely falls apart using more accurate definitions such as the OED.

Are you adamant in insisting that those vocal in the 9mm vs. .45 have made a religion of it, or that Chevy vs. Ford is a religious discussion, or are you content as long as you can ascribe one religion to everybody.

Though you generally rely on M-W's 4th definition involving "ardor and faith", you have also claimed that "atheism is a religion, not completely unlike all the others, just with fewer details", and you've done nothing to support the argument to this higher standard.

When it is pointed out that your own favored source, Merriam-Webster, lists atheism as an antonym to religion you dismiss it as context because it does not serve your purpose.

What is the definition of "a-" used as a prefix? From Merriam-Webster, atypical means "not typical"; asocial is "not social", it should be obvious that atheist means not a theist.

Can you build your argument around atheism being a religion using the definition of an atheist as: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods?

-ArtificialGrapeWorse than that, the examples referring to the 4th definition he relies on refer to things like hockey is a religion in Canada. Totally misrepresenting the context that particular definition refers to and pretending it refers to religions in the sense of an actual theistic religion as opposed to a mere figure of speech. Disingenuous hardly begins to cover it.

http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/do/0v/9g/trollchow.jpg
I believe this with ardor and faith. And plenty of evidence to back it up too.

How bout it, CD? How do you like my new religion? :rofl:

Randy

steveksux
08-21-2011, 10:07
As far as the dictionary definitions go, I guess I'll post them again.No you won't. you'll post the cherry picked fragments out of context, minus the examples, because the context shows how ridiculous relying on that definition is.

(wonder if I can get a Mod to make the definitions a sticky in this post?)Would be wonderful if they'd include the examples as well since some people can't be trusted to be truthful enough to include them.

Now, I am seeking to understand your discomfort with that reality. That was the original question, which has yet to be answered. I've been asking it for a while now. I have no problem with reality. People who lie bug me though.

So Steve, if you disagree, that's OK with me. You have not convinced me with your arguments, not even with the snide remarks. I have convinced you. You know better. Its in plain english. You purposely keep leaving out the relevant details, pretending they don't exist. That's how I know you're simply trolling. An honest oversight would have been admitted when it was corrected probably hundreds of posts ago, and in dozens of posts since then.


It's really the same word, with two different definitions. There is more than one acceptable uses for the word religion. For example
"b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural"

Well, in that context, obviously, atheism would not be a religion.Finally a truthful statement. I'm shocked!

However, this one:

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

That one fits quite nicely. It fits hockey in canada, football, the other examples of that context in the definition you keep neglecting to post.

In the context of Atheism From the same definition, it is the opposite of religion.
That's a hell of an oversight leaving out that bit of context. An honest poster wouldn't leave that out.


It is very clear to me. However, from my perspective, saying atheism is a religion is a simple matter of fact, one that causes me no emotional distress, it is only an observation.Trolling is not the same as making observations. It's obviously getting you a little irritated. I think you are losing your sense of humor over this. Why should you making a fool of yourself make me irritated? Its kind of amusing, actually. obvious troll is obvious here, the odd thing is that you think you've fooled anyone.



If you would like to agree to disagree in a gentlemanly way about this that would be cool with me. If it really bothers you, you are welcome to place me on your ignore list, then you would never have to worry about reading something I post that may irritate you. That is not the goal here.

No hard feelings.Gentlemen don't troll. Gentlemen don't leave out context in an attempt to mislead. No hard feelings. Its simply an observation. I believe it with ardor and faith, and overwhelming evidence. If you wish, you can apply your linguistic tomfoolery to make up a context where trolling is a noble endeavor, where it means the opposite of trolling, if that would make you feel better.


Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-21-2011, 11:34
No you won't. you'll post the cherry picked fragments out of context, minus the examples, because the context shows how ridiculous relying on that definition is.


You are factually inaccurate. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks intentional.


Would be wonderful if they'd include the examples as well since some people can't be trusted to be truthful enough to include them.


http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/245/6/9/fishing_by_ledmaiden-d2xvypu.gif

You appear to be baiting, looking for a fight. I do not understand why.


I have no problem with reality. People who lie bug me though.


Wherever you go, ...


I have convinced you. You know better. Its in plain english. You purposely keep leaving out the relevant details, pretending they don't exist. That's how I know you're simply trolling. An honest oversight would have been admitted when it was corrected probably hundreds of posts ago, and in dozens of posts since then.

I'm being honest in my disagreement, and you are making baseless accusations.


Finally a truthful statement. I'm shocked! It fits hockey in canada, football, the other examples of that context in the definition you keep neglecting to post.

Shocked? More baiting. :yawn:

If you believe Hockey explains the nature of the universe, you have my permission to believe so. Personally, I don't think it's nearly as important as the debate between atheism and theism. But hey, that is just me.


From the same definition, it is the opposite of religion.
That's a hell of an oversight leaving out that bit of context. An honest poster wouldn't leave that out.

http://fc04.deviantart.net/fs71/f/2010/245/6/9/fishing_by_ledmaiden-d2xvypu.gif

Here we go again. I posted the definitions completely, several times. Everyone else can find them. :dunno:

By the way, should an atheist be using the word "hell" so easily......
Freudian slip?


Trolling is not the same as making observations. Why should you making a fool of yourself make me irritated? Its kind of amusing, actually. obvious troll is obvious here, the odd thing is that you think you've fooled anyone.

Maybe, just maybe, trollistic characteristics would include baiting someone with baseless accusations, generally poor behavior, an inability to discuss a topic without becoming emotionally unstable, and using unnecessarily inflammatory rhetoric. But just maybe


Gentlemen don't troll. Gentlemen don't leave out context in an attempt to mislead. No hard feelings. Its simply an observation. I believe it with ardor and faith, and overwhelming evidence. If you wish, you can apply your linguistic tomfoolery to make up a context where trolling is a noble endeavor, where it means the opposite of trolling, if that would make you feel better.


Randy

Looks like we have a different idea of what a gentleman is too.

Now, I want you to understand why you have earned a place back on my ignore list. It's for your own good. We just disagree. You are obviously unable to continue this conversation without personal attacks, which is how you ended up on my ignore list the last time. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and choose to believe that your verbally striking out is beyond your control. Maybe it would be good for you to put me on your ignore list too, because it's likely that I may say something else you disagree with in the future, and I do not wish to cause you any more mental distress.
I'm deeply sorry that you find it so emotionally disturbing that some guy that you don't know on the internet has an opinion that you don't like. I did not mean to push you over the edge.

I am glad that I have introduced you to auto-antonyms. Keep studying them.

If you want to, you can declare yourself the winner, take a victory lap, and pat yourself on the back. Be sure to point out that you did have two chances, and by all means, invite everyone to read the entire thread so you can show them how you mopped the floor with me. I'm sure you'll have a lot of admirers in no time.




I honestly believe that Atheism is just one of many religious systems of belief. It is very difficult to admit, I appreciate you helping me show that to the others.




I want you to go have a really nice life. :wavey:

ksg0245
08-21-2011, 18:21
Which little "or" is that?

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being."

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Which means that those who disbelieve (to hold not worthy of belief : not believe; to withhold or reject belief) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve) in deities are defined as atheists.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1a : the state of a religious 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
3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

You still haven't stated what "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" is required for atheism that isn't either also acceptable to theists (since, for example, there are theists who accept the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution based on the evidence, as you admit, thereby rendering them something other than "an atheist system of beliefs"), or would be resistant to evidence (thus meeting your "held to with ardor and faith" requirement).

Cavalry Doc
08-21-2011, 18:51
"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being."

"One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods."

Which means that those who disbelieve (to hold not worthy of belief : not believe; to withhold or reject belief) (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve) in deities are defined as atheists.



You still haven't stated what "system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith" is required for atheism that isn't either also acceptable to theists (since, for example, there are theists who accept the Big Bang theory and the Theory of Evolution based on the evidence, as you admit, thereby rendering them something other than "an atheist system of beliefs"), or would be resistant to evidence (thus meeting your "held to with ardor and faith" requirement).

The system of belief is based on the belief that we are the result of random occurrences, that we were not made. We are just a result of chance. To a theist, The belief that we were designed is a profound belief that shapes their entire understanding of the meaning of life. It's the same for the atheist. That one question is a profound thing.

Lets go ahead and use the "or" the way it was meant to be used.

One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
One who denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
The use of "or", means that either of the above statements are acceptable.

One who disbelieves the existence of God or gods.
One who denies the existence of God or gods.
The use of "or", means that either of the above statements are acceptable.


So.

We are back at the beginning.

Either we are the result of random chance, or not. I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you, but we both have our beliefs.

I believe that I do not know.

I believe you believe that there are no deities.






Faith.
Ardor.
Religion.
Theist.
Agnostic.
Atheist.
Atheism.


<img src="http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/095/d/1/agree_2_disagree_plz_by_mirz123-d3d9nad.gif" alt="Agree 2 Disagree PLZ"/>

ksg0245
08-21-2011, 19:42
The system of belief is based on the belief that we are the result of random occurrences, that we were not made.

The only "system of beliefs" atheists have is "I don't believe in deities." One disbelief isn't much of a system of beliefs, and if it can be altered with evidence, isn't held to with ardor and faith.

The Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution are accepted by some theists, so are not an "atheist system of beliefs."

"Random occurrences" is not an accurate descriptor of either theory.

We are just a result of chance. To a theist, The belief that we were designed is a profound belief that shapes their entire understanding of the meaning of life. It's the same for the atheist. That one question is a profound thing.

"Profundity" is a red herring.

Lets go ahead and use the "or" the way it was meant to be used.

One who disbelieves the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
One who denies the existence of a God, or supreme intelligent Being.
The use of "or", means that either of the above statements are acceptable.

One who disbelieves the existence of God or gods.
One who denies the existence of God or gods.
The use of "or", means that either of the above statements are acceptable.

Absolutely. I don't think any atheist here has claimed otherwise.

So.

We are back at the beginning.

Either we are the result of random chance, or not. I don't know the answer to that, and neither do you, but we both have our beliefs.

And some beliefs, such as the BBT or the ToE, are based on objective, verifiable evidence, and are not a matter of faith.

I believe that I do not know.

I believe you believe that there are no deities.

I hesitate to bring this up again because you so adamantly refused to answer before, but what the heck.

Presumably by this point you understand that most atheists do not claim to know whether deities exist, but that they disbelieve the assertion of deities.

You don't claim to know deities exist, which makes you agnostic; do you believe they do?

I'm expecting another "I believe I don't know" answer.

Faith.
Ardor.
Religion.
Theist.
Agnostic.
Atheist.
Atheism.


<img src="http://fc07.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/095/d/1/agree_2_disagree_plz_by_mirz123-d3d9nad.gif" alt="Agree 2 Disagree PLZ"/>

Cavalry Doc
08-21-2011, 20:00
The only "system of beliefs" atheists have is "I don't believe in deities." One disbelief isn't much of a system of beliefs, and if it can be altered with evidence, isn't held to with ardor and faith.

The Big Bang Theory and Theory of Evolution are accepted by some theists, so are not an "atheist system of beliefs."

"Random occurrences" is not an accurate descriptor of either theory.



"Profundity" is a red herring.



Absolutely. I don't think any atheist here has claimed otherwise.



And some beliefs, such as the BBT or the ToE, are based on objective, verifiable evidence, and are not a matter of faith.



I hesitate to bring this up again because you so adamantly refused to answer before, but what the heck.

Presumably by this point you understand that most atheists do not claim to know whether deities exist, but that they disbelieve the assertion of deities.

You don't claim to know deities exist, which makes you agnostic; do you believe they do?

I'm expecting another "I believe I don't know" answer.


What is wrong with believing that I don't know? Either possibility is possible.

Atheists believe they know. See it yet?

OK, so is there any evidence that the BBT and the ToE happened without the influence of a deity?


So, do we assume deities exist or not? Or do we assume nothing, and admit the gaps in human knowledge.

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 04:51
ksg0245 has pointed out a number of citations for definitions of "atheist" as merely rejecting claims that god(s) exist. On several occasions I have provided the Oxford English Dictionary for atheist as: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods (your "knock me up" anecdote has no relevance on this definition). Atheist is rooted in the Greek "atheos" meaning "without god". The fact is that your entire argument is wrapped up in the Merriam-Webster definition and completely falls apart using more accurate definitions such as the OED.

Are you adamant in insisting that those vocal in the 9mm vs. .45 have made a religion of it, or that Chevy vs. Ford is a religious discussion, or are you content as long as you can ascribe one religion to everybody.

Though you generally rely on M-W's 4th definition involving "ardor and faith", you have also claimed that "atheism is a religion, not completely unlike all the others, just with fewer details", and you've done nothing to support the argument to this higher standard.

When it is pointed out that your own favored source, Merriam-Webster, lists atheism as an antonym to religion you dismiss it as context because it does not serve your purpose.

What is the definition of "a-" used as a prefix? From Merriam-Webster, atypical means "not typical"; asocial is "not social", it should be obvious that atheist means not a theist.

Can you build your argument around atheism being a religion using the definition of an atheist as: a person who does not believe in the existence of God or gods?

-ArtificialGrape

The last definition you gave would make atheism equivalent to agnosticism. There is a difference.

If theism is the belief in deities, atheism would be the belief that there are no deities.

It's not just the literal definitions that makes it a religion from my perspective. It's the actions and attitudes of it's more zealous adherents.

Almost all religions claim that their belief system is the only one that is correct.

ksg0245
08-22-2011, 07:25
What is wrong with believing that I don't know? Either possibility is possible.

What is wrong is that I didn't ask "what do you believe you know?" You tend to answer your own questions, rather than the ones asked.

And I got almost exactly the answer I predicted.

Are you able to leave any reference to knowledge out of the answer, while answering the question "Do you believe deities exist"?

Atheists believe they know. See it yet?

No, because atheists don't "believe they know." They reject an unsupported assertion.

OK, so is there any evidence that the BBT and the ToE happened without the influence of a deity?

There is no evidence either did, nor is the question isn't part of either theory. Are you suggesting deities should be part of either theory?

So, do we assume deities exist or not?

If there is no objective, verifiable evidence for them, what valid reason is there for assuming deities exist? Apart from the "you can't prove they don't" fallacy?

Or do we assume nothing, and admit the gaps in human knowledge.

You mean like how atheists reject the unsupported assertion of deities? An unsupported assertion you refuse to reject despite the lack of objective, verifiable evidence?

sugarcreek
08-22-2011, 07:33
Is this thread still alive? I guess it's no small wonder...

Atheism is the belief there is no god. This is not a religion. Now please go outside and play!

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 08:53
What is wrong is that I didn't ask "what do you believe you know?" You tend to answer your own questions, rather than the ones asked.

And I got almost exactly the answer I predicted.

Are you able to leave any reference to knowledge out of the answer, while answering the question "Do you believe deities exist"?



No, because atheists don't "believe they know." They reject an unsupported assertion.



There is no evidence either did, nor is the question isn't part of either theory. Are you suggesting deities should be part of either theory?



If there is no objective, verifiable evidence for them, what valid reason is there for assuming deities exist? Apart from the "you can't prove they don't" fallacy?



You mean like how atheists reject the unsupported assertion of deities? An unsupported assertion you refuse to reject despite the lack of objective, verifiable evidence?


See the post just prior to this.

Ok, without using the word "know"....

I believe it is possible that a deity or deities exist or existed.
I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

I have seen no convincing evidence that either confirms or denies the existence of a deity or deities.


The explanations of why I honestly believe atheism is a religion have been explained numerous times, the questions answered multiple times.

I have never asked you to prove there is not or has not been a deity. I'm not trying to convert you, but it is true that no one has proof that one did not ever exist. It's not that big of a deal for me.

Why do atheists bother to reject unproven assertions in such a committed and energetic way? It's basic human nature to want to know, and it's also basic human nature to want to be right. No?

If I don't answer all of your questions in every post you make, it's ok, look back through the thread, it's probably in there.

ArtificialGrape
08-22-2011, 09:50
The last definition you gave would make atheism equivalent to agnosticism. There is a difference.
There is a difference, and as has been pointed out numerous times in this thread, they address separate questions. They are binary questions, and not a graduated scale.

Theism/atheism addresses what you believe regarding the existence of god(s).

Agnosticism is whether or not you believe the existence/non-existence can be "known".

One can be a theist or atheist AND agnostic about it. Most atheists that I've encountered are agnostic as well.

If theism is the belief in deities, atheism would be the belief that there are no deities.
Close, theism is the assertion that god(s) exist. Atheism is the rejection of that assertion.
It's not just the literal definitions that makes it a religion from my perspective. It's the actions and attitudes of it's more zealous adherents.
I suspect that your argument falls apart using the definition in my previous message, because there is nothing to have faith in.

If somebody is passionately arguing that you are a racist, and so you must be passionate in rejecting that assertion, that does not make you a zealot, nor your defense with "faith and ardor".

-ArtificialGrape

ksg0245
08-22-2011, 10:18
See the post just prior to this.

Ok, without using the word "know"....

I believe it is possible that a deity or deities exist or existed.
I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

I have seen no convincing evidence that either confirms or denies the existence of a deity or deities.

The explanations of why I honestly believe atheism is a religion have been explained numerous times, the questions answered multiple times.

I have never asked you to prove there is not or has not been a deity. I'm not trying to convert you, but it is true that no one has proof that one did not ever exist. It's not that big of a deal for me.

Why do atheists bother to reject unproven assertions in such a committed and energetic way? It's basic human nature to want to know, and it's also basic human nature to want to be right. No?

If I don't answer all of your questions in every post you make, it's ok, look back through the thread, it's probably in there.

In this post you again avoid answering the question I asked, and this is only one example of you dodging a question.

Was my question "do you believe it's possible deities?" No, my question was "Do you believe deities exist?"

"I believe it's possible" doesn't answer the question "Do you believe deities exist?" It answers the unasked question "Do you believe it's possible deities exist?"

Dodging that simple question literally for months now is one of the reasons you've been accused of dishonesty, but not the only one.

Why do you refuse to answer the simple question "Do you believe deities exist?" Do you really not know what you believe?

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 10:25
I just disagree. Atheism is the assertion that no gods exist.

But hey, that's just my opinion based on the definitions and my observations of atheists in the wild. I believe over the last several hundred posts in this thread that I have supported my opinion quite well. We do continue to disagree though. I'm ok with that.
I'm not passionately arguing that atheism is a religion, however some have passionately and emotionally argued that I must be lying or some other personal attack.

Fact is, I honestly believe that atheism is a religion. It reminds me a little of a recent conversation I heard at a gun store counter recently. One guy was saying the .22 caliber had killed more people than any other caliber, the other was arguing that the .22 caliber could not be a home protection round. Neither one had any proof of what they were saying. Both were polite about it though, that's what makes it different than here though.

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 10:35
Why do you refuse to answer the simple question "Do you believe deities exist?" Do you really not know what you believe?

I've explained my beliefs many times. To answer your question with a yes or no would be dishonest. Sort of like me asking you to answer whether you had stopped beating your wife by march 2008. Yes or no would lead to an incorrect impression, if you had never beaten your wife.

So, quit leading the witness.

Maybe there is/was a god or gods, maybe not. I'm pretty sure about that.

Do you believe deities don't exist? Can you honestly answer that with a yes or no, without abandoning the passive position you claim atheists hold?


Trying to frame a question so you get the answer you want is a game of verbal "gotcha" that is not going to help.

ksg0245
08-22-2011, 11:35
I've explained my beliefs many times. To answer your question with a yes or no would be dishonest.

Everyone knows you believe it's not possible to know; you've made that clear. Why would it be dishonest to state whether you believe deities exist?

Sort of like me asking you to answer whether you had stopped beating your wife by march 2008. Yes or no would lead to an incorrect impression, if you had never beaten your wife.

Actually, no, it isn't like that at all. It would be more like asking "Do you believe it's okay to beat your wife?"

So, quit leading the witness.

Asking you to state whether you believe deities exist isn't leading the witness.

Maybe there is/was a god or gods, maybe not. I'm pretty sure about that.

Do you believe deities don't exist? Can you honestly answer that with a yes or no, without abandoning the passive position you claim atheists hold?

Asked and answered.

Trying to frame a question so you get the answer you want is a game of verbal "gotcha" that is not going to help.

No, it's an attempt to get you to clarify whether you believe deities exist, without obfuscation.

You could say "I refuse to answer on the grounds I might incriminate myself."

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 12:34
Everyone knows you believe it's not possible to know; you've made that clear. Why would it be dishonest to state whether you believe deities exist?



Actually, no, it isn't like that at all. It would be more like asking "Do you believe it's okay to beat your wife?"



Asking you to state whether you believe deities exist isn't leading the witness.



Asked and answered.



No, it's an attempt to get you to clarify whether you believe deities exist, without obfuscation.

You could say "I refuse to answer on the grounds I might incriminate myself."

I don't believe it is impossible to know, I just don't think anyone alive does know. Just my opinion.

You're engaging in an exercise of verbal gymnastics. Why?

Just because you don't like the answer, does not mean that the question has not been answered honestly.

ArtificialGrape
08-22-2011, 12:50
quit leading the witness.

Trying to frame a question so you get the answer you want is a game of verbal "gotcha" that is not going to help.

Surely you appreciate the irony of this coming from you when the question in the thread title makes the (argued but unproven) assertion that atheism is a religion.

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 13:09
Surely you appreciate the irony of this coming from you when the question in the thread title makes the (argued but unproven) assertion that atheism is a religion.


It's an issue of correct word usage. I've already shown how the definitions fit, but we disagree still.

We just have different opinions. That's not likely to change.

The questions being asked cannot be honestly answered by me with a yes or a no. Again, just like if I asked you if you had stopped beating your wife by march 2008, and demanded you answer with a yes or no answer.

It's not like it's not right there for everyone to see.

RC-RAMIE
08-22-2011, 13:13
It's an issue of correct word usage. I've already shown how the definitions fit, but we disagree still.

We just have different opinions. That's not likely to change.

The questions being asked cannot be honestly answered by me with a yes or a no. Again, just like if I asked you if you had stopped beating your wife by march 2008, and demanded you answer with a yes or no answer.

It's not like it's not right there for everyone to see.

Its kinda hard to agree when no atheist agrees with what is your opinion on what atheism is.

Im going with the atheist idea of what atheism is and disregard your ideas on it as useless. And since it is obvious one can not hold a adult logical conversion with you I will hold every other subject we talk about up to that same standard.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

ksg0245
08-22-2011, 13:49
I don't believe it is impossible to know, I just don't think anyone alive does know. Just my opinion.

I apologize for misstating your position.

You're engaging in an exercise of verbal gymnastics. Why?

It wasn't verbal gymnastics, it was an attempt to get you to answer a question, which has a direct bearing on your initial assertion.

Just because you don't like the answer, does not mean that the question has not been answered honestly.

It doesn't necessarily always mean that, no, but the responses you've given seem telling.

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 13:59
Its kinda hard to agree when no atheist agrees with what is your opinion on what atheism is.

Im going with the atheist idea of what atheism is and disregard your ideas on it as useless. And since it is obvious one can not hold a adult logical conversion with you I will hold every other subject we talk about up to that same standard.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Well, I'm not going to claim that there have been a lot of self described atheists in GTRI that agreed, but the most recent one was post on 1708. There have been more that do not claim to he atheists that have agreed.

I've already stated that I respect your opinion, even though I don't share it.
And I've been respectful of you too during our conversation.

I will continue to examine your statements in the context in which they are made and not descrimimate against you purely based on our disagreement on this subject. Where we agree, I'll support you.

I think that is an approach most adults would agree is reasonable.

Cavalry Doc
08-22-2011, 18:23
I apologize for misstating your position.



It wasn't verbal gymnastics, it was an attempt to get you to answer a question, which has a direct bearing on your initial assertion.



It doesn't necessarily always mean that, no, but the responses you've given seem telling.

I'm a real agnostic, not just a cartoon character of one. I have decided, quite conclusively that I have no clue at all whether we were made or just happened. I see evidence that argues for both extreme. Life is magnificently complex, interdependent, and resilient in such a way that argues against random chance. There are millions of seemingly infinitesimally small changes, that would have ended all life on Earth.

If there is a god, which one? Humans have had a lot of gods, some of the beliefs are mutually exclusive.

But, no one alive today witnessed creation. Every scientific explanation that seeks to exclude a deity, has some significant gaps.

I've been told what to think by atheist teachers, clergy, chaplains, and the news. When I finally thought about what all sides had to say, I realized that it's OK not to know. In fact, with all of the information available, the most logical choice (to me) is to admit that we don't know. Maybe we (or I) will some day, but right now, the ultimate question about reality is unknown (at least by me).


So, I tossed my pride (& hubris) away, and realized that I don't know, and that I don't have to know, and that I'm not required to know.

When you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. I know I am in the minority, but I'm cool with that.

So, what do I do about how everyone else believe. Well, nothing.
Why would I?

But I can still make an observation. Many others have decided that they know the truth are arguing that they are right about the origins of the universe.

It just struck me as odd that some of the self described atheists here seem to be just as sure about whether an intelligence was involved in us being here as the other religious people. From an agnostic position, it's obvious that both theism and atheism are unproven belief systems. Having no convincing proof either way, I have no reason to change one's belief system. I respect it instead.

So, I simply pointed out that some of the self described atheists posting around here are just pushing their own religious beliefs in preference over others. None have proof.


Honestly, it's only an observation. I have attempted to be as honest as I can in the discussion, and suffered the slings and arrows.

None of it hurt though.

nmk
08-23-2011, 11:11
I'm a real agnostic, not just a cartoon character of one. I have decided, quite conclusively that I have no clue at all whether we were made or just happened. I see evidence that argues for both extreme. Life is magnificently complex, interdependent, and resilient in such a way that argues against random chance. There are millions of seemingly infinitesimally small changes, that would have ended all life on Earth.


I don't know of a single person that advocates this position. Why do people still use this argument?

juggy4711
08-23-2011, 11:37
Atheism http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism?region=us

Religion http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

Atheism is a belief not a religion, just as believing in God unto itself is not a religion.

I don't know of a single person that advocates this position. Why do people still use this argument?

Then you don't know a single person that knows what they are talking about. The universe is dependent on the precision of 7 factors else it would not exist as we observe it.

creaky
08-23-2011, 11:44
Fact is, I honestly believe that atheism is a religion.


The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

ksg0245
08-23-2011, 11:57
Atheism http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/atheism?region=us

Religion http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/religion

Atheism is a belief not a religion, just as believing in God unto itself is not a religion.



Then you don't know a single person that knows what they are talking about. The universe is dependent on the precision of 7 factors else it would not exist as we observe it.

Which merely means life has evolved the way it has as a result of certain conditions. If conditions were different, life, if it arose, would have been different.

ksg0245
08-23-2011, 12:20
The 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals agrees.

No it doesn't; it says atheism is considered to be equivalent to a religion in terms of first amendment protection.

From http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/tmp/AO0S13VM.pdf:

"... Kaufman argues that the defendants’ refusal to allow him to create the study group violated his rights under both the Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. ..."

"... We address his claim under the Free Exercise Clause first. An inmate retains the right to exercise his religious beliefs in prison. Tarpley v. Allen County, 312 F.3d 895, 898 (7th Cir. 2002). The problem here was that the prison officials did not treat atheism as a “religion,” perhaps in keeping with Kaufman’s own insistence that it is the antithesis of religion. But whether atheism is a “religion” for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture. The Supreme Court has said that a religion, for purposes of the First Amendment, is distinct from a “way of life,” even if that way of life is inspired by philosophical beliefs or other secular concerns. ..."

"... We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. ..."

"... The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a “religion” for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions, most recently in McCreary County, Ky. v. American Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 125 S.Ct. 2722 (2005). The Establishment Clause itself says only that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” but the Court understands the reference to religion to include what it often calls “nonreligion.” In McCreary County, it described the touchstone of Establishment Clause analysis as “the principle that the First Amendment mandates government neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.” ..."

"... In keeping with this idea, the Court has adopted a broad definition of “religion” that includes nontheistic and atheistic beliefs, as well as theistic ones. Thus, in Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, it said that a state cannot “pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can [it] aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.” ..."

"... Atheism is, among other things, a school of thought that takes a position on religion, the existence and importance of a supreme being, and a code of ethics. As such, we are satisfied that it qualifies as Kaufman’s religion for purposes of the First Amendment claims he is attempting to raise. ..."

"As he explained in his application, the group wanted to study freedom of thought, religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices, all presumably from an atheistic perspective. It is undisputed that other religious groups are permitted to meet at Kaufman’s prison, and the defendants have advanced no secular reason why the security concerns they cited as a reason to deny his request for an atheist group do not apply equally to gatherings of Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, or Wiccan inmates. The defendants argue that all they are doing is accommodating religious groups as a whole, as they are required to do under RLUIPA. See Cutter, 125 S.Ct. 2113; Charles, 348 F.3d at 610-11. But the defendants have not answered Kaufman’s argument that by accommodating some religious views, but not his, they are promoting the favored ones. Because the defendants failed even to articulate—much less support with evidence—a secular reason why a meeting of atheist inmates would pose a greater security risk than meetings of inmates of other faiths, their rejection of Kaufman’s request cannot survive the first part of the Lemon test. See Lemon, 403 U.S. at 612-13; Books, 235 F.3d at 301. We therefore vacate the grant of summary judgment in the defendants’ favor on Kaufman’s claim under the Establishment Clause and remand for further proceedings."

Cavalry Doc
08-23-2011, 12:27
I don't know of a single person that advocates this position. Why do people still use this argument?

It's not so much of argument as it is an observation.

juggy4711
08-23-2011, 22:55
Which merely means life has evolved the way it has as a result of certain conditions. If conditions were different, life, if it arose, would have been different.

If the conditions where different even slightly, physics indicates that there would be a universe incapable of life as we know it. To speculate if life would arise under any other circumstance is pointless as we do not live in that universe. The reality is that existence as we observe it requires precision watchmakers only dream of.

It's not so much of argument as it is an observation.

That observation can't be argued with. I could not post on the internet should it be false.

NMG26
08-24-2011, 05:50
Then you don't know a single person that knows what they are talking about. The universe is dependent on the precision of 7 factors else it would not exist as we observe it.


Just 7 factors?

What factors are they?