Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? [Archive] - Page 8 - 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

creaky
08-24-2011, 08:32
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."

"No it doesn't"? For all intents and purposes, the court sees it as a religion. Your post helped my case better than it helped yours.:dunno:

ksg0245
08-24-2011, 08:35
If the conditions where different even slightly, physics indicates that there would be a universe incapable of life as we know it.

I'm not really sure what this means. What conditions? How different?

To speculate if life would arise under any other circumstance is pointless as we do not live in that universe.

Which means there's no way to know "The universe is dependent on the precision of 7 factors else it would not exist as we observe it."

The reality is that existence as we observe it requires precision watchmakers only dream of.

Which is an unsupported assertion.

http://www.livescience.com/15681-fossil-microbes-earth-oldest-life.html
Even before there was much oxygen on Earth, there was life, a new fossil discovery reveals.

The findings have implications for finding alien life in our solar system such as on Mars, the researchers speculate.

Scientists have unearthed microscopic fossils of microbes that subsisted on sulfur instead of oxygen almost 3.5 billion years ago. At the time, the Earth was a warm, violent place without land plants or algae to produce oxygen through photosynthesis. The sky was overcast, trapping heat near Earth's surface, and the oceans were the temperature of a hot bath.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/special_reports/microbes/textonly/survivors_gallery.jsp

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/research-curation/research/projects/euk-extreme/
Summary
The majority of eukaryotes found living in extreme environments are microbial and a central problem in the study of all microbial eukaryotes is the lack of reliable cultivation methods. Only a tiny fraction of the organisms that can be observed in environmental samples can be cultured in the laboratory, even from mesophilic environments. Extreme environments are generally more difficult to replicate in the laboratory and more difficult to keep stable. The ability to bring these fascinating creatures living into the laboratory is currently the biggest stumbling block to advancing knowledge.
Eukaryotic microbial life may be found actively growing in almost any extreme condition where there is a sufficient energy source to sustain it, with the exception of high temperature (>70ºC). For most eukaryotes, therefore, a central requirement for growth in a habitat is sufficient energy flowing through the biosphere to support a second trophic level, as illustrated by the soda lakes Simi and Nakuru (see below). If it were not for the high productivity of Lake Nakuru, the low diversity in Lake Simi could easily have been attributed to its extreme pH.

Colonisation of extreme habitats is not normally restricted to a single taxonomic group, with the exception of xerophilous habitats which are only tolerated by the fungi. Eukaryotic cells are exceedingly adaptable and not notably less adaptable than the prokaryotes, although most habitats have not been sufficiently well explored for sound generalisations.

Sonnytoo
08-24-2011, 08:38
I'm a Christian. I don't believe that atheism is a religion, but rather the lack of any type of religion. But, YMMV. JMHO.
S2

ksg0245
08-24-2011, 08:40
"No it doesn't"? For all intents and purposes, the court sees it as a religion. Your post helped my case better than it helped yours.:dunno:

You claimed the 7th circuit agreed atheism is a religion; you were wrong, it didn't. It ruled atheism is equivalent to a religion in terms of 1st amendment protections. "Equivalent to a religion in terms of 1st amendment protections" doesn't make it a religion; it makes it protected as equivalent by the 1st amendment.

Feel free to equivocate, though.

creaky
08-24-2011, 08:58
You claimed the 7th circuit agreed atheism is a religion; you were wrong, it didn't. It ruled atheism is equivalent to a religion in terms of 1st amendment protections. "Equivalent to a religion in terms of 1st amendment protections" doesn't make it a religion; it makes it protected as equivalent by the 1st amendment.

Feel free to equivocate, though.

And you feel free to split hairs, Mister. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
08-24-2011, 12:36
You claimed the 7th circuit agreed atheism is a religion; you were wrong, it didn't. It ruled atheism is equivalent to a religion in terms of 1st amendment protections. "Equivalent to a religion in terms of 1st amendment protections" doesn't make it a religion; it makes it protected as equivalent by the 1st amendment.

Feel free to equivocate, though.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, atheism is equivalent to religion. In other words atheism = religion.

The first amendment Prohibits the congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, even if it is atheism.

Ok.

ksg0245
08-24-2011, 14:10
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So, atheism is equivalent to religion. In other words atheism = religion.

The first amendment Prohibits the congress from making a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, even if it is atheism.

Ok.

You're grasping at imaginary straws.

Not having a religion falls under "free exercise."

ksg0245
08-24-2011, 14:11
And you feel free to split hairs, Mister. :wavey:

How is that splitting hairs? The 7th circuit didn't say what you claimed, and the First amendment protects the free exercise of religion, which includes not having a religion.

Cavalry Doc
08-24-2011, 16:16
You're grasping at imaginary straws.

Not having a religion falls under "free exercise."

I'm only describing the opinion as stated. Atheism is the legal equivalent.

I disagree with a lot of what the courts say too. It's OK. But did you read what they said?

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Wisconsin.
No. 03-C-027-C—Barbara B. Crabb, Chief Judge.
____________
SUBMITTED OCTOBER 26, 2004OE—DECIDED AUGUST 19, 2005
____________
Before BAUER, WOOD, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
WOOD, Circuit Judge. Wisconsin inmate James Kaufman
filed this suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming as relevant
here that prison officials violated his First Amendment
rights. He raises three unrelated issues. Of the three, the
one that has prompted the issuance of this opinion is his
claim that the defendants infringed on his right to practice
his religion when they refused to allow him to create an

inmate group to study and discuss atheism. Kaufman also
argues that the defendants used an overly broad definition
of “pornography” when they prevented him from receiving
several publications containing sexual content and photographs
of nude men and that they improperly opened
outside of his presence several letters that he claimed were
“legal” mail. The district court dismissed the pornography
claim at screening, see 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, and granted
summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the other
two. On appeal, Kaufman contests the merits of those
decisions, argues that he should have been allowed to
amend his complaint to add another claim, and claims that
he should have been permitted to conduct additional
discovery. We affirm in part and vacate and remand in part.
I
We begin with the main event: Kaufman’s argument
that the prison officials violated his constitutional rights
when they refused to give him permission to start a study
group for atheist inmates at the prison. The events underlying
Kaufman’s lawsuit occurred while he was an inmate at
Wisconsin’s Waupun Correctional Institution. Kaufman
sued the then-warden of Waupun, Gary R. McCaughtry, in
part in his individual capacity for damages, and so he
remains a party despite the fact that Waupun now has a
different warden and Kaufman is now at a different
institution, the Jackson Correctional Institution. While at
Waupun, Kaufman submitted an official form titled “Request
for New Religious Practice,” in which he asked to
form an inmate group interested in humanism, atheism,
and free speaking. The group would work “[t]o stimulate
and promote Freedom of Thought and inquiry concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals and practices[,
and to] educate and provide information concerning
religious beliefs, creeds, dogmas, tenets, rituals, and practices.”
See Kaufman v. McCaughtry, No. 03-C-027-C, 2004
WL 257133, *4 (W.D. Wis. Feb. 9, 2004). Kaufman also
submitted a list of atheist groups and literature. The
officials concluded that Kaufman’s request was not motivated
by “religious” beliefs. Accordingly, rather than
evaluating the proposal under the state’s relatively more
flexible policy for new religious groups, see Wis. Admin.
Code § DOC 309.61, they considered it under the procedure
for forming a new inmate activity group, see Wis. Admin.
Code § DOC 309.365. Applying the latter standard, they
denied the request, stating that they were not forming new
activity groups at that time.
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 note that Kaufman relies only on the
First Amendment and at this stage of the litigation has not
tried to take advantage of the added protections of the
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.
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. See Wisconsin
v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 215-16 (1972). A religion need
not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being
4 No. 04-1914
(or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins,
367 U.S. 488, 495 & n.11 (1961); Malnak v. Yogi, 592 F.2d
197, 200-15 (3d Cir. 1979) (Adams, J., concurring);
Theriault v. Silber, 547 F.2d 1279, 1281 (5th Cir. 1977) (per
curiam), nor must it be a mainstream faith, see Thomas v.
Review Bd., 450 U.S. 707, 714 (1981); Lindell v. McCallum,
352 F.3d 1107, 1110 (7th Cir. 2003).
Without venturing too far into the realm of the
philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate
concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,” those
beliefs represent her religion. Fleischfresser v. Dirs. of Sch.
Dist. 200, 15 F.3d 680, 688 n.5 (7th Cir. 1994) (internal
citation and quotation omitted); see also Welsh v. United
States, 398 U.S. 333, 340 (1970); United States v. Seeger,
380 U.S. 163, 184-88 (1965). We have already indicated that
atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a
religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934
(7th Cir. 2003) (“If we think of religion as taking a position
on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.”).
Kaufman claims that his atheist beliefs play a central role
in his life, and the defendants do not dispute that his beliefs
are deeply and sincerely held.

Pretty interesting. Wonder what Dr. Paul would say about it?

steveksux
08-25-2011, 07:22
The concept of sin to me, is analogous to wisdom. http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=17824111&postcount=11

That explains a lot.... :rofl:

SO this entire thread is an attempt on CDs part to avoid sin... :rock::bowdown:

Mission accomplished.

Randy

steveksux
08-25-2011, 07:36
Without venturing too far into the realm of the
philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a
person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of “ultimate
concern” that for her occupy a “place parallel to that
filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,”

Hmmm... a place parallel to. Its apparently clear to the court that atheism is not a religion, but deserves equal protections from a first amendment perspective.

Parallel to, not equivalent to, not equal to. But seperate, distinct, apart from, only parallel to.

Of course, being in plain english just confuses the issue for some here, who pick and choose fragments out of context to support their position, while ignoring the obvious parts that directly contradict it.

Up next: An explanation how something contradicting one's position actually supports it in some forever to be undefined context... :rofl:
Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-25-2011, 17:03
Took a second look at the whole finding.

The problem with the district court's analysis is that the court failed to recognize that Kaufman was trying to start a "religious" group, in the sense we discussed earlier. Atheism is Kaufman's religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being. 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, ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020; 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, 91 S.Ct. 2105; 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.

OK, so can we at least agree, that legally, atheism is a religion?

steveksux
08-27-2011, 10:17
Took a second look at the whole finding.



OK, so can we at least agree, that legally, atheism is a religion?

Bicycles have legal right to use roadways and must follow all traffic laws. Why is it so hard to admit a bicycle is an automobile?

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-27-2011, 11:34
:wavey:Thanks for the bump.

Cavalry Doc
05-07-2012, 19:47
Bicycles have legal right to use roadways and must follow all traffic laws. Why is it so hard to admit a bicycle is an automobile?

Randy

Darn Steve, I'm sorry, I never got around to answering this.

A bicycle isn't an automobile, but both are motor vehicles.

Lone Wolf8634
05-07-2012, 21:10
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby"

I read that in a thread somewhere Doc, it made me think of you!:wavey:

:tongueout:

Sarge1400
05-07-2012, 21:26
Jeez, not this again. Let it fu$%#ng die already.:faint:

Guss
05-07-2012, 22:55
The zombie thread has risen again.

If atheism is a religion, can they excommunicate me?

ArtificialGrape
05-07-2012, 23:29
For the love of God, don't feed it.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 04:50
"Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby"

I read that in a thread somewhere Doc, it made me think of you!:wavey:

:tongueout:


There is a flaw to your analogy. Not collecting stamps just means you aren't a stamp collector. But if you collect beer cans, you are still a collector.

If you collect ideas about reality from the christian faith you are a Christian, if you don't that does not make you a Muslim, just not a Christian. If you collect ideas from a strong belief that there is not now and has never been a deity, that would be atheism.

Not caring at all, or not committing to any of the theories out there due to a lack of faith in any of th would be closer to agnosticism than atheism.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 04:51
The zombie thread has risen again.

If atheism is a religion, can they excommunicate me?

Only if you belong to an organized atheist sect, which exist. Most would have rules, written or not about acceptible behavior. An organized hierarchy is not a requirement for a religion, but many do have them.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 04:54
For the love of God, don't feed it.

It wasn't my intention to restart this discussion. I came here to get a link to respond to another poster in another thread, and noticed I had left a question unanswered.


Just don't read or respond to the thread, and it will drop off the front page of RI shortly.

But it should not bother you do much that people have different opinions. Really, it's ok.

Take care!

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 04:59
Jeez, not this again. Let it fu$%#ng die already.:faint:

All you have to do, is exercise a tiny amount of personal control, and don't open the thread.

Pretty fu$%#ng easy huh??

Woofie
05-08-2012, 08:09
There is a flaw to your analogy. Not collecting stamps just means you aren't a stamp collector. But if you collect beer cans, you are still a collector.

If you collect ideas about reality from the christian faith you are a Christian, if you don't that does not make you a Muslim, just not a Christian. If you collect ideas from a strong belief that there is not now and has never been a deity, that would be atheism.

Not caring at all, or not committing to any of the theories out there due to a lack of faith in any of th would be closer to agnosticism than atheism.

Only if you belong to an organized atheist sect, which exist. Most would have rules, written or not about acceptible behavior. An organized hierarchy is not a requirement for a religion, but many do have them.

It wasn't my intention to restart this discussion. I came here to get a link to respond to another poster in another thread, and noticed I had left a question unanswered.


Just don't read or respond to the thread, and it will drop off the front page of RI shortly.

But it should not bother you do much that people have different opinions. Really, it's ok.

Take care!

All you have to do, is exercise a tiny amount of personal control, and don't open the thread.

Pretty fu$%#ng easy huh??

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vCZlHTftV2I/ScgTJvPg58I/AAAAAAAAAtk/Ee9rAlTlvaY/s400/Oh+The+Huge+Manatee.jpg

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 09:58
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_vCZlHTftV2I/ScgTJvPg58I/AAAAAAAAAtk/Ee9rAlTlvaY/s400/Oh+The+Huge+Manatee.jpg

Didn't now those things were flammable. Someone should probably let the boaters in Florida know that.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 10:43
What are the people that keep insisting that atheism is a religion trying to prove? Are they trying to bring us down to their level or bring themselves up to ours?

Is the case that religion is something that people can't escape no matter what they believe? To ever have even thought about it and formed an opinion one way or another is religion? If atheism isn't non-religion then what is?

This argument is so silly I can't believe it's gone on for so many pages. It's like saying that people who don't care about football are still football fans because they're fans of not caring about football. It's almost as if someone were so wrapped up in football that they can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't care at all about it at all.

Roering
05-08-2012, 10:54
What are the people that keep insisting that atheism is a religion trying to prove? Are they trying to bring us down to their level or bring themselves up to ours?

Is the case that religion is something that people can't escape no matter what they believe? To ever have even thought about it and formed an opinion one way or another is religion? If atheism isn't non-religion then what is?

This argument is so silly I can't believe it's gone on for so many pages. It's like saying that people who don't care about football are still football fans because they're fans of not caring about football. It's almost as if someone were so wrapped up in football that they can't fathom the idea that someone wouldn't care at all about it at all.

Not sure. If we go with wiki's definition of religion--

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I don't see how spirituality comes into play for an atheist.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 11:32
Not sure. If we go with wiki's definition of religion--

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I don't see how spirituality comes into play for an atheist.

It doesn't come into play for a atheist because atheism is not a religion.

Geko45
05-08-2012, 12:26
If I used the term areligious instead of atheistic, would that make things clearer?

Woofie
05-08-2012, 13:04
It really depends on what kind of atheist you are.

If you're a member of the United Atheist League then it is not a religion.

The League of United Atheists, however, are a bunch of religious wackos.

English
05-08-2012, 13:41
I've been having a discussion with a fellow about his religion. He is an atheist, or at least he claims to be.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16262611&posted=1#post16262611

He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

So, when it is pointed out that he has "Faith" that he is right, and that his view of the universe is right. As devout as any other religious fellow that I've run across.


Just to make sure I am being clear about my own beliefs, I am unsure, I'm an agnostic. I see evidence in nature and in man that both makes me believe that there may be a God, and there may not be one, or at least it may be difficult to know which one is the right one.

I have had this discussion with you before and it made no progress then.

In essence, a lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in some other thing simply because the same word is used for both.

All religions, in which I include socialism and communism, have many points in common. They demand that their followers believe certain fundamentals common to that particular faith. They demand that belief is maintained regardless of doubts, evidence or high probability that the faith is mistaken in its beliefs. That is, they are all irrational and demand that faith over rides rationality. They all have hierarchies of power and knowledge of the faith and if followers disagree with the hierarchy's interpretation of the faith they have no recourse but to leave and create a schismatic faith. That is, all religions are prone to schism but some assasinate those who try to leave.

If you don't like this characterisation of faith and religion please find one where those main characteristics are not true.

In comparrison atheism has no set of beliefs imposed by a hierarchy and does not even have a hierarchy. It does not have schisms since there is nothing to disagree about. It exists because atheists value rationality and evidence above unsuported and unsuportable belief. This value is made greater because there are inumerable irrational beliefs.

So then we come to the crux of the issue. Atheists believe that it is better to act rationally than to act rationally and atheists believe that the concept of a God existing is so improbable that the only sensible course of life is to act as though there is no God. Those beliefs are not comparable to the multitude of ideas that must be believed without evidence to be a member of any religion. Except when it is in conflict with their religious belief, religious people, just like atheist, believe that it is better to act rationally on evidence and probability. Many religious people believe that the world will be brought to an end and that believers will be taken up into the arms of God and unbelievers will be cast into everlasting torment but only a very small few act as though it is really going to happen in much the same way that atheists believe that the existence of God, of whatever kind, is extremely unlikley in any realistic framework.

If nothing else, the widespread concept within many religions of the End of Times should convince us that the idea of a God is ludicrous. What kind of god would it be who offered no kind of evidence for his existence to condemn those who did not believe in him to everlasting torment? The answer is quite simple. It is an individual mentally akin to a deranged and vicious child of maybe six or seven.

There is solid evidence for the way in which religions split or throw off related but independent groups, all of which believe they have the only right answer. There is solid evidence for the way in which core beliefs within such groups change over the centuries. When, in comparrison, there is no evidence for the existence of a god why is it not clear that the nature of religion is an inner need of many people which is satisfied by fairy stories and whose true nature is demonstrated over thousands of years of history by its leaders' struggles for power and the domination of the minds of others?

For religions it is not enough to make followers do what the leaders want - there is the deep need to make them believe what the leaders want them to believe. Religion is an order of magnitude worse than simple dictatorship! How could atheism possibly be compared to that?

English

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 13:48
Not sure. If we go with wiki's definition of religion--

"Religion is a collection of cultural systems, belief systems, and worldviews that relate humanity to spirituality and, sometimes, to moral values."

I don't see how spirituality comes into play for an atheist.

Wiki? Well ok. Atheists have an opinion that relate humanity to spirituality, mainly that there is no relationship.

Calling atheism a religion is not an insult, it's just an observation. Both theists and atheists have chosen to believe a particular way on whether a deity or deities have ever existed. There is no absolute proof one way or the other. From an agnostic point of view, it's interesting to see the two sides argue that only they can be correct, when neither side has any solid proof. It's an exercise that shows they have faith that they are right, and so it simply must be.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 13:52
I have had this discussion with you before and it made no progress then.

In essence, a lack of belief in something is not equivalent to a belief in some other thing simply because the same word is used for both.

All religions, in which I include socialism and communism, have many points in common. They demand that their followers believe certain fundamentals common to that particular faith. They demand that belief is maintained regardless of doubts, evidence or high probability that the faith is mistaken in its beliefs. That is, they are all irrational and demand that faith over rides rationality. They all have hierarchies of power and knowledge of the faith and if followers disagree with the hierarchy's interpretation of the faith they have no recourse but to leave and create a schismatic faith. That is, all religions are prone to schism but some assasinate those who try to leave.

If you don't like this characterisation of faith and religion please find one where those main characteristics are not true.

In comparrison atheism has no set of beliefs imposed by a hierarchy and does not even have a hierarchy. It does not have schisms since there is nothing to disagree about. It exists because atheists value rationality and evidence above unsuported and unsuportable belief. This value is made greater because there are inumerable irrational beliefs.

So then we come to the crux of the issue. Atheists believe that it is better to act rationally than to act rationally and atheists believe that the concept of a God existing is so improbable that the only sensible course of life is to act as though there is no God. Those beliefs are not comparable to the multitude of ideas that must be believed without evidence to be a member of any religion. Except when it is in conflict with their religious belief, religious people, just like atheist, believe that it is better to act rationally on evidence and probability. Many religious people believe that the world will be brought to an end and that believers will be taken up into the arms of God and unbelievers will be cast into everlasting torment but only a very small few act as though it is really going to happen in much the same way that atheists believe that the existence of God, of whatever kind, is extremely unlikley in any realistic framework.

If nothing else, the widespread concept within many religions of the End of Times should convince us that the idea of a God is ludicrous. What kind of god would it be who offered no kind of evidence for his existence to condemn those who did not believe in him to everlasting torment? The answer is quite simple. It is an individual mentally akin to a deranged and vicious child of maybe six or seven.

There is solid evidence for the way in which religions split or throw off related but independent groups, all of which believe they have the only right answer. There is solid evidence for the way in which core beliefs within such groups change over the centuries. When, in comparrison, there is no evidence for the existence of a god why is it not clear that the nature of religion is an inner need of many people which is satisfied by fairy stories and whose true nature is demonstrated over thousands of years of history by its leaders' struggles for power and the domination of the minds of others?

For religions it is not enough to make followers do what the leaders want - there is the deep need to make them believe what the leaders want them to believe. Religion is an order of magnitude worse than simple dictatorship! How could atheism possibly be compared to that?

English

Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities. Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists. Other than atheism, other religions do not have structured earthly rulers.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 13:54
If I used the term areligious instead of atheistic, would that make things clearer?

It depends, if you were trying to describe agnosticism, it makes sense. That is the most a religious philosophy I can think of.

Woofie
05-08-2012, 14:51
Agnosticism is a lack of belief. Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities. Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists. Other than atheism, other religions do not have structured earthly rulers.

That's not what atheism is, though. Atheism does not imply an active belief that a god does not exist. It is only the lack of belief. Big difference there.

Would you call someone who doesn't believe that Jedis are real an Ajedi? Or someone who doesn't believe that aliens exist an Aextraterrestrial? Of course not. But that's essentially what you're doing with atheism.

Now, are there people who are anti theist? Absolutely. There are many examples of atheists who will claim with such fervor that no gods exist, did exist, or can exist, that it is like a religious experience for them. However you can't assume that hating religion and lacking religion are synonymous, because they aren't.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 15:05
That's not what atheism is, though. Atheism does not imply an active belief that a god does not exist. It is only the lack of belief. Big difference there.

Would you call someone who doesn't believe that Jedis are real an Ajedi? Or someone who doesn't believe that aliens exist an Aextraterrestrial? Of course not. But that's essentially what you're doing with atheism.

Now, are there people who are anti theist? Absolutely. There are many examples of atheists who will claim with such fervor that no gods exist, did exist, or can exist, that it is like a religious experience for them. However you can't assume that hating religion and lacking religion are synonymous, because they aren't.

Hey, it's just my opinion. I've thought about it a lot, and at least according to the actual definitions of the words, it fits. It's fine if people disagree. There are a couple hundred dissenting opinions in this thread alone.

I simply don't know how the universe came to be in its present form. I'm cool with that. I have seen a lot of belittling of theists here by atheists, and it struck me that atheists have also made assumptions about creation. And many are devoutly religious about it.


I still think that the correct usage of atheism is more than a lack of belief. It is a belief. Otherwise, how would you differentiate that from agnosticism.

Main Entry: athe·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French athéisme, from athée atheist, from Greek atheos godless, from a- + theos god
Date: 1546
1 archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

Main Entry: dis·be·lief
Pronunciation: \ˌdis-bə-ˈlēf\
Function: noun
Date: 1672
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue



I think a lot of people have used the label of atheism to describe agnosticism, which is a true lack of beleif.

Sarge1400
05-08-2012, 15:14
Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

Wrong. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge, not belief.
Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities.

Wrong. Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion that deities exist. Nothing more.

Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists.

Do you understand it is possible to be both? I am an agnostic atheist, or vice versa if you prefer. I reject the assertion that deities exist, but I don't claim to know that they don't exist.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun everybody.

Geko45
05-08-2012, 15:18
CavalryDoc's argument aside, atheism still is not a "religion", because it doesn't offer in core tenets. If I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, no body would say that my religion consists of not believing in unicorns and leprechauns.

Atheism means "not theistic" nothing more. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not an atheistic tenet. Evolution is a scientific theory, not an atheistic tenet. Atheist don't attend atheistic services. There is no clergy or canonical book of atheism, etc, etc.

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 16:06
Hey, it's just my opinion.

Then shouldn't the title of this thread be, "Why is it so hard to accept my opinion?"

After 72 pages of hashing it out it hasn't gotten any easier.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 16:33
Wrong. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge, not belief.


Wrong. Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion that deities exist. Nothing more.



Do you understand it is possible to be both? I am an agnostic atheist, or vice versa if you prefer. I reject the assertion that deities exist, but I don't claim to know that they don't exist.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun everybody.

Sounds like you are an atheistic agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 16:38
CavalryDoc's argument aside, atheism still is not a "religion", because it doesn't offer in core tenents. If I don't believe in unicorns or leprechauns, no body would say that my religion consists of not believing in unicorns and leprechauns.

Atheism means "not theistic" nothing more. The Big Bang is a scientific theory, not an atheistic tenent. Evolution is a scientific theory, not an athietic tenent. Athiest don't attend atheistic services. There is no clergy or canonical book of atheism, etc, etc.

There are several different forms or sects, but the basic tenet is that there are, and have been no such thing as deities.

The unicorn and leprechauns are a red herring, as they have nothing to do with a basic understanding of how the universe came to be and the nature of that universe.

The big bang could have occurred with or without a deity.
Atheists do attend meetings, at least some of them anyway.
Clergy is not required for the definition of religion.


athe·ist
noun \'a-the-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 \'a-the-?i-z?m\
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 \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
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 \'är-d?r\
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-'li-j?n\
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. Other such words exist, known as autoantonyms.

Woofie
05-08-2012, 16:56
Wrong. Agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Gnosis = knowledge, not belief.


Wrong. Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion that deities exist. Nothing more.



Do you understand it is possible to be both? I am an agnostic atheist, or vice versa if you prefer. I reject the assertion that deities exist, but I don't claim to know that they don't exist.

I'm done with this thread. Have fun everybody.

No one is ever done with this thread.

ksg0245
05-08-2012, 17:25
Wiki? Well ok. Atheists have an opinion that relate humanity to spirituality, mainly that there is no relationship.

No, atheists have an opinion regarding the claims of the existence of deity.

Calling atheism a religion is not an insult, it's just an observation.

No, it's an attempt to redefine religion into meaninglessness.

Both theists and atheists have chosen to believe a particular way on whether a deity or deities have ever existed.

Do people chose to believe in gravity?

There is no absolute proof one way or the other.

Then why accept the assertion "deities exist"?

From an agnostic point of view, it's interesting to see the two sides argue that only they can be correct, when neither side has any solid proof.

Which atheist is arguing only he or she can be correct?

It's an exercise that shows they have faith that they are right, and so it simply must be.

Which atheist makes that argument?

ksg0245
05-08-2012, 17:54
There are several different forms or sects, but the basic tenet is that there are, and have been no such thing as deities.

The unicorn and leprechauns are a red herring, as they have nothing to do with a basic understanding of how the universe came to be and the nature of that universe.

Nor does atheism. The problem arises because of theist claims.

The big bang could have occurred with or without a deity.

Speaking of red herrings, is deity part of the Big Bang Theory?


Atheists do attend meetings, at least some of them anyway.

So do some followers of sporting events, yet you reject that analogy.

Clergy is not required for the definition of religion.

athe·ist
noun \'a-the-ist\
Definition of ATHEIST
: one who believes that there is no deity

That isn't the sole definition of the term, nor is it the definition atheists apply to themselves, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Quite clearly, an atheist, by definition believes that there is no deity.

You're still trying to tell atheists what they believe?

This is stronger than a mere lack of belief, but is an active belief.

How many atheists have disagreed with you about this? Are they all wrong about their beliefs?

None of us know if there is a deity or deities, or if any ever existed. That's where the faith comes in.

What faith is required to say, "I don't accept your assertion of deity"?

It's a belief based on faith, because there is no proof either way.

Does it take faith to reject the assertion there's a teapot orbiting Mars?

athe·ism
noun \'a-the-?i-z?m\
Definition of ATHEISM
1archaic : ungodliness, wickedness
2a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

It's good you've emphasized the parts you prefer; that makes the rest go away.

Disbelief was touted as being a passive thing, but Disbelief is defined as the ACT of disbelieving.

You're being disingenuous again; it's also defined as "mental rejection of something as untrue."

Also, see doctrine below.

dis·be·lief
noun \?dis-b?-'lef\
Definition of DISBELIEF
: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Looky here:

Definition of DISBELIEVE
transitive verb: to hold not worthy of belief : not believe
intransitive verb: to withhold or reject belief (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieve)

doc·trine
noun \'däk-tr?n\
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


Is withholding or rejecting belief "a system of belief"?

ar·dor
noun \'är-d?r\
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.

Which explains all the requests for evidence; commitment to disbelief.

re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
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

Is withholding or rejecting belief "a system of belief"?

It all fits.

Only through tortuous, twisting force.

It is a correct and true statement: Atheism is a religion.

Only to people who need it to be.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. Other such words exist, known as autoantonyms.

Many things are also their opposite. Right?

ksg0245
05-08-2012, 17:56
Agnosticism is a lack of belief.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, no, it isn't.

Atheism requires one to believe that there are and have not been deities.

As has been repeatedly pointed out, no, it doesn't.

Many agnostics have mistakenly labeled themselves as atheists.

Agnostics mistakenly don't believe something about which they don't have knowledge?

Other than atheism, other religions do not have structured earthly rulers.

Atheism has structured earthly rulers?

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 18:25
Ks, we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with your state of denial.


Tsalrite. :wavey:


To all, it's ok. No need to crack the 1800 post count, all that can be said on this subject has been said repetedly.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, I wish you all well.

Lone Wolf8634
05-08-2012, 18:28
Ks, we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with your state of denial.


Tsalrite. :wavey:

And we're ok with your (wrong) opinion.:tongueout:

ArtificialGrape
05-08-2012, 18:40
And we're ok with your (wrong) opinion.:tongueout:
Calvary Doc is having a hard time accepting the fact that he's an atheist. He just needs time to work through it.

Tsotay.

-ArtificialGrape

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 18:43
And we're ok with your (wrong) opinion.:tongueout:

Your problem is with Merriam-Webster and the American English language, not me. I just pointed out the obvious. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable about it

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 18:49
Calvary Doc is having a hard time accepting the fact that he's an atheist. He just needs time to work through it.

Tsotay.

-ArtificialGrape

Not really. It's all explained in the previous posts.



For a subject you all dislike so much, you sure are giving it a lot of bumps. I know the realization is irritating, but I'm pretty comfortable with myself and my position. Maybe some day you will be comfortable too.

RC-RAMIE
05-08-2012, 18:58
I think Ill take an atheist word on what they believe it is clear you have no idea how a atheist believes.


....

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 20:14
I think Ill take an atheist word on what they believe it is clear you have no idea how a atheist believes.


....

Oh, I believe each one of them when they say what they personally believe. I just point out that if they are not actively believing that a deity or deities never existed, they are using the wrong label. It's just an accurate word usage issue. Not meant to be offensive.

Oh well. It is what it is. No big.

G23Gen4TX
05-08-2012, 20:20
I think Ill take an atheist word on what they believe it is clear you have no idea how a atheist believes.


....

Atheists don't believe. We think.

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 20:31
Atheists don't believe. We think.

http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/atheism1-1.jpg

Your statement is unbelievable. Of course you believe. Otherwise you would have no opinions at all. And of course you think. But do you think you are always right? Are you sure you are right about there not being a deity? Is it as possible that a deity or deities exist or did exist, as it is as possible that they didn't?

Do you have any proof one way or the other? Without convincing proof, agnostics acknowledge that they personally don't have the answer, and reserve judgement until such evidence is presented. At least according to the American English word usage, Atheists make a choice on what to believe.

Really, it's only an observation. I'm sure you have made observations about the inconsistencies in other people's religious belief systems, and it's no different here. It's just an inconvenient truth.

steveksux
05-08-2012, 20:32
That's not what atheism is, though. Atheism does not imply an active belief that a god does not exist. It is only the lack of belief. Big difference there.

Would you call someone who doesn't believe that Jedis are real an Ajedi? Or someone who doesn't believe that aliens exist an Aextraterrestrial? Of course not. But that's essentially what you're doing with atheism.The prooblem is you're arguing with someone being intentionally dishonest.
A bicycle isn't an automobile, but both are motor vehicles.Obviously the lack of a motor makes a bicycle a motor vehicle... :upeyes: What other kind of dishonest argument would one expect from someone arguing lack of religious belief makes atheism a religion.

The same sort of dishonest fellow that would take Merriam Webster out of context. And quote it without attribution. Of course, can't include the attribution or someone might actually go there, and that would expose the charade of his argument.

T
re·li·gion
noun \ri-'li-j?n\
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
The same dishonest sort of fellow won't include the examples of religion from that very definition because it puts the lie to his blatant misrepresentations. This is why he can't post the attribution, people might find out how bankrupt and dishonest his argument is. Here is the link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) he's unwilling to provide, and the examples he's so desperate to hide:
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.

These are the examples from the same definition of religion. These are ALL religions based on the definition of religion he's relying on to classify atheism as a religion. Football. Hockey. Politics. Even FOOD. Notably absent from those examples, of course, is athesim.

Lies of omission. Not unexpected to anyone who has been following this thread. The purpose is not to discuss, it is simply an attempt to troll. For some reason he thinks its irritating to atheists to be compared to religion. The fact is atheists are simply annoyed by stupid dishonest arguments and trolls whether they are about religion, atheism, or any other topic. Much like anyone would be annoyed when attempting to have an honest debate that is spoiled by a troll.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 20:52
The prooblem is you're arguing with someone being intentionally dishonest. Obviously the lack of a motor makes a bicycle a motor vehicle... :upeyes: What other kind of dishonest argument would one expect from someone arguing lack of religious belief makes atheism a religion.

The same sort of dishonest fellow that would take Merriam Webster out of context. And quote it without attribution. Of course, can't include the attribution or someone might actually go there, and that would expose the charade of his argument.

The same dishonest sort of fellow won't include the examples of religion from that very definition because it puts the lie to his blatant misrepresentations. This is why he can't post the attribution, people might find out how bankrupt and dishonest his argument is. Here is the link (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion) he's unwilling to provide, and the examples he's so desperate to hide:


These are the examples from the same definition of religion. These are ALL religions based on the definition of religion he's relying on to classify atheism as a religion. Football. Hockey. Politics. Even FOOD. Notably absent from those examples, of course, is athesim.

Lies of omission. Not unexpected to anyone who has been following this thread. The purpose is not to discuss, it is simply an attempt to troll. For some reason he thinks its irritating to atheists to be compared to religion. The fact is atheists are simply annoyed by stupid dishonest arguments and trolls whether they are about religion, atheism, or any other topic. Much like anyone would be annoyed when attempting to have an honest debate that is spoiled by a troll.

Randy

Dear Mr. Sux,

I have linked to the definitions dozens of times in this thread. You can simply google "merriam webster ________"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelief
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faith
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ardor
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

If you want to discard your integrity on the same dung heap you tossed your manners onto by calling someone that disagrees with you a liar falsely, that is your prerogative, but please don't expect me to respect you for it.

My arguments have been supported. You're probably just ranting because it is a valid way to look at atheism, and for some reason, that really irritates you. I don't know if you view atheism as a way to rale against other belief systems or not, but you have no more proof that you are right, than a Buddhist. Most Bhuddists are respectful of other belief systems though. Guess that makes them a lot different from you.

What I have proposed is logical. Your response is emotional.

Sorry, but that's the God's honest truth [phrase used for fun]:tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
05-08-2012, 20:58
An additional point, while I personally don't agree that things like food or hockey meet the true meaning of the word religion, as they are not a fundamental belief explaining the nature of the universe, if you want to argue that food and hockey are religions, and that the test for being a religion is so easy to meet, then how the heck would you argue that atheism is not a religion?

juggy4711
05-08-2012, 21:04
It really depends on what kind of atheist you are.

If you're a member of the United Atheist League then it is not a religion.

The League of United Atheists, however, are a bunch of religious wackos.

:rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE

Your problem is with Merriam-Webster and the American English language, not me. I just pointed out the obvious. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable about it

And there is your problem. Not all dictionaries are created equal.

You like Merriam Webster so from MW - Agnostic - noun

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>

So which is it? Do you believe you don't know or unwilling to commit to an opinion?

The debate is down right childish. Neither agnosticism nor atheism is a religion. They have no tenets or concepts one must subscribe to aside from the very basic definitions of the words.

By your standards all beliefs held to with zeal and ardor are religious beliefs regardless of the subject matter. Such a definition of religion is nothing more than new speak.

The real question is what do you have to gain from atheism being termed a religion?

Geko45
05-08-2012, 21:08
if you want to argue that food and hockey are religions, and that the test for being a religion is so easy to meet, then how the heck would you argue that atheism is not a religion?

No, the argument is that the definition of religion that you are proposing is so broad as to be completely meaningless, but I'm sure you already knew that.

G23Gen4TX
05-08-2012, 21:09
http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p158/CavalryDoc/atheism1-1.jpg

Your statement is unbelievable. Of course you believe. Otherwise you would have no opinions at all. And of course you think. But do you think you are always right? Are you sure you are right about there not being a deity? Is it as possible that a deity or deities exist or did exist, as it is as possible that they didn't?

Do you have any proof one way or the other? Without convincing proof, agnostics acknowledge that they personally don't have the answer, and reserve judgement until such evidence is presented. At least according to the American English word usage, Atheists make a choice on what to believe.

Really, it's only an observation. I'm sure you have made observations about the inconsistencies in other people's religious belief systems, and it's no different here. It's just an inconvenient truth.

I absolutely know there is no deity. I don't need to proof that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

Prove there is no flying spaghetti monster. Prove there is no Zeus. Prove there is no Shiva. When you can do that I'll prove there is no god.

Religion is the way they control you and take your money. That is all.

steveksux
05-08-2012, 21:10
Dear Mr. Sux,

I have linked to the definitions dozens of times in this thread. You can simply google "merriam webster ________"Only until I pointed out the absurdity of your logic when the examples you conveniently omitted are included.

If you want to discard your integrity on the same dung heap you tossed your manners onto by calling someone that disagrees with you a liar falsely, that is your prerogative, but please don't expect me to respect you for it. Disagreeing and being dishonest are not mutually exclusive. You have abundantly demonstrated both.

My arguments have been supported. Really? You have no more of an inkling of what "supported" means as you do concerning what "religion" means then.

Feel free to admit Hockey is as much a religion as any other based on your favorite definition.
You're probably just ranting because it is a valid way to look at atheism, and for some reason, that really irritates you.Trolls irritate me. Thanks for that. I don't know if you view atheism as a way to rale against other belief systems or not, but you have no more proof that you are right, than a Buddhist. Most Bhuddists are respectful of other belief systems though. Guess that makes them a lot different from you.Religions deserve respect. Liars and trolls do not.

What I have proposed is logical. Your response is emotional. Only if you define lack of logic as logical, like you define lack of a motor making a bicycle a motor vehicle.

Sorry, but that's the God's honest truth [phrase used for fun]:tongueout:That's truly funny coming from someone trying so hard to be deceitful... But honestly, you really shouldn't demean religions by comparing them to hockey, Praised Be Thy Game.

Randy

Gunhaver
05-08-2012, 21:47
An additional point, while I personally don't agree that things like food or hockey meet the true meaning of the word religion, as they are not a fundamental belief explaining the nature of the universe, if you want to argue that food and hockey are religions, and that the test for being a religion is so easy to meet, then how the heck would you argue that atheism is not a religion?

Atheism is not a fundamental belief explaining the nature of the universe either so I guess you just made the case that atheism isn't a religion. If you put forth a supernatural explanation for the nature of the universe and I say, "I don't believe that because it's silly and there's no evidence to support that claim." that is not my counter explanation for the nature of the universe and therefor my religion. It's simply a disagreement with the statement you made.

Webster or no Webster, why's that so hard to understand?

Tommy Hanrahan
05-08-2012, 22:12
Oh, I believe each one of them when they say what they personally believe. I just point out that if they are not actively believing that a deity or deities exist they are using the wrong label. It's just an accurate word usage issue. Not meant to be offensive.

Oh well. It is what it is. No big.

There it can work for "believers" too.
And
I believe that you believe I believe what I do not believe.
Honestly, has your "logic" ever swayed an athiest from their non-belief? Based on the way you present it, I'd wager you strengthen their resolve.

Syclone538
05-08-2012, 22:14
Oh, I believe each one of them when they say what they personally believe. I just point out that if they are not actively believing that a deity or deities never existed, they are using the wrong label. It's just an accurate word usage issue. Not meant to be offensive.

Oh well. It is what it is. No big.

And we are pointing out to you that you are wrong, so it's never ending.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=5060618766385562&id=dab8ead9ac76135d2393f8e285df0534

Syclone538
05-08-2012, 22:21
An additional point, while I personally don't agree that things like food or hockey meet the true meaning of the word religion, as they are not a fundamental belief explaining the nature of the universe, if you want to argue that food and hockey are religions, and that the test for being a religion is so easy to meet, then how the heck would you argue that atheism is not a religion?

And why is it you think atheism is a religion?

9jeeps
05-08-2012, 22:49
Never ever argue with an Atheist. It annoys them and waste your time. Proof. 73 pages of debate and has one been converted to a believer???? No?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:23
No, the argument is that the definition of religion that you are proposing is so broad as to be completely meaningless, but I'm sure you already knew that.

And the attacks continue. A system of belief that seeks to explain the nature of the origins of the universe is a profound thing. It's a foundation that many other beliefs are based upon.

That's the difference. That's all been explained before too.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:24
And we are pointing out to you that you are wrong, so it's never ending.

http://ts3.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=5060618766385562&id=dab8ead9ac76135d2393f8e285df0534

I'm right. And I'm ok with you believing otherwise.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:27
:rofl:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb_qHP7VaZE



And there is your problem. Not all dictionaries are created equal.

You like Merriam Webster so from MW - Agnostic - noun

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>

So which is it? Do you believe you don't know or unwilling to commit to an opinion?

The debate is down right childish. Neither agnosticism nor atheism is a religion. They have no tenets or concepts one must subscribe to aside from the very basic definitions of the words.

By your standards all beliefs held to with zeal and ardor are religious beliefs regardless of the subject matter. Such a definition of religion is nothing more than new speak.

The real question is what do you have to gain from atheism being termed a religion?

You forgot faith. Believing something without actual proof. The fact that it seeks to explain how the current reality came to be is what makes it fit in spirit as well as definition.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:37
Never ever argue with an Atheist. It annoys them and waste your time. Proof. 73 pages of debate and has one been converted to a believer???? No?

Actually, yes. Several were willing to admit that true atheism could legitimately be called a religious belief. But you are correct in that we aren't likely to solve anything more by continuing.

I will honestly, and with malice toward none, understand that the belief that there is no deity is religious in nature, and that atheism is a religion.

Atheists and agnostics that label themselves as atheists will continue to attack me with the same fervor of a Christian going after a blasphemer.

And not much will come of it. I have my opinion, debating about it has solidified that position. A lot of you are irritated that I have that opinion, and truly believe atheism to be a religion. Many of you probably agree, but REALLY dont like it being said. But at some point, we should all probably find a way to get over it and move on.

Calling names and making accusations like Mr sux has earlier accomplishes little other than to satisfy a childish urge to strike out. The fact that he had to lie in order to call me dishonest is an interesting twist.

Any chance we can agree to disagree, or will I likely come back later to see a bunch of other personal attacks?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:41
And why is it you think atheism is a religion?

Ha, that's a long story. Read the thread.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:42
Atheism is not a fundamental belief explaining the nature of the universe either so I guess you just made the case that atheism isn't a religion. If you put forth a supernatural explanation for the nature of the universe and I say, "I don't believe that because it's silly and there's no evidence to support that claim." that is not my counter explanation for the nature of the universe and therefor my religion. It's simply a disagreement with the statement you made.

Webster or no Webster, why's that so hard to understand?

Ok, answer this for me, as an atheist, would you say the universe was made, or occurred naturally?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:45
There it can work for "believers" too.
And
I believe that you believe I believe what I do not believe.
Honestly, has your "logic" ever swayed an athiest from their non-belief? Based on the way you present it, I'd wager you strengthen their resolve.

You'd have to go back to fund them, but a few have admitted that atheism, the belief that there is no deity, is a religious belief. I'm unsure of the number, more than 5, less than 20 would be a good guess.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 04:49
I absolutely know there is no deity. I don't need to proof that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

Prove there is no flying spaghetti monster. Prove there is no Zeus. Prove there is no Shiva. When you can do that I'll prove there is no god.

Religion is the way they control you and take your money. That is all.

And that is where the faith comes in.

I have no proof any of those things don't exist.

I don't have to choose to believe in those things, or to believe they don't exist with absolute surety. I can get through the day without knowing. But you have faith, that there is no deity. See the active belief in your statement yet?

No argument that religions have been used to exert control over others, and many religions seek to wipe out the symbols and practices of other religions. That's been playing out in the Atheism vs Christianity fights in the courts for years. They compete for believers.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 05:00
....

Steve, enhance your calm.

If you don't like the discussion, don't read it. Excercise some personal control and quit acting like a jack booted thug blasphemer police for your religion. You always claim to be "pro freedom" on the PI forum, and yet here you are, unable to tolerate a different idea. You are acting like a totalitarian statist that just happens to be out of power. Don't flush your claimed ideals over someone else having a different idea. Kay?

One more chance, If you can't be a polite adult about this, I'll place you back on the ignore list. Forever this time.


Oh yeah, the bike thing. The human body is a machine. And most in most states, the laws on how to ride a bicycle consider it a motor vehicle, or require bike riders to follow the same rules as motor vehicles. or at least that's what my high school drivers ed teacher taught us. That's why you can get a ticket on a bike for running a red light.

Try the decaf this morning. It might help.

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 06:57
And the attacks continue. A system of belief that seeks to explain the nature of the origins of the universe is a profound thing. It's a foundation that many other beliefs are based upon.

That's the difference. That's all been explained before too.

We do not seek to explain the nature of the origins of the universe that is what science is for.

"You don't have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is "I don't know."
p. xiii

You say I don't know, maybe you are a atheist who mislabeled himself agnostic.


....

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 06:59
Ok, answer this for me, as an atheist, would you say the universe was made, or occurred naturally?

As a atheist I would say I don't know as a person interested in science I would say occurred naturally. Atheism does not attempt to answer that question.


....

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 07:07
We do not seek to explain the nature of the origins of the universe that is what science is for.

You don't have to be brave or a saint, a martyr, or even very smart to be an atheist. All you have to be able to say is "I don't know."
p. xiii

You say I don't know maybe you are a atheist who mislabeled himself agnostic.


....

Whether or not a deity exists or existed is one of those questions that must decided pretty early on in the discussion of how all this came to be in its current form.

The way I see it, I lack faith one way or the other. Maybe this was made, maybe it just happened. It doesn't matter too much, because regardless of how it began, here we are.

I see myself as an agnostic. I also see "atheists" that have not really come to the conclusion that no deity has ever existed as agnostics too. No problem if you see it differently, and your reasons for believing it is different than I believe follow a logical course to that conclusion that is acceptible to you.

In the long run, how you apply the labels doesn't steal from my wallet or break my leg.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 07:10
As a atheist I would say I don't know as a person interested in science I would say occurred naturally. Atheism does not attempt to answer that question.


....

Has science proven that no inteligence was involved in creation?

It hasn't proven that there was either.

Without convincing evidence one way or the other, I consider both possibilities possible.

Looks like we will just have to disagree. I'm ok with you having your position, are you comfortable with me having mine?

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 07:15
Has science proven that no inteligence was involved in creation?

It hasn't proven that there was either.

Without convincing evidence one way or the other, I consider both possibilities possible.

Looks like we will just have to disagree. I'm ok with you having your position, are you comfortable with me having mine?

Atheism does not make a claim about creation it is just a rejection of unsupported (gods) claims. All that other crap you add in there is not there.


....

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 07:24
Atheism does not make a claim about creation it is just a rejection of unsupported (gods) claims. All that other crap you add in there is not there.


....

You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm cool with that, are you?


After this long, anyone not yet convinced is probably pretty entrenched in their views on the subject, and acheiving consensus is probably not going to happen. No reason to be upset about it.

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 08:27
You have your opinion, and I have mine. I'm cool with that, are you?


After this long, anyone not yet convinced is probably pretty entrenched in their views on the subject, and acheiving consensus is probably not going to happen. No reason to be upset about it.

its not a opinion atheism does not say anything about how we got here.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 08:47
its not a opinion atheism does not say anything about how we got here.

Well, doesn't it say that no higher power was involved?

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 09:27
Well, doesn't it say that no higher power was involved?

No it says I see no evidence at this time to consider a higher power was involved.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 09:33
No it says I see no evidence at this time to consider a higher power was involved.

So, does a higher power exist or not? Or do you not have a position on that fundamental question?

And let's not forget, for the vast majority of us, what science says about creation, was told to us by others. Who really knows if their evidence actually points to a conclusion on that issue?

Syclone538
05-09-2012, 09:59
I absolutely know there is no deity. I don't need to proof that something that doesn't exist, doesn't exist.

Prove there is no flying spaghetti monster. Prove there is no Zeus. Prove there is no Shiva. When you can do that I'll prove there is no god.

Religion is the way they control you and take your money. That is all.

And that is where the faith comes in.

I have no proof any of those things don't exist.

I don't have to choose to believe in those things, or to believe they don't exist with absolute surety. I can get through the day without knowing. But you have faith, that there is no deity. See the active belief in your statement yet?

No argument that religions have been used to exert control over others, and many religions seek to wipe out the symbols and practices of other religions. That's been playing out in the Atheism vs Christianity fights in the courts for years. They compete for believers.

Ok, in your world where atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 10:38
Ok, in your world where atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM?

The FSM has a well documented origin. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

How do I feel about it, I respect the beliefs of anyone that chooses to believe a flying spaghetti monster created the universe. Know anyone like that?

Syclone538
05-09-2012, 11:22
Ok, in your world where atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 12:06
Ok, in your world where atheist and agnostic are mutually exclusive, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM?

FSM has a well documented origin.

If someone wants to believe the FSM created the universe, that's ok with me.

Gunhaver
05-09-2012, 12:47
Ok, answer this for me, as an atheist, would you say the universe was made, or occurred naturally?

I would say it occurred naturally but it's cosmology that brings me to that conclusion. I'm an atheist purely because of the findings of the science of cosmology, geology and paleontology that I've studied. Cosmology does seek to explain the nature of the universe so you could call that a religion if you're so hot to slap that label on something but atheism is simply a conclusion, not a belief system. Someone could be an atheist simply because they've never been exposed to any religious ideas so they hold no opinion on the matter of the nature of the universe.

So if you want to call the practice of studying the universe outside of the earth a religion simply because it's found real answers to some questions that typical religions have presumed to answer without any real way or desire to find out for sure then go ahead. Then ask yourself if someone might have a better idea of what's really going on if they spend their time wearing funny hats and reading the same book over and over or if they're the type to figure out how to land a spacecraft on an asteroid.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 13:00
I would say it occurred naturally but it's cosmology that brings me to that conclusion. I'm an atheist purely because of the findings of the science of cosmology, geology and paleontology that I've studied. Cosmology does seek to explain the nature of the universe so you could call that a religion if you're so hot to slap that label on something but atheism is simply a conclusion, not a belief system. Someone could be an atheist simply because they've never been exposed to any religious ideas so they hold no opinion on the matter of the nature of the universe.

So if you want to call the practice of studying the universe outside of the earth a religion simply because it's found real answers to some questions that typical religions have presumed to answer without any real way or desire to find out for sure then go ahead. Then ask yourself if someone might have a better idea of what's really going on if they spend their time wearing funny hats and reading the same book over and over or if they're the type to figure out how to land a spacecraft on an asteroid.

Cosmology is cool. But is there anything that proves a deity was not involved? We can look at samples from nearby objects and the electromagnetic spectrum, what else is used as evidence in cosmology?

G23Gen4TX
05-09-2012, 13:02
FSM has a well documented origin.

If someone wants to believe the FSM created the universe, that's ok with me.

Scientology. Is all I got to say.

user
05-09-2012, 13:22
What do we care whether someone characterizes his belief system as a "religion"? That word has too many definitions anyway and is inherently ambiguous. So, like, who cares?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 13:36
What do we care whether someone characterizes his belief system as a "religion"? That word has too many definitions anyway and is inherently ambiguous. So, like, who cares?

A very good question, but evidently it's blasphemous.

Lone Wolf8634
05-09-2012, 13:39
Your problem is with Merriam-Webster and the American English language, not me. I just pointed out the obvious. If that makes you uncomfortable, I'm sorry you are uncomfortable about it

I'm not uncomfortable at all. I had already decided you were just tweaking noses earlier in this thread. I just thought the "not collecting stamps" was funny.:tongueout:

You may or may not believe atheism is a religion.:dunno:

I don't.:supergrin:

So if you don't mind, I'm gonna go not observe my non-religion by not praying to a deity that I don't believe in, oh wait, I cant do that because, according to you, yes is no, black is white and up is down. And atheism is a religion.......:rofl::tongueout:

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 13:40
Scientology. Is all I got to say.

That's ok too. As long as it has no grievous impact, why shoild we care what people believe about the origins of the universe?

G23Gen4TX
05-09-2012, 13:48
That's ok too. As long as it has no grievous impact, why shoild we care what people believe about the origins of the universe?

Ask the pope what he thinks. Or what god thinks.

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 14:38
What do we care whether someone characterizes his belief system as a "religion"? That word has too many definitions anyway and is inherently ambiguous. So, like, who cares?

He is not characterizing his belief system as a religion if he was I wouldn't care. He is characterizing a whole group of people as a religion even though they keep telling him no you are wrong.

Geko45
05-09-2012, 14:46
I don't have to believe in some alternate theory of how everything came about in order to not believe that some deity made it all. That's not agnosticism and it's not religion either.

Phaze5ive
05-09-2012, 15:26
This is a box. That is a box. That, over there, is not a box, but because it is not a box it falls into a box of its own, and thus a box.

I see your logic there. :cool: After all, the empty set is a set, right?

Seriously... :upeyes:

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 16:11
Ask the pope what he thinks. Or what god thinks.

Religions often are at odds with one another.

ksg0245
05-09-2012, 17:35
Ks, we will have to agree to disagree.

I'm ok with your state of denial.

What impressive condescension; your uniquely selective and in some instances flatly incorrect definitions makes me in denial? Oh, well, I guess I'm equally okay with your unrelenting disingenuousness.

Tsalrite. :wavey:


To all, it's ok. No need to crack the 1800 post count, all that can be said on this subject has been said repetedly.

Thanks for the stimulating conversation, I wish you all well.

ksg0245
05-09-2012, 17:38
Oh, I believe each one of them when they say what they personally believe. I just point out that if they are not actively believing that a deity or deities never existed, they are using the wrong label. It's just an accurate word usage issue.

Not on your part, it isn't.

Not meant to be offensive.

Oh well. It is what it is. No big.

How many posts do you have in this thread?

ksg0245
05-09-2012, 17:48
Ok, answer this for me, as an atheist, would you say the universe was made, or occurred naturally?

Could you point out where in the Big Bang Theory it says anything in any manner about deities?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 18:14
Could you point out where in the Big Bang Theory it says anything in any manner about deities?

It doesn't. Question is, did an intelligence light the fuse for it, or did it just happen all by itself?

What evidence would still be around that would tell you that?

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 18:15
Not on your part, it isn't.


Sure it is.


How many posts do you have in this thread?

Bunches and bunches.

ksg0245
05-09-2012, 19:23
It doesn't. Question is, did an intelligence light the fuse for it, or did it just happen all by itself?

Unless there is evidence for an intelligence, and evidence that intelligence caused the big bang, why make unfounded assumptions?

What evidence would still be around that would tell you that?

Good question; got any evidence?

ksg0245
05-09-2012, 19:26
Sure it is.

Given all the cited definitions that contradict your claim, nope.

Bunches and bunches.

Which means it's a big enough deal to you to continue insisting everybody but you is wrong.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 19:31
Unless there is evidence for an intelligence, and evidence that intelligence caused the big bang, why make unfounded assumptions?



Good question; got any evidence?

Just because you like one answer more, you should not assume it to be correct based on the absence of evidence of another explanation. Anyone that has seen more than one episode of CSI can quote you that scientific ethics mantra, go where the evidence leads you. In this case, there is no evidence either way, so it is equally valid to claim that an intelligence created the universe with the big bang, as it is to claim that no intelligence was involved.

The evidence, or more accurately the complete lack of it, leads me to make no assumption at all about creation, except that something happened, and we are all where we are now, at least as best we can tell.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 19:35
Given all the cited definitions that contradict your claim, nope.



Which means it's a big enough deal to you to continue insisting everybody but you is wrong.

Why can't we all be right? We just disagree, that's all. It is a very interesting conversation. It's interesting that so many people can be so interested in a "non belief" that they describe as completely passive.

ksg0245
05-09-2012, 19:52
Just because you like one answer more,

It has nothing to do with liking one answer more; it has everything to do with evidence.

you should not assume it to be correct based on the absence of evidence of another explanation.

You mean it shouldn't be assumed something happened naturally just because there's no evidence it didn't happen naturally?

Anyone that has seen more than one episode of CSI can quote you that scientific ethics mantra, go where the evidence leads you. In this case, there is no evidence either way,

But that's false; there's objective, verifiable evidence things can happen without cause, and there's evidence the Universe and everything we know about it follows natural laws. There is no evidence of any supernatural or deistic intervention.

so it is equally valid to claim that an intelligence created the universe with the big bang, as it is to claim that no intelligence was involved.

The claim isn't "no intelligence was involved;" the claim is "there is no evidence intelligence was involved."

"Intelligence was involved" isn't an equally valid claim, because there is no evidence intelligence was involved.

The evidence, or more accurately the complete lack of it, leads me to make no assumption at all about creation, except that something happened,

That isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion based on evidence.

and we are all where we are now, at least as best we can tell.

Cavalry Doc
05-09-2012, 20:01
1. It has nothing to do with liking one answer more; it has everything to do with evidence.



2. You mean it shouldn't be assumed something happened naturally just because there's no evidence it didn't happen naturally?



3. But that's false; there's objective, verifiable evidence things can happen without cause, and there's evidence the Universe and everything we know about it follows natural laws. There is no evidence of any supernatural or deistic intervention.



4. The claim isn't "no intelligence was involved;" the claim is "there is no evidence intelligence was involved."

"Intelligence was involved" isn't an equally valid claim, because there is no evidence intelligence was involved.



5. That isn't an assumption, it's a conclusion based on evidence.

1. what evidence

2. If a creator created the universe, that would be the nature of reality, and it would be natural. "Naturally" does not exclude a deity.

3. Things can happen due to causes that we do not understand. But every thing that happens, is the result of something.

4. There is also no evidence that no intelligence was involved. Hence, the choice I mentioned before.

5. Again, the lack of evidence either way proves nothing.


Atheism is a choice. But it's OK, because as far as religion goes, I am very pro-choice.

psalms4him
05-09-2012, 20:42
But that's false; there's objective, verifiable evidence things can happen without cause, and there's evidence the Universe and everything we know about it follows natural laws. There is no evidence of any supernatural or deistic intervention.


Please provide more information about this "objective, verifiable evidence". I am unaware that anything more than theory suggests this, at this point. Many acausal theories have fundamental challenges in that they require time as an input and/or otherwise rely on statistical improbability to initiate particle separation. Such are far from fully-baked and the problems with them are well known.

Atoms existed for many years before people had any evidence to identify them. Infecteous diseases killed many people before their causes were understood. Not having evidence of something does not prove its non-existance. It is not unreasonable to assert that many things exist of which we have no evidence, yet.

Something that is supernatural, by definition, need not provide evidence. Trying to disprove something supernatural through natural systems is a fool's errand. This is akin to the infamous attempts to explain "left" and "right" to an exterterrestrial being without a common physical reference. You cannot prove or disprove a superior system from an inferior one.

If a crime occurs and some people witness the crime and can identify the suspect, yet a few others did not see the crime happen, can we say there was no crime? We listen carefully to the witnesses and align their testimony to the physical evidence. One group keeps changing their story as new physical evidence is discovered. If the whole case depends on evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, how are we to believe a group that changes its story with each new issue of Scientific American?

Just some thoughts to keep the conversation lively...

RC-RAMIE
05-09-2012, 20:51
Something that is supernatural, by definition, need not provide evidence. Trying to disprove something supernatural through natural systems is a fool's errand.

.

Well that makes it easy to come up with BS doesn't it




....

Syclone538
05-09-2012, 21:49
FSM has a well documented origin.
...

I'm sure the following of FSM does, but if there really is a FSM I think it's origin would be far from well documented, but this has nothing to do with my question anyway.

...
If someone wants to believe the FSM created the universe, that's ok with me.

I didn't ask what you think about people who might believe in FSM. I asked what you think about FSM. I think that it was pretty clear and you are intentionally not answering the question.

So, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?

Gunhaver
05-09-2012, 22:36
Cosmology is cool. But is there anything that proves a deity was not involved? We can look at samples from nearby objects and the electromagnetic spectrum, what else is used as evidence in cosmology?

That's not how it works and you know it. People have been looking for evidence of deity for as long as there's been the concept of deity and they've not found it. So you fall back on the "well you can't disprove it" argument but always ignore two very important facts, the entire concept is specifically designed to be unprovable and the burden of proof never lies with the skeptic anyway so there's no reason to take the claim seriously in the first place.

Gunhaver
05-09-2012, 22:55
If a crime occurs and some people witness the crime and can identify the suspect, yet a few others did not see the crime happen, can we say there was no crime? We listen carefully to the witnesses and align their testimony to the physical evidence. One group keeps changing their story as new physical evidence is discovered. If the whole case depends on evidence, and the credibility of the witnesses, how are we to believe a group that changes its story with each new issue of Scientific American?



Consider that the crime that's claimed to have been committed is that someone used superhuman strength to break open a bank vault, something we've never seen anyone do or have any evidence is even possible. That alone would be grounds for dismissing the charges. Add to that the fact that all eye witnesses have long since died and there's no way to cross examine them so we're stuck only with hearsay from folks with a distinct self interest in passing that hearsay off as true.

As far as changing the story based on new evidence, how is that a bad thing? Is it better to just assume guilt or innocence and ignore all evidence because it took longer than you would have liked to gather and analyze it? Relevant evidence is still relevant even if it takes some time to discover it. Do you not make adjustments to your beliefs and course of actions based on new input every day? It's a pretty stupid criticism of science to claim fault in finding out new input and adjusting actions accordingly.

G23Gen4TX
05-10-2012, 01:01
Religions often are at odds with one another.

But if there's only one god, how hard can it be to agree?

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 03:44
You forgot faith. Believing something without actual proof. The fact that it seeks to explain how the current reality came to be is what makes it fit in spirit as well as definition.

The fact is atheism isn't an explanation of anything nor does it seek to be. You are intentionally confusing atheism with science which does try to explain as much as it can. Again why is it you find the need for atheism to be a religion?

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 04:47
I'm sure the following of FSM does, but if there really is a FSM I think it's origin would be far from well documented, but this has nothing to do with my question anyway.



I didn't ask what you think about people who might believe in FSM. I asked what you think about FSM. I think that it was pretty clear and you are intentionally not answering the question.

So, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?


FSM originated as a parody, for the purpose of illustrating an argument. And it honestly has little to do with the fundamental question, how did we get here. My answer is the same for almost all religions. If you or someone else wants to believe, that's cool with me. If religion makes a person happy, that's great. If it makes them sad, not my problem. If it makes them violent, I might have to do something about that, or someone else might have to do something about that.

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 04:52
That's not how it works and you know it. People have been looking for evidence of deity for as long as there's been the concept of deity and they've not found it. So you fall back on the "well you can't disprove it" argument but always ignore two very important facts, the entire concept is specifically designed to be unprovable and the burden of proof never lies with the skeptic anyway so there's no reason to take the claim seriously in the first place.

There is no proof either way. People CHOOSE what to believe, and have faith that they are correct.

I have no proof. So why worry about if someone wants to believe a specific, but very fundamental detail about the universe. I have no problem with atheism, I am trying to show you that it is a belief based on faith.

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 04:54
The fact is atheism isn't an explanation of anything nor does it seek to be. You are intentionally confusing atheism with science which does try to explain as much as it can. Again why is it you find the need for atheism to be a religion?

It's a belief about a very important detail of how we got here. It's a choice to believe that, and that belief would necessarily be based on faith, as ther is no proof.

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 04:56
Well that makes it easy to come up with BS doesn't it




....

Remmber what I said about rivalry between competing religions?

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 05:41
Remmber what I said about rivalry between competing religions?

Your right that post fits your comments on that also.


....

steveksux
05-10-2012, 06:26
I'm sure the following of FSM does, but if there really is a FSM I think it's origin would be far from well documented, but this has nothing to do with my question anyway.



I didn't ask what you think about people who might believe in FSM. I asked what you think about FSM. I think that it was pretty clear and you are intentionally not answering the question.

So, are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?
Obviously, Cavalry Doc's religion is not believing in the FSM.

He's embarrassed to admit its a religion. Or that it's his religion. Of course, he should be. On both counts. And many more, as this thread so amply demonstrates.

Randy

Syclone538
05-10-2012, 09:17
FSM originated as a parody, for the purpose of illustrating an argument. And it honestly has little to do with the fundamental question, how did we get here. My answer is the same for almost all religions. If you or someone else wants to believe, that's cool with me. If religion makes a person happy, that's great. If it makes them sad, not my problem. If it makes them violent, I might have to do something about that, or someone else might have to do something about that.

I did not ask what you think about people that might follow FSM, I asked you what you think about FSM. Why even respond if you are not going to make any attempt to answer the question?

Not that it matters to the question I asked, but you are confusing the following of FSM with the god FSM itself. If there is a god FSM, it clearly didn't originate as a parody. Maybe that's the way it decided to reveal itself to us as a test of faith, but this is irrelevant to the question.

Are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?

I'm sure you won't actually answer, but what about Zeus or Ra?

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 09:39
I did not ask what you think about people that might follow FSM, I asked you what you think about FSM. Why even respond if you are not going to make any attempt to answer the question?

Not that it matters to the question I asked, but you are confusing the following of FSM with the god FSM itself. If there is a god FSM, it clearly didn't originate as a parody. Maybe that's the way it decided to reveal itself to us as a test of faith, but this is irrelevant to the question.

Are you atheist or agnostic towards FSM? Both? Neither?

I'm sure you won't actually answer, but what about Zeus or Ra?



You asked what I thought about it, and I told you what I thought about it.

Maybe you'd like to type my response for me, and formulate the response you wanted, then respond to that??? :dunno:

In fact, if you'll close your web browser and open up your word processor, you could probably have a riveting and very satisfying debate.

Syclone538
05-10-2012, 09:51
You told me what you think of people that might follow FSM. You've said nothing on what you think about the god FSM.

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 10:08
But if there's only one god, how hard can it be to agree?

Who knows for sure if there is only one. The universe we know might just be an entry in a cosmic version of cupcake wars.


If someone wants to believe in none, one or many, it's ok, really.

Syclone538
05-10-2012, 10:55
I suspect that you are both atheist and agnostic towards the god FSM, but that sure would be inconvenient to admit.

RC-RAMIE
05-10-2012, 13:00
Well Doc lets start with the A's

Aabit: Egyptian. Goddess of song, music, and the arts.

Aah: Egyptian. God of the moon, responsible for the creation of the Egyptian calendar, which has 30 days per month and is 12 months long. Patron of the student or learner.

Abarta: Celtic. A member of the Tuatha Dé Danann ("People of the goddess Danu") an Irish race of gods, founded by the goddess Danu. These gods, who originally lived on 'the islands in the west', had perfected the use of magic. Abarta is associated with teamwork, and the destructive nature of jealousy.

Acat: Mayan. God of tatooers.

Accasbel: Celtic. An early God of meade or wine, thought to have created the first tavern or pub. Associated with the wine harvest.

Achiyalatopa: North American (Zuni). A powerful celestial monster who hurls feathers made of flint knives.

Achtland: Celtic. Queen goddess infamous for her displeasure in what she found available to her among human men. When she was approached by one of the Tuatha Dé Danann (a giant from the faery realm), she fell in love with him. She is associated with magic and sex.

Addanc: Celtic. A primordial giant/god/lake monster described alternately as resembling a crocodile, beaver or dwarf-like creature, and is sometimes said to be a demon. Associated with erasing unwanted events or persons from one's mind.

Adekagagwaa: North American (Iroquois). The spiritual embodiment of summer, who rests in the southern skys during the winter months.

Aditi: Indian. Mother of the celestial gods, the synthesis of all things. Associated with mystic speech, space, consciousness, the past, the future, and fertility.

Adroa: Central African. God of law, social order, and death. Depicted as tall, his good and bad aspects are shown as two half bodies: the evil one being short and coal black while his good aspect is tall and white.

Adsullata: Celtic. A continental river goddess, associated with hot springs, solar magic and purification.

Aerten: Celtic. Goddess of fate who ruled over the outcome of war between several Celtic clans. Her symbol was the double-bladed axe, and she was associated with both overcoming enemies, and peace.

Aesun: Celtic. Creation god whose name means "to be."

Aeval: Celtic. The Fairy Queen of Thomond in Irish mythology; held a midnight court to determine if husbands were satisfying their wives' sexual needs or not. Associated with sex, lust, wisdom, and magic.

Agdistis: Greek. A powerful hermaphroditic daemon; chaotic, neither good nor evil, but impossible to control, containing all of the powers of creation within his/her body and using these powers to wreak havoc.

Agni: Indian. God with three forms: fire, lightning and the sun. He is ever-young, because the fire is re-lit every day, yet he is also immortal.

Agrona: Celtic Goddess of slaughter, war, and carnage.

Ah Puch: Mayan. The God of death and King of Metnal, the underworld. He was depicted as a skeleton or corpse adorned with bells, sometimes the head of an owl.

Ahsonnutli: North American (Navajo). Hermaphroditic deity who helped create the sky and the earth. He produced four giants to hold up the the sky, one in each corner: north, south, east, and west.

Ahura Mazda: Persian. The sky god of order, creator of heaven and earth and upholder of asa (rightness, truth) and opposer of Ahriman (the principle of evil).

Aibell: Celtic. Fairy goddess whose played a magic harp which human ears could not hear or else the eavesdropper would soon die. Associated with music, stones and leaves, protection, and ecological magic.

Aibheaog: Celtic. Goddess of fire whose healing powers were effective against toothache. Associated with midsummer well rituals.

Aife: Celtic. A warrior goddess and queen of the Isle of Shadow. She commanded a legion of fierce horsewomen, and was not vulnerable to magic. Associated with general knowledge, protection, path-working, and teaching.

Aimend: Celtic. Sun goddess thought to be daughter of the king of the region known as Corco Loidhe.

Aine of Knockaine: Celtic. Moon goddess associated with the summer solstice, cattle, and crops.

Airmid: Celtic. Goddess of the healing arts and medicine, associated with family loyalty, healing, learning, and inspiration to craftsmen.

Airseku: North American (Huron). The Great Spirit god, called upon when threatened or in times of urgent need.

Aker: Egyptian. God of the horizon; one of the earliest gods worshipped. Guardian of the entrance and exit to the underworld.

Akka: Finno-Ugrian. Goddess helpful for pregnant women, and after a birth, a woman would eat a special porridge dedicated to her.

Aktunowihio: North American (Cheyenne). Subterranean earth mother; the soul of the earth.

Akuj: Kenyan. God of divination.

Ala: Nigerian. Also known as Ale or Ane, she was a popular Earth Mother, creator goddess and Queen of the Dead. Associated with morality, oaths, community laws, and harvests.

Alberich: Germanic. A legendary sorcerer, king of the elves and dwarfs, guardian of treasures including Tarnkappe, a cape of invisibility.

Albion: Celtic. Son of a forgotten sea god who was said to rule the Celtic world. He may have been part of a lost creation myth as his name is the most ancient name for Great Britain.

Alisanos: Celtic. A local fertility god in Gaul, worshipped in what are now the Côte-d'Or in Burgundy and at Aix-en-Provence. May have been associated with mountain-ash and rowan trees.

Allah: Arab. The Prophet Muhammad declared Allah the one and only god (of the Islam) in the 7th century CE. In pre-Islamic times, Allah was the supreme creator-god of the Arabs. The goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza were considered to be his daughters.

Almha: Celtic. Goddess of the Tuatha De Danann about whom little is known today. A southern Irish hill was named after her.

Ama-no-Uzume: Japanese. Fertility goddess of dawn and revelry in the Shinto religion.

Amaterasu: Japanese. A sun goddess and perhaps the most important Shinto deity, born from the left eye of Izanagi as he purified himself in a river and went on to become the ruler of the Higher Celestial Plain.

Amatsu-Kami: Japanese. The gods of heaven (distinguished from the gods of earth).

Amaunet: Egyptian. Mother goddess who breathes new life into things with her northern winds. Her name means "The Hidden One," and she is portrayed as a snake or a snake-head on which the crown of Lower Egypt rests.

Ambisagrus: Celtic. A weather god later equated with the Roman Jupiter. Associated with magic, leadership, and climate changes.

Amen: Egyptian. "Great Father" god whose name means "the hidden one"; associated with the wind, fertility, sex, and agriculture.

Ament: Egyptian. Goddess of the Underworld who greeted all newly dead with bread and water. If they ate and drank, they were not allowed to return to the land of the living.

Ami: Egyptian. God of fire.

Amida-nyorai: Japanese. An aspect of the Buddha, associated with forgiveness and protection.

Ami Neter: Egyptian. Singing god of the winds.

Ami Pi: Egyptian. A lion god.

Amitolane: North American (Zuni). God of rainbows.

Amu: Egyptian. God of the dawn.

Amun: Egyptian. God of air, the breath of life, he gradually rose to become one of the most important deities in ancient Egypt, before fading into obscurity.

Amutnen: Egyptian. Goddess of cows that provide milk.

An: Sumerian. A progenitor god who, long with Ninhursag, probably created the other gods in the Sumerian pantheon. His wife may have been Nammu.

Anat: Sumerian. Called the Lady of Heaven and Mistress of all gods; a wild and furious warrior.

Anayaroli: The Temne, (west African). A river demon associated with wealth.

Ancasta: Celtic. Goddess worshipped in Roman Britain, possibly associated with the river Itchen.

Andraste: Celtic. War goddess invoked to fight against the Roman occupation of Britain. Associated with overcoming enemies.

Andvari: Norse. A dwarf who lived underneath a waterfall and had the power to change himself into a fish at will. He had a magical ring named Andvarinaut, which helped him become wealthy. Also known as Alberich.

Angpetu Wi: North American (Dakota). God of the sun.

Angus Mac Og: Celtic. God of love, youth and poetic inspiration. He is said to have four birds symbolizing kisses flying about his head (whence, it is believed, the xxxx's symbolizing kisses at the end of lovers' letters come from.)

Anhur: Egyptian. God of the hunt and of war; associated with the sky and sun.

Anpao: North American (Dakota). A two-faced deity who represents the spirit of the dawn.

Anqet: Egyptian. Water goddess of the island of Sahal; associated with lust, intelligence, medicine, protection, death and cemeteries.

Anshar: Akkadian. A sky god, husband of his sister Kishar. Together, they might represent heaven and earth.

Anu: Sumerian. A sky-god, the god of heaven, lord of constellations, king of gods, spirits and demons, residing in the highest heavenly regions. He had the power to judge those who had committed crimes; created the stars as soldiers to destroy the wicked.

Anubis: Egyptian. A jackal-headed god associated with mummification and the afterlife in ancient Egyptian mythology.

Ao: Chinese. Four dragon gods, each overseeing a portion of the earth and sea. There names were Ao Ch'in, Ao Kuang, Ao Jun and Ao Shun.

Apep: Egyptian. An evil demon, the deification of darkness and chaos; associated with darkness, death, eclipses and the underworld.

Aphrodite: Greek. Goddess of love, lust, and beauty. Often depicted with the sea, dolphins, doves, swans, pomegranates, apples, myrtle, rose and lime trees, clams, scallop shells and pearls. Same as the Roman goddess Venus.

Apit: Egyptian. Goddess of nursing mothers.

Apollo: Greek. God of light and the sun, prophecy and truth, music, archery, poetry, and the arts, medicine and healing; able to bring ill-health and deadly plague as well as cure disease.

Apsu: Sumerian. Ruler of gods and underworld oceans; source of lakes, springs, rivers, wells, and other sources of fresh water. Father of Lahmu, Lahamu, Anshar and Kishar. Killed by Ea.

Apuat: Egyptian. God who guides souls to their final resting place.

Aput: Egyptian. Messinger god.

Arawn: Celtic (Wales). King of the otherworld realm of Annwn, ruled over the dead. Associated with reincarnation, spirit contact, revenge, war, terror, magical names, and strengthening friendships.

Ard Greimme: Celtic (Scotland). Sun god associated with magic.

Ares: Greek. Often referred to as the Olympian god of warfare, he is more accurately the god of savage warfare, or bloodlust, or slaughter personified. Son of Zeus and Hera; savior of cities and father of victory.

Ardwinna: Celtic (Britain). Eponymous goddess of the Ardennes Forest and region, represented as a huntress riding a boar. Later assimilated into the Gallo-Roman mythology of goddess Diana.

Ariadne: Greek and Celtic. The only Greek goddess known to have been worshipped in Celtic Gaul. In Greek mythology, she was daughter of King Minos of Crete and his queen, Pasiphaë, daughter of Helios, the Sun-titan. She aided Theseus in overcoming the Minotaur and later became the consort of the god Dionysus.

Arianrhod: Celtic (Wales). Associated with fertility, beauty, and reincarnation, she was daughter of Dôn and sister of Gwydion and Gilfaethwy. In the Mabinogi her uncle Math ap Mathonwy is the King of Gwynedd, and during the course of the story she gives birth to two sons, Dylan Eil Ton and Lleu Llaw Gyffes, through magical means.

Arnamentia: Celtic. Goddess of spring waters who was once a minor solar deity. Associated with purification and healing.

Artaius: Celtic. God of sheep and cattle herders from Celtic Gaul. Later, the Romans identified him with Mercury. Associated with cattle and sheep.

Artemis: Greek. Daughter of Zeus and Leto, twin sister of Apollo, she was a hunter and a virgin, the goddess of forests, hills, and transitions -- including childbirth. Often depicted as carrying a bow and arrows, deer and cypress were sacred to her. Called Diana by the Romans.

Artio: Celtic. Goddess of the bear, worshipped at Berne, Switzerland. Goddess of fertility and wildlife, usually depicted as being surrounded by animals and full baskets. Associated with geode stones, the bear, claws and teeth; also with fertility, courage, and strength.

Aryaman: Indian. God whose name name signifies "bosom friend," but is literally "noble one." Chief of the manes, the Milky Way is supposed to be his path.

Asa: Kenyan. Father God, "the strong lord," who was associated with mercy, help, and surviving the impossible.

Asase: West African. Fertility goddess responsible for the creation of humans and receiver of them at death; associated with cultivation and the harvest.

Asbit: Egyptian. Goddess of fire.

Asclepius: Greek. A demigod of medicine and healing, represents the healing aspect of the medical arts. Apollo's son.

Aseb. Egyptian. God of fire.

Ashkit: Egyptian. Wind goddess.

Ashu: Egyptian. Wind goddess.

Asvins: Indian. Goddess of the clouds, symbolizing the shining of sunrise and sunset, appearing in the sky before the dawn in a golden chariot, bringing treasures to men and averting misfortune and sickness.

Ataentsic: North American (Iroquois). Sky goddess who fell to the earth at the time of creation. Associated with marriage, childbirth, and feminine pursuits.

Aten: Egyptian. The sun god; originally an aspect of Ra. He became the deity of the monotheistic religion of Amenhotep IV, who took the name Akhenaten.

Athena: Greek. Goddess of war, wisdom, and crafts; daughter of Zeus, and Metis. The patron goddess of Athens, offering the gift of the olive tree. Same as Roman goddess Minerva.

Athirat (Asherah): Canaanite. Equated with the Milky Way, she was goddess of the sea, particularly along the shore, of the fertility of humanity, flocks, and crops, and of great wisdom.

Atho: Finno-Ugrian. Horned god associated with the seas and water.

Athtart: Phonecian. Connected with fertility, sexuality, passion, and war, her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked.

Atlas: Greek. Leader of the Titans who fought against the gods; punished by Zeus to carry the vault of the sky on his shoulders, in order to to prevent the two from resuming their primordial embrace.

Atum: Egyptian. Deity considered the 'complete one'; the finisher of the world, all things being made of his flesh.

Aua: Egyptian. God of gifts and gift giving.

Auit: Egyptian. Goddess of children and nurses.

Awonawilona: North American (Zuni). Sun god, creator of the sky, earth, and oceans.

Each one of them agnostic or atheist?

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 13:25
I suspect that you are both atheist and agnostic towards the god FSM, but that sure would be inconvenient to admit.

So, you took me up on my offer to make up my response for me. That's interesting.

I am uncommitted and uncaring. If you want to believe the FSM is a deity and presented himself in a parody, that honestly is just fine with me.

But to criticize one for not caring enough to have an opinion to your hypothetical situation doesn't change anything I have said in this thread about atheism.

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 17:41
Well Doc lets start with the A's

Aabit: Egyptian. Goddess of song, music, and the arts.

Aah: Egyptian. God of the moon, responsible for the creation of the Egyptian calendar, which has 30 days per month and is 12 months long. Patron of the student or learner.

Abarta: Celtic. A member of the Tuatha Dé Danann ("People of the goddess Danu") an Irish race of gods, founded by the goddess Danu. These gods, who originally lived on 'the islands in the west', had perfected the use of magic. Abarta is associated with teamwork, and the destructive nature of jealousy.

Acat: Mayan. God of tatooers.

Accasbel: Celtic. An early God of meade or wine, thought to have created the first tavern or pub. Associated with the wine harvest.

Achiyalatopa: North American (Zuni). A powerful celestial monster who hurls feathers made of flint knives.

Achtland: Celtic. Queen goddess infamous for her displeasure in what she found available to her among human men. When she was approached by one of the Tuatha Dé Danann (a giant from the faery realm), she fell in love with him. She is associated with magic and sex.

Addanc: Celtic. A primordial giant/god/lake monster described alternately as resembling a crocodile, beaver or dwarf-like creature, and is sometimes said to be a demon. Associated with erasing unwanted events or persons from one's mind.

Adekagagwaa: North American (Iroquois). The spiritual embodiment of summer, who rests in the southern skys during the winter months.

Aditi: Indian. Mother of the celestial gods, the synthesis of all things. Associated with mystic speech, space, consciousness, the past, the future, and fertility.

Adroa: Central African. God of law, social order, and death. Depicted as tall, his good and bad aspects are shown as two half bodies: the evil one being short and coal black while his good aspect is tall and white.

Adsullata: Celtic. A continental river goddess, associated with hot springs, solar magic and purification.

Aerten: Celtic. Goddess of fate who ruled over the outcome of war between several Celtic clans. Her symbol was the double-bladed axe, and she was associated with both overcoming enemies, and peace.

Aesun: Celtic. Creation god whose name means "to be."

Aeval: Celtic. The Fairy Queen of Thomond in Irish mythology; held a midnight court to determine if husbands were satisfying their wives' sexual needs or not. Associated with sex, lust, wisdom, and magic.

Agdistis: Greek. A powerful hermaphroditic daemon; chaotic, neither good nor evil, but impossible to control, containing all of the powers of creation within his/her body and using these powers to wreak havoc.

Agni: Indian. God with three forms: fire, lightning and the sun. He is ever-young, because the fire is re-lit every day, yet he is also immortal.

Agrona: Celtic Goddess of slaughter, war, and carnage.

Ah Puch: Mayan. The God of death and King of Metnal, the underworld. He was depicted as a skeleton or corpse adorned with bells, sometimes the head of an owl.

Ahsonnutli: North American (Navajo). Hermaphroditic deity who helped create the sky and the earth. He produced four giants to hold up the the sky, one in each corner: north, south, east, and west.

Ahura Mazda: Persian. The sky god of order, creator of heaven and earth and upholder of asa (rightness, truth) and opposer of Ahriman (the principle of evil).

Aibell: Celtic. Fairy goddess whose played a magic harp which human ears could not hear or else the eavesdropper would soon die. Associated with music, stones and leaves, protection, and ecological magic.

Aibheaog: Celtic. Goddess of fire whose healing powers were effective against toothache. Associated with midsummer well rituals.

Aife: Celtic. A warrior goddess and queen of the Isle of Shadow. She commanded a legion of fierce horsewomen, and was not vulnerable to magic. Associated with general knowledge, protection, path-working, and teaching.

Aimend: Celtic. Sun goddess thought to be daughter of the king of the region known as Corco Loidhe.

Aine of Knockaine: Celtic. Moon goddess associated with the summer solstice, cattle, and crops.

Airmid: Celtic. Goddess of the healing arts and medicine, associated with family loyalty, healing, learning, and inspiration to craftsmen.

Airseku: North American (Huron). The Great Spirit god, called upon when threatened or in times of urgent need.

Aker: Egyptian. God of the horizon; one of the earliest gods worshipped. Guardian of the entrance and exit to the underworld.

Akka: Finno-Ugrian. Goddess helpful for pregnant women, and after a birth, a woman would eat a special porridge dedicated to her.

Aktunowihio: North American (Cheyenne). Subterranean earth mother; the soul of the earth.

Akuj: Kenyan. God of divination.

Ala: Nigerian. Also known as Ale or Ane, she was a popular Earth Mother, creator goddess and Queen of the Dead. Associated with morality, oaths, community laws, and harvests.

Alberich: Germanic. A legendary sorcerer, king of the elves and dwarfs, guardian of treasures including Tarnkappe, a cape of invisibility.

Albion: Celtic. Son of a forgotten sea god who was said to rule the Celtic world. He may have been part of a lost creation myth as his name is the most ancient name for Great Britain.

Alisanos: Celtic. A local fertility god in Gaul, worshipped in what are now the Côte-d'Or in Burgundy and at Aix-en-Provence. May have been associated with mountain-ash and rowan trees.

Allah: Arab. The Prophet Muhammad declared Allah the one and only god (of the Islam) in the 7th century CE. In pre-Islamic times, Allah was the supreme creator-god of the Arabs. The goddesses Allat, Manat, and al-Uzza were considered to be his daughters.

Almha: Celtic. Goddess of the Tuatha De Danann about whom little is known today. A southern Irish hill was named after her.

Ama-no-Uzume: Japanese. Fertility goddess of dawn and revelry in the Shinto religion.

Amaterasu: Japanese. A sun goddess and perhaps the most important Shinto deity, born from the left eye of Izanagi as he purified himself in a river and went on to become the ruler of the Higher Celestial Plain.

Amatsu-Kami: Japanese. The gods of heaven (distinguished from the gods of earth).

Amaunet: Egyptian. Mother goddess who breathes new life into things with her northern winds. Her name means "The Hidden One," and she is portrayed as a snake or a snake-head on which the crown of Lower Egypt rests.

Ambisagrus: Celtic. A weather god later equated with the Roman Jupiter. Associated with magic, leadership, and climate changes.

Amen: Egyptian. "Great Father" god whose name means "the hidden one"; associated with the wind, fertility, sex, and agriculture.

Ament: Egyptian. Goddess of the Underworld who greeted all newly dead with bread and water. If they ate and drank, they were not allowed to return to the land of the living.

Ami: Egyptian. God of fire.

Amida-nyorai: Japanese. An aspect of the Buddha, associated with forgiveness and protection.

Ami Neter: Egyptian. Singing god of the winds.

Ami Pi: Egyptian. A lion god.

Amitolane: North American (Zuni). God of rainbows.

Amu: Egyptian. God of the dawn.

Amun: Egyptian. God of air, the breath of life, he gradually rose to become one of the most important deities in ancient Egypt, before fading into obscurity.

Amutnen: Egyptian. Goddess of cows that provide milk.

An: Sumerian. A progenitor god who, long with Ninhursag, probably created the other gods in the Sumerian pantheon. His wife may have been Nammu.

Anat: Sumerian. Called the Lady of Heaven and Mistress of all gods; a wild and furious warrior.

Anayaroli: The Temne, (west African). A river demon associated with wealth.

Ancasta: Celtic. Goddess worshipped in Roman Britain, possibly associated with the river Itchen.

Andraste: Celtic. War goddess invoked to fight against the Roman occupation of Britain. Associated with overcoming enemies.

Andvari: Norse. A dwarf who lived underneath a waterfall and had the power to change himself into a fish at will. He had a magical ring named Andvarinaut, which helped him become wealthy. Also known as Alberich.

Angpetu Wi: North American (Dakota). God of the sun.

Angus Mac Og: Celtic. God of love, youth and poetic inspiration. He is said to have four birds symbolizing kisses flying about his head (whence, it is believed, the xxxx's symbolizing kisses at the end of lovers' letters come from.)

Anhur: Egyptian. God of the hunt and of war; associated with the sky and sun.

Anpao: North American (Dakota). A two-faced deity who represents the spirit of the dawn.

Anqet: Egyptian. Water goddess of the island of Sahal; associated with lust, intelligence, medicine, protection, death and cemeteries.

Anshar: Akkadian. A sky god, husband of his sister Kishar. Together, they might represent heaven and earth.

Anu: Sumerian. A sky-god, the god of heaven, lord of constellations, king of gods, spirits and demons, residing in the highest heavenly regions. He had the power to judge those who had committed crimes; created the stars as soldiers to destroy the wicked.

Anubis: Egyptian. A jackal-headed god associated with mummification and the afterlife in ancient Egyptian mythology.

Ao: Chinese. Four dragon gods, each overseeing a portion of the earth and sea. There names were Ao Ch'in, Ao Kuang, Ao Jun and Ao Shun.

Apep: Egyptian. An evil demon, the deification of darkness and chaos; associated with darkness, death, eclipses and the underworld.

Aphrodite: Greek. Goddess of love, lust, and beauty. Often depicted with the sea, dolphins, doves, swans, pomegranates, apples, myrtle, rose and lime trees, clams, scallop shells and pearls. Same as the Roman goddess Venus.

Apit: Egyptian. Goddess of nursing mothers.

Apollo: Greek. God of light and the sun, prophecy and truth, music, archery, poetry, and the arts, medicine and healing; able to bring ill-health and deadly plague as well as cure disease.

Apsu: Sumerian. Ruler of gods and underworld oceans; source of lakes, springs, rivers, wells, and other sources of fresh water. Father of Lahmu, Lahamu, Anshar and Kishar. Killed by Ea.

Apuat: Egyptian. God who guides souls to their final resting place.

Aput: Egyptian. Messinger god.

Arawn: Celtic (Wales). King of the otherworld realm of Annwn, ruled over the dead. Associated with reincarnation, spirit contact, revenge, war, terror, magical names, and strengthening friendships.

Ard Greimme: Celtic (Scotland). Sun god associated with magic.

Ares: Greek. Often referred to as the Olympian god of warfare, he is more accurately the god of savage warfare, or bloodlust, or slaughter personified. Son of Zeus and Hera; savior of cities and father of victory.

Ardwinna: Celtic (Britain). Eponymous goddess of the Ardennes Forest and region, represented as a huntress riding a boar. Later assimilated into the Gallo-Roman mythology of goddess Diana.

Ariadne: Greek and Celtic. The only Greek goddess known to have been worshipped in Celtic Gaul. In Greek mythology, she was daughter of King Minos of Crete and his queen, Pasiphaë, daughter of Helios, the Sun-titan. She aided Theseus in overcoming the Minotaur and later became the consort of the god Dionysus.

Arianrhod: Celtic (Wales). Associated with fertility, beauty, and reincarnation, she was daughter of Dôn and sister of Gwydion and Gilfaethwy. In the Mabinogi her uncle Math ap Mathonwy is the King of Gwynedd, and during the course of the story she gives birth to two sons, Dylan Eil Ton and Lleu Llaw Gyffes, through magical means.

Arnamentia: Celtic. Goddess of spring waters who was once a minor solar deity. Associated with purification and healing.

Artaius: Celtic. God of sheep and cattle herders from Celtic Gaul. Later, the Romans identified him with Mercury. Associated with cattle and sheep.

Artemis: Greek. Daughter of Zeus and Leto, twin sister of Apollo, she was a hunter and a virgin, the goddess of forests, hills, and transitions -- including childbirth. Often depicted as carrying a bow and arrows, deer and cypress were sacred to her. Called Diana by the Romans.

Artio: Celtic. Goddess of the bear, worshipped at Berne, Switzerland. Goddess of fertility and wildlife, usually depicted as being surrounded by animals and full baskets. Associated with geode stones, the bear, claws and teeth; also with fertility, courage, and strength.

Aryaman: Indian. God whose name name signifies "bosom friend," but is literally "noble one." Chief of the manes, the Milky Way is supposed to be his path.

Asa: Kenyan. Father God, "the strong lord," who was associated with mercy, help, and surviving the impossible.

Asase: West African. Fertility goddess responsible for the creation of humans and receiver of them at death; associated with cultivation and the harvest.

Asbit: Egyptian. Goddess of fire.

Asclepius: Greek. A demigod of medicine and healing, represents the healing aspect of the medical arts. Apollo's son.

Aseb. Egyptian. God of fire.

Ashkit: Egyptian. Wind goddess.

Ashu: Egyptian. Wind goddess.

Asvins: Indian. Goddess of the clouds, symbolizing the shining of sunrise and sunset, appearing in the sky before the dawn in a golden chariot, bringing treasures to men and averting misfortune and sickness.

Ataentsic: North American (Iroquois). Sky goddess who fell to the earth at the time of creation. Associated with marriage, childbirth, and feminine pursuits.

Aten: Egyptian. The sun god; originally an aspect of Ra. He became the deity of the monotheistic religion of Amenhotep IV, who took the name Akhenaten.

Athena: Greek. Goddess of war, wisdom, and crafts; daughter of Zeus, and Metis. The patron goddess of Athens, offering the gift of the olive tree. Same as Roman goddess Minerva.

Athirat (Asherah): Canaanite. Equated with the Milky Way, she was goddess of the sea, particularly along the shore, of the fertility of humanity, flocks, and crops, and of great wisdom.

Atho: Finno-Ugrian. Horned god associated with the seas and water.

Athtart: Phonecian. Connected with fertility, sexuality, passion, and war, her symbols were the lion, the horse, the sphinx, the dove, and a star within a circle indicating the planet Venus. Pictorial representations often show her naked.

Atlas: Greek. Leader of the Titans who fought against the gods; punished by Zeus to carry the vault of the sky on his shoulders, in order to to prevent the two from resuming their primordial embrace.

Atum: Egyptian. Deity considered the 'complete one'; the finisher of the world, all things being made of his flesh.

Aua: Egyptian. God of gifts and gift giving.

Auit: Egyptian. Goddess of children and nurses.

Awonawilona: North American (Zuni). Sun god, creator of the sky, earth, and oceans.

Each one of them agnostic or atheist?

Unless you have some convincing proof one way or the other, I'm comfortably agnostic.

But, still, belief in any of them is a religion. Belief that none of them possibly could have existed, A to Z and those yet unnamed, is also a religion.


Whether or not this just happened or was made is fundamental. There really is no proof one way or the other. Strong belief one way or the other is a religious belief.

juggy4711
05-10-2012, 18:39
It's a belief about a very important detail of how we got here. It's a choice to believe that, and that belief would necessarily be based on faith, as there is no proof.

I believe in there is something I choose to call God, but that's it. No worship, no dogma, no required or forbidden behaviors. No personal relationships, no prayer, no anything besides I believe there something called God that is for lack of better words the cause or reason there is something rather than nothing. How is that a religion?

By your definition, every belief based on faith no matter what the subject, is a religion. For something to be a religion it etymologically requires more than just belief based on faith.

I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow but there is no proof that it will. Based on prior evidence I can be reasonable sure it will and have faith that it will do so. Is my belief that it will a religion?

Cavalry Doc
05-10-2012, 20:17
I believe in there is something I choose to call God, but that's it. No worship, no dogma, no required or forbidden behaviors. No personal relationships, no prayer, no anything besides I believe there something called God that is for lack of better words the cause or reason there is something rather than nothing. How is that a religion?

By your definition, every belief based on faith no matter what the subject, is a religion. For something to be a religion it etymologically requires more than just belief based on faith.

I believe the Sun will rise tomorrow but there is no proof that it will. Based on prior evidence I can be reasonable sure it will and have faith that it will do so. Is my belief that it will a religion?

Your belief that their is a deity, is theism. It is a religious belief.

There is no need to participate in a ceremony, congregation, or follow a particular practice for it to be a religious belief. If you believe there is a god, and you're cool with the idea, that's cool with me.

The sun will probably rise tomorrow, from our perspective, unless it doesn't. But of course the earth spins, the sun doesn't really rise over the earth.



Belief in a deity is a religious belief. Belief than no deity has existed is another religious belief.

Both are perfectly OK.

ksg0245
05-11-2012, 05:05
1. what evidence

Evidence of uncaused events: Casimir effect, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) Quantum fluctuation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation)

Evidence of deities: ...

2. If a creator created the universe, that would be the nature of reality, and it would be natural. "Naturally" does not exclude a deity.

It does if the deity is required to violate physical laws.

3. Things can happen due to causes that we do not understand. But every thing that happens, is the result of something.

Like quantum fluctuation.

4. There is also no evidence that no intelligence was involved. Hence, the choice I mentioned before.

Do you chose to believe in gravity?

5. Again, the lack of evidence either way proves nothing.

There is evidence something happened, and evidence things can happen without cause.

There is no evidence of deities.

You chose to punt.

Atheism is a choice.

You're free to make that claim, but it's wrong.

But it's OK, because as far as religion goes, I am very pro-choice.

It appears not.

ksg0245
05-11-2012, 05:14
Unless you have some convincing proof one way or the other, I'm comfortably agnostic.

Yes, it's your "cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Kind of like the system of belief you hold to with ardor and faith that atheism is a religion.

But, still, belief in any of them is a religion. Belief that none of them possibly could have existed, A to Z and those yet unnamed, is also a religion.

Of course, atheism isn't "belief that none of them possibly could have existed" for anyone but you.

Whether or not this just happened or was made is fundamental. There really is no proof one way or the other. Strong belief one way or the other is a religious belief.

False.

Cavalry Doc
05-11-2012, 06:49
Evidence of uncaused events: Casimir effect, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) Quantum fluctuation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation)



Uhhh, from your link:
"the Casimir effect and the Casimir–Polder force are physical forces arising from a quantized field."

If you can measure an event, but can't find what initiated the event, that does not mean there was no cause. It means you haven't found it yet.

On quantum fluctuation, anything that can be described with this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/7/6/c76b7063c9ffe51138acea77d34c5f91.png
has a cause. Nothing would be on one side of the "=" sign otherwise.

Did they teach you that there was no cause for these phenomena in physics class, or atheist class?




Evidence of deities: ...


It all depends on your interpretation. Beginning with a forgone conclusion when examining evidence is a scientific breach of ethics.

Some have looked as scientific laws, and found proof of a god's existence.

http://toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

My belief, is that there isn't enough objective evidence one way or the other.


It does if the deity is required to violate physical laws.


The physical laws as defined by your limited understanding of them, or all the physical laws?

What many people used to think was magic or supernatural stuff, has turned out to be explainable. If a deity appeared before you, and turned you into a frog, that would occur through a process, that if you knew about it enough, would be understandable. No matter how far fetched it sounds, if it happens, it would be done within the laws of nature, it would just be a huge surprise to both of us, but if it can happen, then it would be the nature of the situation.


Like quantum fluctuation.


Which is like using markings on bullets to prove that eagles can fly faster than pigeons.


Do you chose to believe in gravity?


Do you know how much a pound of tea costs in central china?

What does gravity have to do with anything? Unless you are attempting to illustrate that you believe only in what you have personally perceived, and nothing else. Do you believe in neutrinos? Ever seen one, or held one in your hand? Someone probably told you they exist, and you simply believed that they did. That fits in your comfort zone, and deities do not.

That sounds like a choice to me.



There is evidence something happened, and evidence things can happen without cause.

There is no evidence of deities.

You chose to punt.

[quote]

If there is evidence that something can happen without cause, you have yet to share it with me. Just to make your head spin a bit, if there was something that you could find that happened without cause, why not assume the invisible action of a deity caused it. The conclusion is forgone for you. All evidence you see points in the same direction, the place where you started. And that is based on faith. You don't really have proof, you have a strong belief, and a strong desire to feel that you are correct in your belief.

[quote]

You're free to make that claim, but it's wrong.



It appears not.

muscogee
05-11-2012, 08:06
I've been having a discussion with a fellow about his religion. He is an atheist, or at least he claims to be.

http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=16262611&posted=1#post16262611

He believes that God does not exist, however, he acknowledges that it is impossible for him to prove this belief.

So what?

Honestly, take a graduate level research course. You will learn that its nearly impossible to prove anything. You can't prove you won't be struck by lightening the next time you walk out the door. That's why researchers talk about probability.

OK, this gets confusing here so stay with me. Researchers start with a hypothesis. The hypothesis is what they believe. Since they can't prove their hypothesis is true, they attempt to prove that the probability of what they don't believe (the null hypothesis) is so small that what they believe is probably true. They will give you the probability that something is not true. For example, a probability of .05 is a 5 out 100 chance that the null hypothesis is not true. This does not mean the hypothesis is true. It means there is a 5% chance it is not false.

There's no reliable data on the existence of God so proving or disproving the hypothesis that God exists is impossible. One more time, the fact that something can't be disproven does not mean it is true. In fact, the only logically sound position is to assume it is probability not true until evidence suggests that it's probably not untrue. The existence of God is a philosophical question. It lends itself to endless discussion but does not lend itself to the scientific method because, so far, it cannot be proven untrue.

Once again, because people tend to ignore this salient point, the fact that something cannot be disproven does not mean it's true. You can't prove the wind is not disembodied spirits flying around, but the best evidence suggests otherwise. You can't prove evil spirits are trying to get into your brain when you sneeze, but best evidence suggests otherwise.

This issue really needs to be put to bed. It's a nonargument for people who understand the arguments surrounding the question, "How do we know what we know is true?". Discussing it with people who don't understand these arguments and won't take time lo learn them and consider their implications is a waste of time. I can't teach a graduate level research course in one post and I'm not going to invest the effort necessary to do so on-line unless I'm paid for it. If you want to know more about this, start with Karl Popper and the Vienna Circle.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 10:32
Honestly, take a graduate level research course. You will learn that its nearly impossible to prove anything. You can't prove you won't be struck by lightening the next time you walk out the door. That's why researchers talk about probability.

Expanding on this point, most people don't ever stop to think that almost nothing that we think we "know" can actually be definitely proven. As Muscogee said, there is always a small probability that things aren't as they appear. But with most things, this probability is so low as to not be meaningful in day to day life.

Take gravity for instance. If you ask me to prove gravity then I'll grab a rock and drop it from shoulder height and we will all watch it go thud against the ground and shake our heads, "Yep, that's gravity". But maybe the earth accelererated rapidly upward at that moment? Maybe I was hallucianting and the rock is just floating there? Maybe there is no rock at all? Maybe there is no gravity?

I can't definitely disprove any these fanciful scenarios (well, maybe the first one), but at the same time it would be silly of me to give them any real credence. This is what athiests mean when they concede that god can't be disproven. We know god does not exist because all availbale evidence indicates it's highly unlikely, but there is always the possibility that some of the more abstract metaphysical arguments might actually be true. However, that doesn't mean we should give them serious consideration either.

Take my "proof" that god does not exist. I presented it several times trying to make a point and none of the theists here ever picked up on it (eventually it was Artifical Grape that took up the challenge). The properties of the christian god are not possible given our understanding of physics. The theists counter with transcedence, but they can't prove transcedence. I can't disprove it either, but I can say that everything we do know indicates that transcedence is highly unlikely. So much so that it merits no serious consideration. Thus, inductively, I conclude that there is no god.

Or to say it differently, I am just as certain that god does not exist as I am that gravity does.

void *
05-11-2012, 12:00
Expanding on this point, most people don't ever stop to think that almost nothing that we think we "know" can actually be definitely proven.

I tried to make this point somewhere in either this thread or the original that spawned it, using a brain in a box-ish argument, but CD, IIRC, missed the point completely. (Or, at least, appeared to do so, half the time he looks like he's trolling, so i guess mileage may vary).

Gunhaver
05-11-2012, 15:56
Expanding on this point, most people don't ever stop to think that almost nothing that we think we "know" can actually be definitely proven. As Muscogee said, there is always a small probability that things aren't as they appear. But with most things, this probability is so low as to not be meaningful in day to day life.

Expanding on this point, the more your argument depends on the tiny probability that it could be true because it can't be disproven the less you should expect others to take it seriously. This is the reason that science is only interested in the falsifiable. The unfalsifiable (which the concept of god is specifically designed to be) only leaves us with "well, there's a tiny weeny itty bitty chance it could be". Big deal. it's ridiculous to fault someone for not considering the smallest possibilities and downright absurd to equate that to something completely falsifiable and as yet unfalsified for 150 years like evolution simply because it hasn't been proven beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Lone Wolf8634
05-11-2012, 16:35
Ya'll realize that this thread is a lot like wrestling a pig in a mud pit dontchya?

It seemed like a good idea at the time, it was fun for a bit, but after a while you discover that the only thing you've accomplished is to get tired, dirty and frustrated.

Meanwhile the pig is enjoying himself immensely.:supergrin:

:rofl::rofl:

Geko45
05-11-2012, 19:07
Ya'll realize that this thread is a lot like wrestling a pig in a mud pit dontchya?

http://pages.suddenlink.net/pilotbob/nail-jello-tree.jpg

psalms4him
05-11-2012, 19:40
Evidence of uncaused events: Casimir effect, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect) Quantum fluctuation. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation)


You are reaching a bit here. Quantum Fluctuation depends on Supersymmetry, otherwise you still have to solve the Hierarchy problem. Supersymmetry has never been observed.

Further, even it is correct, superpartners must annihilate each other in the absence of an external field or absense of an observer (to satisfy the proposed Unruh effect) in order to conserve the total fermion number of the universe. Without this, all QFT collapses. Therefore, the theory presupposes the existence of either an observer or a uniform field -- either of which is a cause for the continued existence of the particle pairs. QFT still has not escaped the Theory of Existance and causality.

Pair creation is strictly dependent on the existance of the quantum field. This field is thought to be some energy, called quantum energy. This is akin to thermal noise depending on the existance of thermal energy. Just as thermal noise is "caused" by the heat energy, virtual particle/anti-particle pairs are created in the quantum field, but exist as real particles only in the presence of an external field. In the universe, there must be a lot of pre-existing energy to make the theory applicable to cosmology. So, where did the quantum energy and some external field come from? Why was it assymetrical? (...necessary for pairs to exist for any length of time and other details...) And again, how can you tie pair creation to the Beginning of Time problem? (That is, why did the pairs not create one second earlier, or last year, since time is infinite in both directions.) Since the quantum field is also supposed to exist today and account for things like gravity, and there exists an infinite amount of vacuum between any two atoms, why are we not innundated with created pairs? Yet, not a single particle/anti-particle pair is observed in nature. We are building huge colliders to prove it, though, which take huge amounts of energy and may give us one pair in a million tries.

QFT seems like great progress in fixing the problems of QM and Relativity, but it still asks more questions than it answers.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 19:51
QFT seems like great progress in fixing the problems of QM and Relativity, but it still asks more questions than it answers.

I'm not prepared to debate you at the moment as it is Friday evening and I've had a few beers already, but I did want to commend you on actually challenging the position on its scientific merits and not just invoking the "goddidit" argument.

Yet, not a single particle/anti-particle pair is observed in nature.

Because we are not yet capable of reproducing the energy levels that existed several planck times after the Big Bang?

juggy4711
05-11-2012, 20:37
Your belief that their is a deity, is theism. It is a religious belief.

There is no need to participate in a ceremony, congregation, or follow a particular practice for it to be a religious belief. If you believe there is a god, and you're cool with the idea, that's cool with me.

The sun will probably rise tomorrow, from our perspective, unless it doesn't. But of course the earth spins, the sun doesn't really rise over the earth.

Belief in a deity is a religious belief. Belief than no deity has existed is another religious belief.

Both are perfectly OK.

Of course the Sun doesn't actually rise but you knew what I meant. Is my faith that the Earth will spin and the Sun appear tomorrow morning a religion?

No the belief in a non-personal, non-intervening deity is deism.

I am a deist. I am not religious. Religion by definition requires faith and worship.

Both are perfectly ok but one is a religious belief and the other isn't. If not believing in a God is a religious belief than so is not knowing whether there is or not.

Theism - the religious belief that there is a personal, intervening God

Polytheism - the religious belief that there are personal , intervening Gods.

Deism - the religious belied that there is a God, but isn't personal or intervening

Polydeism - the religious belief that there are Gods but aren't personal or intervening

Atheism - the religious belief that the there are no Gods

Agnostic - the religious belief the it isn't/can't be known if there is/are God/s

What is it you think you have gain by asserting atheism is a religion?

+ What KSG, Gecko, Muscogee, Void, Lone and Gunhaver added.

juggy4711
05-11-2012, 20:44
I'm not prepared to debate you at the moment as it is Friday evening and I've had a few beers already, but I did want to commend you on actually challenging the position on its scientific merits and not just invoking the "goddidit" argument.

Because we are not yet capable of reproducing the energy levels that existed several planck times after the Big Bang?

Once again Gecko you beat me to the punch. I was preparing to respond and you take the words out of my mouth. However I will admit it may not be possible to build a machine on Earth that can do so. At least not with current technology.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 20:47
Once again Gecko you beat me to the punch. I was preparing to respond and you take the words out of my mouth. However I will admit it may not be possible to build a machine on Earth that can do so. At least not with current technology.

Dude, you are in Galveston. I'm in Conroe. Muscogee is in San Antonio. I think there might be one or two others in Texas as well. We all need to get together for a beer!

muscogee
05-11-2012, 21:28
Dude, you are in Galveston. I'm in Conroe. Muscogee is in San Antonio. I think there might be one or two others in Texas as well. We all need to get together for a beer!

Going on vacation June 9. Other than that, pick a time, date, and place.

Gunhaver
05-11-2012, 21:33
Dude, you are in Galveston. I'm in Conroe. Muscogee is in San Antonio. I think there might be one or two others in Texas as well. We all need to get together for a beer!

I used to be in Grapevine, couldn't take the heat, got out of Texas. Much happier up here in the Iowa snow.

Geko45
05-11-2012, 21:33
Much happier up here in the Iowa snow.

Well, that's ok, nobody is perfect.

:tongueout:

Woofie
05-11-2012, 21:36
Dude, you are in Galveston. I'm in Conroe. Muscogee is in San Antonio. I think there might be one or two others in Texas as well. We all need to get together for a beer!

No love for Baton Rouge?

Geko45
05-11-2012, 21:40
No love for Baton Rouge?

Our backwards cajun cousins would be welcome too!

We need a new thread to plan this, "The First Annual Lonestar Atheists Convention".

:supergrin:

muscogee
05-11-2012, 22:00
No love for Baton Rouge?

We could all meet in Lake Charles.

RC-RAMIE
05-11-2012, 23:30
We could all meet in Lake Charles.

Darrell's best sandwich in town.


....

void *
05-11-2012, 23:49
Dude, you are in Galveston. I'm in Conroe. Muscogee is in San Antonio. I think there might be one or two others in Texas as well. We all need to get together for a beer!

I'm willing to accept the posit that I'm in Austin, if you're willing to accept the posit that it's part of Texas. :)

void *
05-12-2012, 01:24
On quantum fluctuation, anything that can be described with this:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/math/c/7/6/c76b7063c9ffe51138acea77d34c5f91.png
has a cause. Nothing would be on one side of the "=" sign otherwise.

I'm not a physicist, but it seems like you are attempting to claim equality is the same as causality.

Does the square of the hypotenuse cause the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, or vice-versa? Does that change whether I decide to write it as h^2 = a^2 + b^2 or as a^2 + b^2 = h^2?

steveksux
05-12-2012, 07:25
I'm not a physicist, but it seems like you are attempting to claim equality is the same as causality.

Does the square of the hypotenuse cause the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, or vice-versa? Does that change whether I decide to write it as h^2 = a^2 + b^2 or as a^2 + b^2 = h^2?Surely you must be mistaken????

I find it hard to believe Cavalry Doc could mistake one thing for another... :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'm sure CD will be along any moment with a quote from Merriam Webster definition stating that equality is completely different from causality to prove they are the same.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 07:26
So what?

Honestly, take a graduate level research course. You will learn that its nearly impossible to prove anything. You can't prove you won't be struck by lightening the next time you walk out the door. That's why researchers talk about probability.

OK, this gets confusing here so stay with me. Researchers start with a hypothesis. The hypothesis is what they believe. Since they can't prove their hypothesis is true, they attempt to prove that the probability of what they don't believe (the null hypothesis) is so small that what they believe is probably true. They will give you the probability that something is not true. For example, a probability of .05 is a 5 out 100 chance that the null hypothesis is not true. This does not mean the hypothesis is true. It means there is a 5% chance it is not false.

There's no reliable data on the existence of God so proving or disproving the hypothesis that God exists is impossible. One more time, the fact that something can't be disproven does not mean it is true. In fact, the only logically sound position is to assume it is probability not true until evidence suggests that it's probably not untrue. The existence of God is a philosophical question. It lends itself to endless discussion but does not lend itself to the scientific method because, so far, it cannot be proven untrue.

Once again, because people tend to ignore this salient point, the fact that something cannot be disproven does not mean it's true. You can't prove the wind is not disembodied spirits flying around, but the best evidence suggests otherwise. You can't prove evil spirits are trying to get into your brain when you sneeze, but best evidence suggests otherwise.

This issue really needs to be put to bed. It's a nonargument for people who understand the arguments surrounding the question, "How do we know what we know is true?". Discussing it with people who don't understand these arguments and won't take time lo learn them and consider their implications is a waste of time. I can't teach a graduate level research course in one post and I'm not going to invest the effort necessary to do so on-line unless I'm paid for it. If you want to know more about this, start with Karl Popper and the Vienna Circle.

That's one of my major points, you were doing fine until you assumed that you must assume one way or the other until evidence is present that proves one way or the other.

Without proof one way or the other, at least in my opinion, the truly logical decision is to assume that both are possible.

Some people are not comfortable admitting that they don't know, so pick a side and use what evidence is available, many times with bias, to convince themselves that what they have chosen to believe is the correct information about the nature of the universe. I fully support religious belief in general, and to me, it's obvious that choosing to believe that there has never been a deity is a matter of faith, and a fundamental belief of a religious nature.

ksg0245
05-12-2012, 07:26
I'm not a physicist, but it seems like you are attempting to claim equality is the same as causality.

Does the square of the hypotenuse cause the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, or vice-versa? Does that change whether I decide to write it as h^2 = a^2 + b^2 or as a^2 + b^2 = h^2?

This is why I should always start at the end of threads; someone will almost invariably make my point or ask my question more eloquently that I can.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 07:30
I'm not a physicist, but it seems like you are attempting to claim equality is the same as causality.

Does the square of the hypotenuse cause the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, or vice-versa? Does that change whether I decide to write it as h^2 = a^2 + b^2 or as a^2 + b^2 = h^2?Of COURSE it changes it!!!! When you reverse the equation the cause becomes the effect, and the effect becomes the cause.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 07:34
Expanding on this point, most people don't ever stop to think that almost nothing that we think we "know" can actually be definitely proven. As Muscogee said, there is always a small probability that things aren't as they appear. But with most things, this probability is so low as to not be meaningful in day to day life.

Take gravity for instance. If you ask me to prove gravity then I'll grab a rock and drop it from shoulder height and we will all watch it go thud against the ground and shake our heads, "Yep, that's gravity". But maybe the earth accelererated rapidly upward at that moment? Maybe I was hallucianting and the rock is just floating there? Maybe there is no rock at all? Maybe there is no gravity?

I can't definitely disprove any these fanciful scenarios (well, maybe the first one), but at the same time it would be silly of me to give them any real credence. This is what athiests mean when they concede that god can't be disproven. We know god does not exist because all availbale evidence indicates it's highly unlikely, but there is always the possibility that some of the more abstract metaphysical arguments might actually be true. However, that doesn't mean we should give them serious consideration either.

Take my "proof" that god does not exist. I presented it several times trying to make a point and none of the theists here ever picked up on it (eventually it was Artifical Grape that took up the challenge). The properties of the christian god are not possible given our understanding of physics. The theists counter with transcedence, but they can't prove transcedence. I can't disprove it either, but I can say that everything we do know indicates that transcedence is highly unlikely. So much so that it merits no serious consideration. Thus, inductively, I conclude that there is no god.

Or to say it differently, I am just as certain that god does not exist as I am that gravity does.

So, just a question on the side, why choose at all? Why care at all if someone chooses to believe in a deity? Why do people get upset when someone chooses to believe differently than them. Many people have looked at the evidence and they have concluded that there is an intelligence involved in the existence of life.

Maybe there is, maybe there isn't. Except for the nature of humans to want to be right all the time, it's a very confusing thing to me to see people that admit they have no proof, and watch Christians berating people for their lifestyle choices claiming they are going to hell, and Atheists berating the Christians claiming that they believe in an impossible fairy tale, and attempting to remove war memorials and manger scenes to irritate the other side.

Religion is out there, there are thousands of them(including atheism), one may be right, all of them may be wrong.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 07:41
I tried to make this point somewhere in either this thread or the original that spawned it, using a brain in a box-ish argument, but CD, IIRC, missed the point completely. (Or, at least, appeared to do so, half the time he looks like he's trolling, so i guess mileage may vary).

It's called a discussion. It's interesting to see what people think on the subject. But I do try to refrain from name calling or calling into question another poster's integrity or level of intelligence.

To me, it is obvious that committed atheists that "know" or "believe" that there has never been a deity, is obviously a religious belief. It is a choice, based on faith that they are right. The evidence is inconclusive either way.

How that is irritating to people is very interesting. Honestly, why does it make a difference if there is a person out there (me) that can articulate accurately the opinion that by definition and in spirit, that it is not unreasonable to view Atheism as just another religion? I've met plenty of people that believe differently than me on issues like RKBA, Welfare, the economy, and some disagree with me, but at least have a valid reason that they feel the way they feel about a subject. I can respect that. I even respect the people that believe that atheism cannot be included in the definition of "religion", and am perfectly fine with agreeing to disagree.

:wavey:

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 07:43
Of course the Sun doesn't actually rise but you knew what I meant. Is my faith that the Earth will spin and the Sun appear tomorrow morning a religion?

No the belief in a non-personal, non-intervening deity is deism.

I am a deist. I am not religious. Religion by definition requires faith and worship.

Both are perfectly ok but one is a religious belief and the other isn't. If not believing in a God is a religious belief than so is not knowing whether there is or not.

Theism - the religious belief that there is a personal, intervening God

Polytheism - the religious belief that there are personal , intervening Gods.

Deism - the religious belied that there is a God, but isn't personal or intervening

Polydeism - the religious belief that there are Gods but aren't personal or intervening

Atheism - the religious belief that the there are no Gods

Agnostic - the religious belief the it isn't/can't be known if there is/are God/s

What is it you think you have gain by asserting atheism is a religion?

+ What KSG, Gecko, Muscogee, Void, Lone and Gunhaver added.

Well, at least according to the dictionary, and I think it's accurate, it is a system of beliefs that is held to with ardor and faith.

The only thing I have gained by discussing my opinion on it is an interesting conversation. That's what I thought sites like this were for.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 07:49
I'm willing to accept the posit that I'm in Austin, if you're willing to accept the posit that it's part of Texas. :)

Ooh, that's a tough one. Physically yes, politically..... well, that depends. Most of the Urban areas in Texas have turned blue on the political map, surrounded by large areas of red.

It is always fun to go to whole foods and joke about the hemp rope sandal wearin' hippies. I love the refrigerated Beer aisle. And I always expect to see a letter from the management at the meat counter apologizing to all the vegans that enter the store for murdering their animal friends.

Lots of good food, and genuinely friendly people in Austin though. It's worth visiting.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 07:51
I'm not a physicist, but it seems like you are attempting to claim equality is the same as causality.

Does the square of the hypotenuse cause the sum of the squares of the two adjacent sides, or vice-versa? Does that change whether I decide to write it as h^2 = a^2 + b^2 or as a^2 + b^2 = h^2?

Ah, good point. I concede. But just because we are pretty sure something happens, and we don't know why, why would anyone conclude that there was no cause? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. A lot of these subatomic events are difficult to measure at best, and some assumptions must be made to conclude that we are seeing what we think we are seeing. Isn't it simply more reasonable to assume that we think this event is happening, but don't yet know how or why because our ability to measure it, or it is not witnessed.

ksg0245
05-12-2012, 08:08
If you can measure an event, but can't find what initiated the event, that does not mean there was no cause. It means you haven't found it yet.

Not necessarily; if there is no discernible cause, it may be either because you haven't found it, or because there is no cause. Kind of like if there is no evidence of deities, it could be either because it hasn't been found, or they don't exist.

It all depends on your interpretation.

Interpretation of what? No objective, verifiable evidence of deity has been presented.

Beginning with a forgone conclusion when examining evidence is a scientific breach of ethics.

What evidence has been presented?

Some have looked as scientific laws, and found proof of a god's existence.

http://toptenproofs.com/article_godsexistence.php

It's ironic you write "Beginning with a forgone conclusion when examining evidence is a scientific breach of ethics" and then post a link all about beginning with a forgone conclusion.

From your link:
Option A: Everything came into existence by itself anyway, without the help of God, (even though science has proven that impossible).

Two old school problems with that: science hasn't proved it impossible, and if it were impossible, how did God come into existence?

Option B: Everything in the universe has always existed for all of eternity, (which, by the way is also scientifically impossible as explained in the Top Ten Proofs for God's Existence CD due to something called the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics),

Same problems with that: science hasn't proved it impossible, and if it were impossible, how did God come into existence?

or Option C: There must be a God, a Being greater than science, who created the Laws of science and has the ability to disobey them. Not only is a belief in God the only logical conclusion to draw, it's the only one scientifically possible because remember, if there is no God, the first two options are scientifically impossible according to the actual Laws of Physics.

And there's the forgone conclusion, a "I don't understand, therefore God" one, as it happens.

My belief, is that there isn't enough objective evidence one way or the other.

The scientific default when faced with lack of evidence is to reject the assertion until such evidence is presented. The only assertion the BBT makes is that at some point in the past the Universe began rapidly expanding.

The physical laws as defined by your limited understanding of them, or all the physical laws?

What many people used to think was magic or supernatural stuff, has turned out to be explainable. If a deity appeared before you, and turned you into a frog, that would occur through a process, that if you knew about it enough, would be understandable. No matter how far fetched it sounds, if it happens, it would be done within the laws of nature, it would just be a huge surprise to both of us, but if it can happen, then it would be the nature of the situation.

I have no problem admitting I don't know everything, but I can spot logical fallacies like "it's impossible for the universe to create itself and it's impossible for it to exist externally, but God is a special case because I say so."

Until evidence is presented, the assertion is rejected.

Which is like using markings on bullets to prove that eagles can fly faster than pigeons.

?

Do you know how much a pound of tea costs in central china?

Nope, but I know tea and money exist, and I'm pretty confident China exists.

What does gravity have to do with anything? Unless you are attempting to illustrate that you believe only in what you have personally perceived, and nothing else. Do you believe in neutrinos? Ever seen one, or held one in your hand? Someone probably told you they exist, and you simply believed that they did. That fits in your comfort zone, and deities do not.

That sounds like a choice to me.

I don't need personal experience with everything to draw conclusions about some things. I believe neutrinos exist because I don't believe scientists are lying to me, and I don't believe scientists are lying to me because things like my computer work. I don't chose to believe my computer works; I turn it on and post to the internet. My belief isn't a choice, it's is based on evidence, just like your belief in gravity isn't a choice. If you have convincing evidence neutrinos don't exist, my belief may change, just like if you have convincing evidence a deity exists, my belief may change. But it won't be by choice, it will be by evidence.

If there is evidence that something can happen without cause, you have yet to share it with me. Just to make your head spin a bit, if there was something that you could find that happened without cause, why not assume the invisible action of a deity caused it.

Why?

The conclusion is forgone for you.

Nope.

All evidence you see points in the same direction, the place where you started.

And you want it to be otherwise; you want atheists to ignore the lack of evidence of deities.

And that is based on faith.

No, accepting or rejecting assertions based on evidence still hasn't become "faith" despite your insistence.

You don't really have proof, you have a strong belief, and a strong desire to feel that you are correct in your belief.

I've never claimed to have proof, so why even mention it? I have a strong belief (well, lack of belief in this instance) based on both evidence and lack of evidence. Everybody thinks their beliefs are correct; that's why they believe them. And, I suspect, that's why you still, after over almost 1900 posts, haven't actually state whether you believe God exists.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 08:14
Surely you must be mistaken????

I find it hard to believe Cavalry Doc could mistake one thing for another... :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

I'm sure CD will be along any moment with a quote from Merriam Webster definition stating that equality is completely different from causality to prove they are the same.

Randy

Would you like me to give you my username and password so you can just type my responses for me?

You are an interesting character. :wavey:

steveksux
05-12-2012, 08:27
Would you like me to give you my username and password so you can just type my responses for me?

You are an interesting character. :wavey:Wouldn't fool anyone.

I would make sense, and everyone would know your account had been hacked.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 08:39
Not necessarily; if there is no discernible cause, it may be either because you haven't found it, or because there is no cause. Kind of like if there is no evidence of deities, it could be either because it hasn't been found, or they don't exist.


Then wouldn't the correct answer be "We are pretty sure this happens, but don't know why"?


Interpretation of what? No objective, verifiable evidence of deity has been presented.



What evidence has been presented?


It's ironic you write "Beginning with a forgone conclusion when examining evidence is a scientific breach of ethics" and then post a link all about beginning with a forgone conclusion.

From your link:


I didn't mean to claim the guy was right, just showing the other side of the same coin. He wants to believe there is a deity, and his conclusions from the available evidence are the one he wants to be true. Same with atheism.



Two old school problems with that: science hasn't proved it impossible, and if it were impossible, how did God come into existence?



Same problems with that: science hasn't proved it impossible, and if it were impossible, how did God come into existence?



And there's the forgone conclusion, a "I don't understand, therefore God" one, as it happens.



The scientific default when faced with lack of evidence is to reject the assertion until such evidence is presented. The only assertion the BBT makes is that at some point in the past the Universe began rapidly expanding.



The assertion that there is and has never been a deity or deities is an assertion.

Again, the logical SCIENTIFIC conclusion is that all of the stuff we can currently see and measure in the universe is here, but we don't know why. We may know some of the how, or at least we have some theories, but whether or not a deity has ever existed is simply not yet known. Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, so we'll keep looking at nature and see what we can learn.



I have no problem admitting I don't know everything, but I can spot logical fallacies like "it's impossible for the universe to create itself and it's impossible for it to exist externally, but God is a special case because I say so."

Until evidence is presented, the assertion is rejected.



?



Nope, but I know tea and money exist, and I'm pretty confident China exists.



I don't need personal experience with everything to draw conclusions about some things. I believe neutrinos exist because I don't believe scientists are lying to me, and I don't believe scientists are lying to me because things like my computer work. I don't chose to believe my computer works; I turn it on and post to the internet. My belief isn't a choice, it's is based on evidence, just like your belief in gravity isn't a choice. If you have convincing evidence neutrinos don't exist, my belief may change, just like if you have convincing evidence a deity exists, my belief may change. But it won't be by choice, it will be by evidence.



Many people don't think their clergy are lying to them. In many cases, the clergy aren't, they actually believe what they are telling their congregations.

Man is fallible, and so is science. How many times have they flip flopped on whether a particular food item is good or bad for you. In medicine, we see it a lot, the running joke is that if you went to school over 6 years ago, everything you learned in school was wrong, but if you wait 6 more years, it will all be right again.



Why?



Nope.



And you want it to be otherwise; you want atheists to ignore the lack of evidence of deities.


I'm not sure I want anyone to ignore anything. It would be interesting to take a step back and see that truly having a belief on whether or not a deity or deities have ever existed requires a belief in what cannot be proven or disproved, faith is required.


No, accepting or rejecting assertions based on evidence still hasn't become "faith" despite your insistence.



I've never claimed to have proof, so why even mention it? I have a strong belief (well, lack of belief in this instance) based on both evidence and lack of evidence. Everybody thinks their beliefs are correct; that's why they believe them. And, I suspect, that's why you still, after over almost 1900 posts, haven't actually state whether you believe God exists.

I've given my position on the existence of God many times. I believe it is possible. I believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed. But even if a deity does or did exist, which one? Many religious beliefs are mutually exclusive. Even when religions have the same God, there are major differences. Judaism, Christianity and Islam for example. And within the religions, there are sects. Baptists, shia, kaballah. If one is right, which one? It's also possible that none of the human religions got it right. Most people agree that humans did not exist at the moment of creation, and who knows if there was a moment of creation.

So, simply, I go on with my life not worrying about it. If there is an afterlife, I might get to ask some questions, if there isn't, it will be a fade to black. Either way, that will happen one day. We all die at least once, it's kind of like a rule or something. I focus on doing what I like, and to be honest, helping other people is a lot of fun for me. I have to give bad news pretty often. At least weekly I am telling someone they have cancer. If they are atheist, that's fine. If they believe in a god, that's fine too. I focus on increasing their quality and quantity of life as much as is reasonable. I care about them, and they are always appreciative. It's both selfless and selfish. It's a hard job, but I enjoy it immensely. Life is full of paradox and contradiction.

It is interesting to discuss though, just to get other people's perspective on it.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 08:47
Wouldn't fool anyone.

I would make sense, and everyone would know your account had been hacked.

Randy

Steve,

I have an honest question for you, did your parents raise any children with manners? Is your current psychological state and boorish behavior their fault, or yours?

:therapy:

void *
05-12-2012, 08:51
But I do try to refrain from name calling or calling into question another poster's integrity or level of intelligence.

Do you believe with at least 95% certainty that you are competent and aware enough to continue?

That is a statement, of yours, from the portion of the thread I was referring to. It sure looks like questioning someone's intelligence, no?

Every response you made to the argument I was making at that time, you appeared to miss the point entirely. You made some statement about me thinking I didn't exist, you made the above quote, etc. If people would like to verify, they can go read it themselves.

I presume you are trolling because you have, in this thread, fairly often made statements like the one quoted. You've been obstinate about definitions, despite being shown that various definitions are in fact used and acceptable. That sort of behavior, combined with necro'ing a long dead thread, etc, leads me to the conclusion that you are basically just having some fun on the internet, pulling people's chains.

Whether or not you like being perceived that way is not my problem. :cool:

Edit: In other words, if you don't want people to think you're missing the point, don't make posts that miss the point, and if you don't want people to think you're trolling, then don't make posts and/or an entire thread that looks like you're trolling.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 09:02
That is a statement, of yours, from the portion of the thread I was referring to. It sure looks like questioning someone's intelligence, no?

Every response you made to the argument I was making at that time, you appeared to miss the point entirely. You made some statement about me thinking I didn't exist, you made the above quote, etc. If people would like to verify, they can go read it themselves.

I presume you are trolling because you have, in this thread, fairly often made statements like the one quoted. That, combined with necro'ing a long dead thread, etc, leads me to the conclusion that you are basically just having some fun on the internet, pulling people's chains.

Whether or not you like being perceived that way is not my problem. :cool:

You were calling into question whether you or I exist. My question wasn't meant to be insulting, in medical terms, "competent" is used to decide whether a person can make decisions. I have met plenty of medically incompetent people that are that way through no fault of their own. I've met people that are completely unable to communicate, in a near vegetative state. It doesn't make them bad people, now the people that are going through heroic measures to keep them alive so the checks keep coming in aren't on my good list, but that's a whole other story.

I was only asking if you were sure enough that you and I were actually having the conversation, and that you were present enough to have an opinion and make decisions on the subject.

If I offended you, I apologize for my poor choice of words.


I am having fun on the internet, but it's not chain pulling that I am interested in, it's the reasoning people have used to conclude the basic nature of reality that is interesting.

void *
05-12-2012, 09:10
You were calling into question whether you or I exist.

You miss the point yet again.

I was not calling into question that I exist. I also explicitly stated that I accept that you exist as a thinking, perceiving being, based on the fact that you appear to act like one.

What I was trying to get across to you is that you cannot prove to me that you actually are, and I cannot prove to you that I actually am.

I can prove to myself that I am, because I perceive. You can prove to you that you are, if you perceive. I accept that you are, because you appear to act in a way that indicates that you are. But there is some small possibility that you aren't, and from your perspective, there is some small possibility that I am not.

When you can grok what I am actually stating, rather than restating it in a way that shows you are not getting the point, then I can change my position that you are missing the point.

void *
05-12-2012, 09:11
If I offended you, I apologize for my poor choice of words.

It didn't offend me, it just looked very trollish.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 10:02
You miss the point yet again.

I was not calling into question that I exist. I also explicitly stated that I accept that you exist as a thinking, perceiving being, based on the fact that you appear to act like one.

What I was trying to get across to you is that you cannot prove to me that you actually are, and I cannot prove to you that I actually am.

I can prove to myself that I am, because I perceive. You can prove to you that you are, if you perceive. I accept that you are, because you appear to act in a way that indicates that you are. But there is some small possibility that you aren't, and from your perspective, there is some small possibility that I am not.

When you can grok what I am actually stating, rather than restating it in a way that shows you are not getting the point, then I can change my position that you are missing the point.

Most of what we know to have been proven, we know because someone else told us they proved it. Most of us are not researchers, and those that are, have not researched all of reality.

So, there are things I can reasonably assume, and if I'm wrong, deal with it then. I can reasonable assume that if I turn the knob and pull on my front door it will open, if it does not, I'll enter into troubleshooting mode and see if I can figure out what the problem is.

So some assumptions are OK, like the two of us assuming the other is a real person. That's reasonably reasonable.

void *
05-12-2012, 10:08
So some assumptions are OK, like the two of us assuming the other is a real person. That's reasonably reasonable.

It absolutely is reasonable. I'm not talking about whether or not it's reasonable to accept that the other is a "real person".

I'm trying to get you to recognize that even though we are both accepting the posit that the other is an actual perceiving being, neither of us can prove it. In other words, neither of us knows that the other is. Our perception could be false. From my perspective, I could be a brain in a box, from your perspective, you could be a brain in a box. One of us could be a very sophisticated computer program whose sole purpose is to trick people into thinking they are a real person via message board postings. All of these are things that *could* be true but we assign a very low probability that they actually are. We don't say "I don't know one way or another" and then act as though they could be true all the time.

Edit: From there, I can state that I, as an atheist, assign a very low probability to the posit that a god or god exists. Further evidence might change my assessment of that probability. That is not the mode of thinking of someone who is religious. If the threads are still on the board, you can find posts where people are asked "what would change your mind?". The atheists generally can give examples. The theists tend to say "nothing", more or less.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 10:19
It absolutely is reasonable. I'm not talking about whether or not it's reasonable to accept that the other is a "real person".

I'm trying to get you to recognize that even though we are both accepting the posit that the other is an actual perceiving being, neither of us can prove it. In other words, neither of us knows that the other is. Our perception could be false. From my perspective, I could be a brain in a box, from your perspective, you could be a brain in a box. One of us could be a very sophisticated computer program whose sole purpose is to trick people into thinking they are a real person via message board postings. All of these are things that *could* be true but we assign a very low probability that they actually are.

Edit: From there, I can state that I, as an atheist, assign a very low probability to the posit that a god or god exists. Further evidence might change my assessment of that probability. That is not the mode of thinking of someone who is religious. If the threads are still on the board, you can find posts where people are asked "what would change your mind?". The atheists generally can give examples. The theists tend to say "nothing", more or less.

So your point is that even simple things may be "unprovable". Something as far in the past as creation was, would obviously be difficult to approve, since no one alive (that we've met anyway) was around to witness the event.

So, you assign a low probability that a deity existed. Why assign any probability? When asked, has there ever been a deity, why not just answer "Beats me?" and move on to more pressing problems you can solve, like where to go out to lunch.

void *
05-12-2012, 10:26
So, you assign a low probability that a deity existed. Why assign any probability? When asked, has there ever been a deity, why not just answer "Beats me?" and move on to more pressing problems you can solve, like where to go out to lunch.

Why do you assign a low probability to the idea that you're a brain in a box? Perhaps because you have no evidence for it? You don't have any evidence that you're not, either, because you can't show that your perception actually maps to reality. Despite that, despite the fact that you don't have any evidence either way - you act as though you're *not* a brain in a box, don't you?

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 10:57
Why do you assign a low probability to the idea that you're a brain in a box? Perhaps because you have no evidence for it? You don't have any evidence that you're not, either, because you can't show that your perception actually maps to reality. Despite that, despite the fact that you don't have any evidence either way - you act as though you're *not* a brain in a box, don't you?

Not a box, but a vessel, called a cranial cavity. My senses can perceive as such, and I have enough evidence to convince myself that I am not a brain in a box, which is all I need. I don't have an uncontrollable desire to prove otherwise to people either. I would not berate someone and call them a believer in fairy tales if they believed they were or were not a brain in a box.

That's a nice distraction, but we apparently have perceptions that are occurring during our own existence that can help us decide how to believe whether we are or are not a brain in a box. None of us were around for creation, and must look at the physical world, and if we admit it, imagine what we are seeing means in the larger scheme of things.

If one chooses to believe in deities or not, it is a choice. If you believe you are required to believe one way or the other, that would be interesting to explore.

void *
05-12-2012, 11:15
That's a nice distraction, but we apparently have perceptions that are occurring during our own existence that can help us decide how to believe whether we are or are not a brain in a box.

You can't be sure those perceptions are accurate. Your perceptions could be simulated. Nobody acts as though those perceptions are simulated, and nobody believes those perceptions are simulated - and there is no, and cannot be, evidence either way for the posit that they are simulated.

Yet nobody believes they *are* simulated and nobody claims that *not* believing they are is somehow a religion.

That is the point here. Your assertion that *not* believing something that nobody can prove either way is somehow a religion is contradicted by the fact that pretty much everybody *doesn't* believe a posit that nobody can prove either way, and pretty much *nobody* thinks that is a religion.

It's also something that would have a large impact, were it to be true. Just in case you were wanting to go down that route again.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 11:31
Steve,

I have an honest question for you, did your parents raise any children with manners? Is your current psychological state and boorish behavior their fault, or yours?

:therapy:An honest question? That's off topic for this thread. :rofl:

Luckily for you this is a troll thread so your question fits right in.

Did your parents raise any children that are honest enough to admit when they're trolling? Or better yet, did they teach any of their children that trolling is boorish behavior? Perhaps some therapy would be beneficial to see why you get a sick thrill out of such behavior. Just trying to be helpful.

Randy

muscogee
05-12-2012, 12:04
Most of what we know to have been proven, we know because someone else told us they proved it. Most of us are not researchers, and those that are, have not researched all of reality.


You're not even close. Once again, take a graduate level research course. Until then, your arguments lack perspective.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 14:47
An honest question? That's off topic for this thread. :rofl:

Luckily for you this is a troll thread so your question fits right in.

Did your parents raise any children that are honest enough to admit when they're trolling? Or better yet, did they teach any of their children that trolling is boorish behavior? Perhaps some therapy would be beneficial to see why you get a sick thrill out of such behavior. Just trying to be helpful.

Randy

Steve,

You don't have to participate in the conversation. All you have to do is not actively click in it. You are not trapped by anything other than your own personal lack of impulse control.

It is a controversial subject. The adults among us are having a conversation, while you childishly hurl silly insults and accusations.

If the subject makes you that uncomfortable, ignore it. Trolls like to disrupt conversations, and that's what you are doing.

Have a nice day Steve, try not to be such a duche.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 14:52
You're not even close. Once again, take a graduate level research course. Until then, your arguments lack perspective.

Back up a bit. Most of what we "know" we either read,heard or were taught by others. Some of the things we learned through direct observation. But most of us have not done experimental research into subatomic particles and quantum physics. Most of us have not seen a neutron, but we have learned about their existence through the theories and experimentation of others.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 14:58
You can't be sure those perceptions are accurate. Your perceptions could be simulated. Nobody acts as though those perceptions are simulated, and nobody believes those perceptions are simulated - and there is no, and cannot be, evidence either way for the posit that they are simulated.

Yet nobody believes they *are* simulated and nobody claims that *not* believing they are is somehow a religion.

That is the point here. Your assertion that *not* believing something that nobody can prove either way is somehow a religion is contradicted by the fact that pretty much everybody *doesn't* believe a posit that nobody can prove either way, and pretty much *nobody* thinks that is a religion.

It's also something that would have a large impact, were it to be true. Just in case you were wanting to go down that route again.

If someone passively did not believe in a deity or deities, that is one thing. But the belief that no deities have ever existed, is not a passive belief. It is an active one. Therefore a choice.

If you want to describe that what we perceive as reality,that we believe that to be physically occurring, and not a simulation, as a religious belief, I can live with that. It is a fundamental belief about the nature of the universe.

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 15:15
Why do you assign a low probability to the idea that you're a brain in a box? Perhaps because you have no evidence for it? You don't have any evidence that you're not, either, because you can't show that your perception actually maps to reality. Despite that, despite the fact that you don't have any evidence either way - you act as though you're *not* a brain in a box, don't you?

:rofl: Yes, he certainly is having trouble showing that.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 15:22
Steve,

You don't have to participate in the conversation. All you have to do is not actively click in it. You are not trapped by anything other than your own personal lack of impulse control.
You resurrected the thread. If you don't like being accused of being a troll, stop trolling and let it die. You are the one that can't control your trolling impulses. Not my problem.
It is a controversial subject. The adults among us are having a conversation, while you childishly hurl silly insults and accusations. Actually its a foolish proposition, amply demonstrated by everyone else. Only you pretend to believe it. That's not a controversy. A controversy is something where there is an honest disagreement of people with differing viewpoints. Not pretending to take a position and pretending it makes sense in order to annoy adults who actually ARE trying to have an adult conversation... And about those accusations? Accusations you cannot refute and refuse to address. Telling, isn't it?

If the subject makes you that uncomfortable, ignore it.Not uncomfortable at all. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument. That seems to make you uncomfortable. Why is it so hard to admit that your belief athesim is a religion is a religion? I see ardor and faith, and no factual basis. But then, your disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also a religion. How many religions are you a devout follower of anyway? Trolls like to disrupt conversations, and that's what you are doing. I can't be a troll, or you'd welcome me with some professional courtesy.
Have a nice day Steve, try not to be such a duche.Thank you very much. I hope you have a nice trollerific day too. Maybe you should double-check your favorite dictionary you love to misquote. At least you'd be able to spell the word correctly. But I understand why you'd be reluctant to start posting correct information this deep into such a troll thread.

Randy

void *
05-12-2012, 15:27
If you want to describe that what we perceive as reality,that we believe that to be physically occurring, and not a simulation, as a religious belief, I can live with that. It is a fundamental belief about the nature of the universe.

Nobody describes that as as a religion, which is the point. now take it a step further, and realize that by the criteria that you're demanding, there is no belief that is not religion - The belief that you own a gun requires, as a prerequisite, the belief that what you perceive is physically occurring, for instance- and then, ask yourself if that conclusion makes any sense at all.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 15:34
:rofl: Yes, he certainly is having trouble showing that.QFT! :rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 15:58
Nobody describes that as as a religion, which is the point. now take it a step further, and realize that by the criteria that you're demanding, there is no belief that is not religion - The belief that you own a gun requires, as a prerequisite, the belief that what you perceive is physically occurring, for instance- and then, ask yourself if that conclusion makes any sense at all.

Don't think we were in as much agreement as you thought. I said if YOU wanted to describe what we perceive as reality as a religious belief, I would have no problem with that. I didn't intend for you to think that I agreed. I just have no problem with you having that opinion.

I've also previously said that if someone wants to describe agnosticism as a religion, that's ok with me too.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 16:02
Don't think we were in as much agreement as you thought. I said if YOU wanted to describe what we perceive as reality as a religious belief, I would have no problem with that. I didn't intend for you to think that I agreed. I just have no problem with you having that opinion.

I've also previously said that if someone wants to describe agnosticism as a religion, that's ok with me too.DOn't forget Hockey. Food. Football. They're religions too according to your definition. Stated quite explicitly in the definition you're relying on...

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 16:02
You resurrected the thread. If you don't like being accused of being a troll, stop trolling and let it die. You are the one that can't control your trolling impulses. Not my problem. Actually its a foolish proposition, amply demonstrated by everyone else. Only you pretend to believe it. That's not a controversy. A controversy is something where there is an honest disagreement of people with differing viewpoints. Not pretending to take a position and pretending it makes sense in order to annoy adults who actually ARE trying to have an adult conversation... And about those accusations? Accusations you cannot refute and refuse to address. Telling, isn't it?
Not uncomfortable at all. I'm just pointing out the flaws in your argument. That seems to make you uncomfortable. Why is it so hard to admit that your belief athesim is a religion is a religion? I see ardor and faith, and no factual basis. But then, your disbelief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster is also a religion. How many religions are you a devout follower of anyway? I can't be a troll, or you'd welcome me with some professional courtesy.
Thank you very much. I hope you have a nice trollerific day too. Maybe you should double-check your favorite dictionary you love to misquote. At least you'd be able to spell the word correctly. But I understand why you'd be reluctant to start posting correct information this deep into such a troll thread.

Randy

Tell you what Steve, if you'll send me a PM, I'll tell you what I really think about you.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 16:03
Tell you what Steve, if you'll send me a PM, I'll tell you what I really think about you.Why should I believe you'd be honest in a PM when you obviously aren't in public? I mean, now it sure seems like you were lying when you wished me a nice day a few posts ago.

Seeing the truth sure seems to be upsetting you. Maybe you should stop posting in this thread if its so upsetting to you. The rest of us can have a much nicer adult discussion on the topic without your trollish disruptions.

Randy

muscogee
05-12-2012, 16:07
Back up a bit. Most of what we "know" we either read,heard or were taught by others. Some of the things we learned through direct observation. But most of us have not done experimental research into subatomic particles and quantum physics. Most of us have not seen a neutron, but we have learned about their existence through the theories and experimentation of others.

Most research is published. Look in the back of any college level text book. You can find it and read it. Start with the nearest college library. It if you can understand it you can decide for yourself it it makes sense or not. If I read or hear something I don't understand or does not make sense, I usually go to the source. Editors frequently distort what the researchers meant to say.

My grandfather used to say, "Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see". That was before the Internet.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 16:08
This message is hidden because steveksux is on your ignore list.


You long ago stopped discussing the points of conversation, and have nothing more than complaints and insults left. Have a nice life, and if there is one, a nice afterlife too.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 16:11
Most research is published. Look in the back of any college level text book. You can find it and read it. Start with the nearest college library. It if you can understand it you can decide for yourself it it makes sense or not. If I read or hear something I don't understand or does not make sense, I usually go to the source. Editors frequently distort what the researchers meant to say.

My grandfather used to say, "Believe nothing you hear and only half of what you see". That was before the Internet.

I've read a lot of research and the results. Bare minimum is at least 100 hours every 2 years, but I always exceed that.

Still, that stuff you are reading at the back of the textbook is second hand information. No?

muscogee
05-12-2012, 16:22
I've read a lot of research and the results. Bare minimum is at least 100 hours every 2 years, but I always exceed that.

Still, that stuff you are reading at the back of the textbook is second hand information. No?

True, the most recent research is presented at conferences where it is sifted and sorted. Some of makes it into publication, some does not. However, you can learn enough to learn more at the nearest college library.

Given your support in this thread of non-falsifiable statements, I'm not convinced you understand how research works.

Lone Wolf8634
05-12-2012, 16:25
Playing word games can be fun Doc, but as has been pointed out, using your argument ANYTHING that is believed could be the basis of a religion.

And anything with that broad of a definition is useless as a definition.

Saying atheism is a religion may, in some overly generalized, completely useless way, using the loosest interpretation possible for no conceivable purpose, be correct.

But then again, if your looking to actually define atheism (and not just tweak people), it's really not much help, now is it?

steveksux
05-12-2012, 16:31
You long ago stopped discussing the points of conversation, and have nothing more than complaints and insults left. Have a nice life, and if there is one, a nice afterlife too.Obvious troll is obvious. You only get angry when I point out the ludicrous nature of your proposition that atheism, the opposite of religion, is a religion and point out the obvious trolling nature of your behavior. You're only interested in pretending to have a conversation with people who agree to pretend you're not trolling.

Meanwhile, in point of fact, Hockey Football and food don't have an afterlife.

Please, please, PLEASE make sure nobody quotes this so CD can see it... :rofl::rofl::rofl: The truth hurts him deeply... :supergrin:

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 16:37
Playing word games can be fun Doc, but as has been pointed out, using your argument ANYTHING that is believed could be the basis of a religion.

And anything with that broad of a definition is useless as a definition.

Saying atheism is a religion may, in some overly generalized, completely useless way, using the loosest interpretation possible for no conceivable purpose, be correct.

But then again, if your looking to actually define atheism (and not just tweak people), it's really not much help, now is it?

By definition, any system of belief held to with ardor and faith is a religion. I can not refute that. I do tend to believe that systems of belief that make assumptions about creation qualify much more, but the definitions are still are what they are.

Lone Wolf8634
05-12-2012, 16:50
By definition, any system of belief held to with ardor and faith is a religion. I can not refute that. I do tend to believe that systems of belief that make assumptions about creation qualify much more, but the definitions are still are what they are.

See? Thats where you miss the point.

Atheism, in itself, proposes no assumptions about creation. Thats an entirely different subject called science.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural based on a complete lack of evidence.

And I, personally, am not using faith to support that. I don't "have faith" that there isn't any evidence for a God or Gods. Its simply a fact.

steveksux
05-12-2012, 16:54
By definition, any system of belief held to with ardor and faith is a religion.Like football, food, or hockey. I can not refute that. I do tend to believe that systems of belief that make assumptions about creation qualify much more, but the definitions are still are what they are.The definitions clearly delineate "religious" religions such as Christianity and other theistic religions that do address creation from from a totally seperate connotation of the word religion which refers to something completely different, i.e. displayed by fans of hockey, food, baseball, politics. Why you blithely pretend to conflate these two obviously separate meanings of the word is truly puzzling. I'm not sure there's even a definition for that in medical literature.

If only you wouldn't misrepresent those connotations as if they refer to the same thing, as well as not misrepresent atheism as having made any assumptions about creation, you'd be having an honest adult discussion.

Instead you make obviously false misrepresentations in order to make a stupid point that's so very clearly and obviously stupid that no one could possibly be fooled, for God only knows why. Its kind of puzzling. You seem intent on irritating people, yet cry like a small child when you get irritated by having the truth pointed out. Its obvious. its not like you were fooling anyone with your silly word games anyway.

I didn't realize trolling was so addictive. I wonder if there's a 12 step program available for it?

Again, please refrain from quoting this post to shelter CD's tender sensibilities from being offended by the truth yet again.

Randy

Lone Wolf8634
05-12-2012, 16:56
What if I can't help it????:dunno:


:rofl::rofl:

steveksux
05-12-2012, 17:02
What if I can't help it????:dunno:


:rofl::rofl:Can't help what? :rofl::rofl::supergrin:

Randy

void *
05-12-2012, 17:04
Don't think we were in as much agreement as you thought. I said if YOU wanted to describe what we perceive as reality as a religious belief, I would have no problem with that. I didn't intend for you to think that I agreed.

Well, since I didn't intend to describe it as a religious belief - in fact, since my whole line of argument was about how silly it is do describe such a belief as religious, since no one realistically considers such a belief religious - I can only assume you were (and are still) attempting to attribute to me an argument I never made.

By definition, any system of belief held to with ardor and faith is a religion.

Do you hold that you believe that what you perceive is an actual reality, physical processes, with ardor and faith?

Lone Wolf8634
05-12-2012, 17:09
Can't help what? :rofl::rofl::supergrin:

Randy

Thats cheating!!!!!:tongueout:

OOOOOPPPPSSSS!!!:rofl:

Harper
05-12-2012, 17:44
Atheism isn't a religion but a lot of atheists are still in the religious mood.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 18:02
See? Thats where you miss the point.

Atheism, in itself, proposes no assumptions about creation. Thats an entirely different subject called science.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the supernatural based on a complete lack of evidence.

And I, personally, am not using faith to support that. I don't "have faith" that there isn't any evidence for a God or Gods. Its simply a fact.

The posit that there are no deities is an assumption, a belief based on faith.

And if a deity created the universe, that would be natural if true.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 18:32
Well, since I didn't intend to describe it as a religious belief - in fact, since my whole line of argument was about how silly it is do describe such a belief as religious, since no one realistically considers such a belief religious - I can only assume you were (and are still) attempting to attribute to me an argument I never made.



Do you hold that you believe that what you perceive is an actual reality, physical processes, with ardor and faith?

I believe I'm watching a roller derby match with a beer in my right hand and an iPhone in my left.

If you wish to say that is a religious belief because I choose to mostly trust my senses, that's ok with me.


A much more interesting question, is why is it such a problem for you if I reasonably consider atheism a religion?

Why is that so hard to accept, than another person could reasonably come to that conclusion?

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 19:14
By definition, any system of belief held to with ardor and faith is a religion. I can not refute that. I do tend to believe that systems of belief that make assumptions about creation qualify much more, but the definitions are still are what they are.

Cool. Does that mean I can claim religious discrimination if I don't get a job that I believed with ardor and faith should have been mine? Wow, this changes everything since religion pertains to everything. I'm going to stop paying taxes and claim religious exemption since I'm self employees and I believe with ardor and faith in what I do.

There's what you think and then there's the reality of what people will go along with and this thread is showing you the size of the gap in between.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 19:27
Cool. Does that mean I can claim religious discrimination if I don't get a job that I believed with ardor and faith should have been mine? Wow, this changes everything since religion pertains to everything. I'm going to stop paying taxes and claim religious exemption since I'm self employees and I believe with ardor and faith in what I do.

There's what you think and then there's the reality of what people will go along with and this thread is showing you the size of the gap in between.

No, but you can claim religious descriminatoon if someone treats you badly because you are an atheist.

The courts have spoken, and found atheism is a religion.

I'll add the link in a little while. Ahh, there it is, post 1762.

Gunhaver
05-12-2012, 19:53
No, but you can claim religious descriminatoon if someone treats you badly because you are an atheist.

The courts have spoken, and found atheism is a religion.

I'll add the link in a little while. Ahh, there it is, post 1762.

If someone were to treat me badly because I'm an atheist I'll bet you it wouldn't be another atheist. It'd be someone with a specific deity in mind that was sore that I didn't see it the same way. Freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. That's why that court case went the way it did. Who would even oppose an atheist group unless they had issues with them. It's quite stupid to claim that religions can't discriminate against each other but they any of them can discriminate against atheists because they have no religion.

But I couldn't care less if you want to label it religion. I'm more curious as to why you've stood adamant for nearly 80 pages and almost 2000 posts that it is. Do you just need to win the semantics war or are you trying to stick it in our face that we believe what evidence shows while you believe what evidence can't show and that's somehow the same thing because the word "believe" is involved?

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 20:12
If someone were to treat me badly because I'm an atheist I'll bet you it wouldn't be another atheist. It'd be someone with a specific deity in mind that was sore that I didn't see it the same way. Freedom of religion as well as freedom from religion. That's why that court case went the way it did. Who would even oppose an atheist group unless they had issues with them. It's quite stupid to claim that religions can't discriminate against each other but they any of them can discriminate against atheists because they have no religion.

But I couldn't care less if you want to label it religion. I'm more curious as to why you've stood adamant for nearly 80 pages and almost 2000 posts that it is. Do you just need to win the semantics war or are you trying to stick it in our face that we believe what evidence shows while you believe what evidence can't show and that's somehow the same thing because the word "believe" is involved?

Descrimimation works both ways, and there is never a good reason to treat someone badly based on a stereotypical generalization.

I enjoy the conversation. Why do you post anywhere on GT? Is it because you don't like it?

It is an interesting conversation, that's all. Why do you keep checking back on the thread? Same thing?

void *
05-12-2012, 21:02
I believe I'm watching a roller derby match with a beer in my right hand and an iPhone in my left.

You're avoiding answering the question

If you wish to say that is a religious belief because I choose to mostly trust my senses, that's ok with me.

You are again attempting to make it look like I made an argument I never made. This is the third time you've done this with the same effective statement. I'll remind you for the third time that I do not think that is a religious belief.

You can keep avoiding the question, and keep telling me "If you wish to [insert something I've never said here]" - which will show other people reading this thread that you're not actually interested in discussion.

Or you can answer the question that was asked, which, to remind you, is:
Do you hold that you believe that what you perceive is an actual reality, physical processes, with ardor and faith?

It's ok to just answer "No", if that's the truth, or "Yes", if that's the truth, rather than trying to avoid answering.

Cavalry Doc
05-12-2012, 21:34
You're avoiding answering the question



You are again attempting to make it look like I made an argument I never made. This is the third time you've done this with the same effective statement. I'll remind you for the third time that I do not think that is a religious belief.

You can keep avoiding the question, and keep telling me "If you wish to [insert something I've never said here]" - which will show other people reading this thread that you're not actually interested in discussion.

Or you can answer the question that was asked, which, to remind you, is:
Do you hold that you believe that what you perceive is an actual reality, physical processes, with ardor and faith?

It's ok to just answer "No", if that's the truth, or "Yes", if that's the truth, rather than trying to avoid answering.

Ok, so you don't like me skipping ahead. I get it.

I believe that the reality I am experiencing is real, and current. Even if I cannot prove it to you that I am in a car in Texas, I am pretty sure I am.

So, now is this when you tell me you believe that also to be a religious belief, and I say it's ok if you think that way?

void *
05-12-2012, 22:02
Ok, so you don't like me skipping ahead. I get it.

I believe that the reality I am experiencing is real, and current. Even if I cannot prove it to you that I am in a car in Texas, I am pretty sure I am.

So, now is this when you tell me you believe that also to be a religious belief, and I say it's ok if you think that way?

No, this is the part where I note that you yet again didn't answer the question I asked, while yet again stating something that tries to imply something I never argued.

To put it another way, is your belief, as expressed by the statement starting with "I believe" as quoted above, held with ardor and faith?

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 00:17
Why do you keep checking back on the thread?

Because it keeps popping up in "my replies" but mostly because I do so love to watch a good troll spanking and I haven't seen one this good in quite a while. I am amused. :supergrin:

Geko45
05-13-2012, 05:19
So, just a question on the side, why choose at all?

It's not so much a "choice" as just something I know. I don't believe unicorns exist either. I'm not choosing to not believe in unicorns, I just realize that the probability of a magical one horned horse type creature is so small as to not warrant serious considertaion. Same with leprechauns, UFOs, chemtrails, etc. etc.

Why care at all if someone chooses to believe in a deity?

This has been covered so many times it's hard to believe it has to be explained again. Because, theists vote according to their beliefs and impose their interpretation of what their mythical deity wants on others.

Many people have looked at the evidence and they have concluded that there is an intelligence involved in the existence of life.

Appeal to popularity. Just because there are many people that believe it, doesn't make it true or even likely. Half the nation thinks a liberal style of government is a good thing. They aren't right either.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 06:49
It's not so much a "choice" as just something I know. I don't believe unicorns exist either. I'm not choosing to not believe in unicorns, I just realize that the probability of a magical one horned horse type creature is so small as to not warrant serious considertaion. Same with leprechauns, UFOs, chemtrails, etc. etc.



This has been covered so many times it's hard to believe it has to be explained again. Because, theists vote according to thier beliefs and impose thier interpretation of what thier mythical deity wants on others.



Appeal to popularity. Just because there are many people that believe it, doesn't make it true or even likely. Half the nation thinks a liberal style of government is a good thing. They aren't right either.

You didn't make a choice? I thought you looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion you were comfortable with. Were you moved by some spirit to come to your understanding of the nature of the universe?

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 06:54
No, this is the part where I note that you yet again didn't answer the question I asked, while yet again stating something that tries to imply something I never argued.

To put it another way, is your belief, as expressed by the statement starting with "I believe" as quoted above, held with ardor and faith?

Oh, so there was an extra step. I do believe it with zeal that I am at my computer this morning, with a cup of coffee sitting next to me, and without being able to prove beyond any doubt that that is a fact to you, I still believe it to be so.

So, that would meet the definition of ardor and faith.

Is now where you tell me then my belief that I exist is a religious belief, and I tell you it's OK if you want to think about it that way. It also meets the spirit of the word, as it is a fundamental belief, whether we are actually experiencing what our senses tell us we are experiencing. Our senses are very limited though. Just look (oops, unintentional pun) at all of the electromagnetic spectrum that our eyes cannot see.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 06:55
Because it keeps popping up in "my replies" but mostly because I do so love to watch a good troll spanking and I haven't seen one this good in quite a while. I am amused. :supergrin:

Yeah, I felt bad about ignoring Steve, but he couldn't stay on topic and kept resulting to insults and bad behavior. Still, I wish him well.

Still nice to have you around though.

Lone Wolf8634
05-13-2012, 07:16
The posit that there are no deities is an assumption, a belief based on faith.

And if a deity created the universe, that would be natural if true.

Red X.

The posit that there are no deities is not an assumption. It is, based on all available facts, a negative conclusion. It's not based on faith, it's based on the lack of evidence for said deity. And as mentioned before, this conclusion is malleable when new evidence can be presented.

An assumption would be believing in the deity despite having no facts to logically conclude the existence of said deity. That would require faith. And the ability to ignore the lack of evidence.

And, as I said before, the only way to define Atheism as a religion is to use a definition so broad as to be meaningless, and therefore useless.

Jeez...I'm in the mudpit again.

ETA: We don't really need to get into an epic thread about the definitions of "natural" and "supernatural", do we?

steveksux
05-13-2012, 07:39
Yeah, I felt bad about ignoring Steve, but he couldn't stay on topic and kept resulting to insults and bad behavior. Still, I wish him well.

Still nice to have you around though.Should start a thread. Why is it so hard for Cavalry Doc to admit he's a troll?

He does revel in it, positively wallows in it, so why so shy about admitting it.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 07:49
Red X.

The posit that there are no deities is not an assumption. It is, based on all available facts, a negative conclusion. It's not based on faith, it's based on the lack of evidence for said deity. And as mentioned before, this conclusion is malleable when new evidence can be presented.

An assumption would be believing in the deity despite having no facts to logically conclude the existence of said deity. That would require faith. And the ability to ignore the lack of evidence.

And, as I said before, the only way to define Atheism as a religion is to use a definition so broad as to be meaningless, and therefore useless.

Jeez...I'm in the mudpit again.

ETA: We don't really need to get into an epic thread about the definitions of "natural" and "supernatural", do we?

The only fact on the matter is that there is no proof one way or the other. Other smart people have examined the evidence and came up with the exact opposite opinion.

If you don't want to consider atheism a religion, it's OK. I understand that it is very difficult to grasp for some. But it is a basic belief about how the current reality came to be, at least the portion of whether it just happened without conscious thought or not.

As far as the thread goes, participation is purely voluntary. I'm not aware of any mandatory responses or coercion to force anyone to read or post in it against their will.

Gunhaver
05-13-2012, 08:07
The only fact on the matter is that there is no proof one way or the other.



Actually, the only fact that matters is that only one side is even required to provide proof and that's the side making the claim. Since no counter claim (there is no god) can be made until a claim (there is a god) is made you first have to make the claim and then provide the evidence before a refutation is ever required. Atheists have simply been generous by offering up the refutation of all your fake evidence on credit until you find real proof. Except there isn't any just like it says up there in your quote.

Now what is that, like, the 30th or so time you've walked right into it? Aw, who's counting after 80 pages anyway.

steveksux
05-13-2012, 08:15
Yeah, I felt bad about ignoring Steve, but he couldn't stay on topic and kept resulting to insults and bad behavior. Still, I wish him well.

Still nice to have you around though.

Reminds me of a joke. If you are playing poker with a bunch of guys, and you don't know who the mark is.... YOU're the mark... :rofl:

Ask not for whom the Doc trolls, he trolls for thee.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 08:29
Actually, the only fact that matters is that only one side is even required to provide proof and that's the side making the claim. Since no counter claim (there is no god) can be made until a claim (there is a god) is made you first have to make the claim and then provide the evidence before a refutation is ever required. Atheists have simply been generous by offering up the refutation of all your fake evidence on credit until you find real proof. Except there isn't any just like it says up there in your quote.

Now what is that, like, the 30th or so time you've walked right into it? Aw, who's counting after 80 pages anyway.


Since there is no proof, why believe either is true? It's a choice. I choose to believe that I don't know, and others choose to believe that there either was a creator or there was not a creator. From my perspective, it is interesting to watch the other two sides of the issue argue that only their position is right. Neither side has proof, but both sides seem to be more than willing to claim intellectual superiority in their choice of what to believe on the subject.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 08:33
You didn't make a choice? I thought you looked at the evidence and came to a conclusion you were comfortable with. Were you moved by some spirit to come to your understanding of the nature of the universe?

You really are enjoying the deliberate misinterpration of what others say, aren't you? You should go read the intellectual honesty thread.

void *
05-13-2012, 08:45
Oh, so there was an extra step. I do believe it with zeal that I am at my computer this morning, with a cup of coffee sitting next to me, and without being able to prove beyond any doubt that that is a fact to you, I still believe it to be so.

So, that would meet the definition of ardor and faith.

Is now where you tell me then my belief that I exist is a religious belief, and I tell you it's OK if you want to think about it that way.

For someone who complains so much about other people making statements for you, you sure try to do it to other people a lot.

You see, you are wrong about what happens now.

Now is the time where I state for the *fourth* time that I do not think it is a religious belief.

Now is also the time where I note that your current statement that your belief "meets the definition of ardor and faith" contradicts your statement that you disagreed with me in this post:

Don't think we were in as much agreement as you thought. I said if YOU wanted to describe what we perceive as reality as a religious belief, I would have no problem with that. I didn't intend for you to think that I agreed. I just have no problem with you having that opinion.

Since you are now admitting that you consider your own belief as having "ardor and faith", and thus are admitting *you yourself* have to consider it a religious belief by your own definition, we're not talking about whether or not I describe it as a religious belief (which, in fact, I would not). We're talking about whether or not you have to, by your own definition, describe it as a religious belief - and you're now contradicting your previous statements.

And since you've now stated that you yourself believe it in a way that meets your own definition "religious belief", I can again charge that under that definition, there are no non-religious beliefs, and can again ask you to consider that this means you are stating that *any* belief you hold that depends on your perception, *you* consider religious. I again state that this is an absurd result, as nobody actually considers such beliefs religious.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 08:52
That's the fun part about being me, I'm ok with occasionally being inconsistent. I also believe nobody is perfect, especially me. A small but significant difference is that I asked if my assumption was correct about where you were trying to go with that.

You have proposed an interesting idea, that believing in our own existance can be a religious belief. It is a thought provoking point you have made.

void *
05-13-2012, 08:58
And in case you are going to state for a sixth time that I am somehow stating that I think your belief is a religious belief, I do not hold that it is a religious belief.

I hold that it is a posit I accept conditionally, until and unless there is contrary evidence presented (such as my waking up in a vat with a probe in my head).

muscogee
05-13-2012, 08:58
I'm unsubscribing. This thread is a waste of time. It's one man's close minded ego trip.

void *
05-13-2012, 09:05
You have proposed an interesting idea, that believing in our own existance can be a religious belief. It is a thought provoking point you have made.

No, I've done nothing of the kind.

What I've shown is that you, by your definitions, have to consider the belief that there is an external reality to be a religious belief. It has nothing to do with existence.

As far as you being OK with occasionally being inconsistent, and occasionally being wrong - I'm fine with that, too, However, it seems wise to adjust such that you're not inconsistent, and no longer wrong, at least on whatever particular issue the inconsistency arose. Since in this case that would require that you abandon an entire line of logic you've followed in an attempt to demand that atheism be a religion, I don't really expect that to happen. After all, you've provided plenty of additional evidence, since yesterday, that you're really just having some fun and pulling people's chains.

By the way, if you had answered the other way (that you do not hold that belief with ardor and faith), then your argument still falls, as you are then admitting that a belief that cannot be proven can be held without ardor or faith. It is then fairly obvious that both the statement "Perception is being simulated" and "One or more gods exist" can be disbelieved without ardor and faith.

So you either allow that such statements can be held without ardor and faith, or you demand that all statements that depend on perception be considered religious. The former allows non-religious atheism, the latter leads to having to consider statements like "I am holding a cup of coffee" as religious, which is obviously absurd.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 09:17
No, I've done nothing of the kind.

What I've shown is that you, by your definitions, have to consider the belief that there is an external reality to be a religious belief. It has nothing to do with existence.

As far as you being OK with occasionally being inconsistent, and occasionally being wrong - I'm fine with that, too, However, it seems wise to adjust such that you're not inconsistent, and no longer wrong, at least on whatever particular issue the inconsistency arose. Since in this case that would require that you abandon an entire line of logic you've followed in an attempt to demand that atheism be a religion, I don't really expect that to happen. After all, you've provided plenty of additional evidence, since yesterday, that you're really just having some fun and pulling people's chains.


I am having some fun, but it's not about upsetting anyone.
Just as you have made some thought provoking points, so have I. It is an interesting conversation. I don't see any reason to abandon the position that atheism is a religion, but most of the rest of what you have said makes a bit of sense.

Pointing out that I believe my sense of reality actually exists does not change the assertive nature of another position that cannot be proven either.

Both theists and atheists believe a particular situation exists. Neither has proof, and many admit that. Some think they have proof. Me, just not convinced one way or the other.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 09:18
It's one man's close minded ego trip.

This.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 09:19
I'm unsubscribing. This thread is a waste of time. It's one man's close minded ego trip.

Actually, it's more open minded than the denials. But thanks for your valued input.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 09:25
This.

Is proof that it's hard to admit. There are some surprisingly strong emotional responses to the idea as well as some polite discussion.

In an objective an unemotional way, one could, and many have, conclude that they disagree with me, and that my opinion causes them no harm or personal loss. More if a "who cares" response than the "Cav Doc is a poopy head for disagreeing with me" response.

But life is all about choices.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 09:27
In an objective an unemotional way, one could, and many have, conclude that they disagree with me, and that my opinion causes them no harm or personal loss. More if a "who cares" response than the "Cav Doc is a poopy head for disagreeing with me" response.

It's actually not your opinion that I take issue with. It's your debating tactics.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 09:48
It's actually not your opinion that I take issue with. It's your debating tactics.

In what way?

juggy4711
05-13-2012, 09:49
It's actually not your opinion that I take issue with. It's your debating tactics.

Same here. It seems to me Doc has selectively chosen a definition of religion, which isn't etymologically correct, but must somehow to him, benefit his argument in someway I do not get. Otherwise I can't fathom why he would argue thus.

ksg0245
05-13-2012, 09:56
Then wouldn't the correct answer be "We are pretty sure this happens, but don't know why"?

Sure. Right now it looks like "uncaused." That might change should evidence be discovered.

I didn't mean to claim the guy was right, just showing the other side of the same coin. He wants to believe there is a deity, and his conclusions from the available evidence are the one he wants to be true. Same with atheism.

No, not the same with atheism. Atheists (most, anyway) don't want to believe there isn't a deity; they don't want lack of deities to be true and reason backwards from that.

The assertion that there is and has never been a deity or deities is an assertion.

The scientific default when faced with lack of evidence is to reject the assertion until such evidence is presented. Atheism is the rejection of the assertion of deities. Go back and check the definitions you provided; atheism says "disbelief in the existence of deity," and disbelieve says "to withhold or reject belief."

Accurate use of English and all.

Again, the logical SCIENTIFIC conclusion is that all of the stuff we can currently see and measure in the universe is here, but we don't know why. We may know some of the how, or at least we have some theories, but whether or not a deity has ever existed is simply not yet known.

And until there's evidence, the assertion is rejected.

Maybe there was, maybe there wasn't, so we'll keep looking at nature and see what we can learn.

And not ascribe to the miraculous that which indicates a non-miraculous explanation.

I'm not sure I want anyone to ignore anything. It would be interesting to take a step back and see that truly having a belief on whether or not a deity or deities have ever existed requires a belief in what cannot be proven or disproved, faith is required.

It does not take faith to reject an assertion that can't be proved. Atheism is the rejection of an unsupported assertion.

I've given my position on the existence of God many times.

No, you've dodged every time, just like you've done here.

I believe it is possible.

The question was not "do you believe it's possible any deity exists?"

I believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

The question wasn't "what do you believe is possible?" Nor was it "do you believe it's possible to know if deities exist?", in case that was the next unasked question you were going to answer.

Geko45
05-13-2012, 10:09
No, not the same with atheism. Atheists (most, anyway) don't want to believe there isn't a deity; they don't want lack of deities to be true and reason backwards from that.

I'll second this. I was a believer for 36 years. I really wanted their to be a god. I finally realized the evidence did not support that conclusion.

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 13:47
Same here. It seems to me Doc has selectively chosen a definition of religion, which isn't etymologically correct, but must somehow to him, benefit his argument in someway I do not get. Otherwise I can't fathom why he would argue thus.

Actually, it is etymologically correct. It's just very hard for some to admit that and move on.

It is a choice to believe a very specific detail about how all things that are came to be.

I'm not saying it is wrong, I'm just pointing out that is a matter of faith.

Why? Better question is Why not? This is a place where people discuss things, right???? Or is it a place where people make personal attacks against those they don't completely agree with?

:dunno:

ksg0245
05-13-2012, 15:45
Actually, it is etymologically correct. It's just very hard for some to admit that and move on.

Perhaps the reason "it's just very hard for some to admit that and move on" is because it doesn't accurately describe their belief, and they object to their beliefs being incorrectly described despite repeated attempts at correction.

It is a choice to believe a very specific detail about how all things that are came to be.

Unless the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, which are theories about how things came to be, are theories dependent upon atheism, which earlier in this thread you admitted was not the case, then no, atheism isn't a belief about how things came to be; it is merely the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deity.

I'm not saying it is wrong,

"It's just very hard for some to admit that and move on" is pretty much saying it's wrong.

I'm just pointing out that is a matter of faith.

Do you choose to believe the sun will come up tomorrow? Do you choose to believe gravity keeps you on the ground? How much faith is required to believe those things? What effect would choosing not to believe those things have upon them?

Why? Better question is Why not? This is a place where people discuss things, right???? Or is it a place where people make personal attacks against those they don't completely agree with?

:dunno:

Without any reference to knowledge or possibility, do you believe any deity exists?

Cavalry Doc
05-13-2012, 16:01
Perhaps the reason "it's just very hard for some to admit that and move on" is because it doesn't accurately describe their belief, and they object to their beliefs being incorrectly described despite repeated attempts at correction.



Unless the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory, which are theories about how things came to be, are theories dependent upon atheism, which earlier in this thread you admitted was not the case, then no, atheism isn't a belief about how things came to be; it is merely the rejection of the unsupported assertion of deity.



"It's just very hard for some to admit that and move on" is pretty much saying it's wrong.



Do you choose to believe the sun will come up tomorrow? Do you choose to believe gravity keeps you on the ground? How much faith is required to believe those things? What effect would choosing not to believe those things have upon them?



Without any reference to knowledge or possibility, do you believe any deity exists?

I believe it is possible that a deity exists, or at least existed.

I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

That's what I came up with after perusing the available evidence.

What did you come up with?

Lone Wolf8634
05-13-2012, 16:13
The only fact on the matter is that there is no proof one way or the other. Other smart people have examined the evidence and came up with the exact opposite opinion.

Yup. You are correct. No proof. On either side. Fortunately I can disregard an assertion that has no proof on the basis that it is unproven and therefore unlikely. Kinda like the chances that you would admit that your premise has been shot down, repeatedly.

If you don't want to consider atheism a religion, it's OK. I understand that it is very difficult to grasp for some. But it is a basic belief about how the current reality came to be, at least the portion of whether it just happened without conscious thought or not.

I do not consider it a religion, and I know its ok.

And really, it aint all that difficult to grasp your premise. Believe it or not, everyone arguing with you understands exactly what your trying to prove. Everyone here is smarter than a 5th grader, who could also understand your argument.

What I'm saying (and you keep ignoring) is that by using your definition, everything you know, think you know, believe or think you believe becomes a "religion". And that same 5th grader could tell you that even though its technically true, it's a useless definition.

I'm gonna try one more time. The bolded is completely wrong. Read carefully Doc because your just not getting this even though its been repeated endlessly:

Atheism IS NOT, repeat, IS NOT a basic belief on how the "current reality came to be". Please try and get this as it is important. Atheism itself posits no explanation about the origin of life, the universe and everything. Your insistence that it does is mistaken, erroneous, wrong.

Atheism is simply the rejection of the assertion of deities, due to lack of evidence.

If you want a competing theory to creation, you need to look at SCIENCE. SCIENCE is not ATHEISM, and ATHEISM is not SCIENCE. Two completely different animals.

And science is also...not a religion.



As far as the thread goes, participation is purely voluntary. I'm not aware of any mandatory responses or coercion to force anyone to read or post in it against their will.

It like a black hole Doc......it just keeps sucking me in.:supergrin:

ksg0245
05-13-2012, 18:21
I believe it is possible that a deity exists, or at least existed.

I also believe it is possible that no deity has ever existed.

That's what I came up with after perusing the available evidence.

What did you come up with?

I came up with you dodging the question asked.

Woofie
05-13-2012, 19:32
We could all meet in Lake Charles.

With a touch of irony, the only person I know who lives in Lake Charles is a preacher.

I've been looking for an excuse to go to an Astros' game. The Astros' winning record sure isn't making me want to drive to Houston.