Atheism Is Not A Religion! [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Atheism Is Not A Religion!


Pages : [1] 2

Smacktard
07-28-2012, 09:56
Bill Maher - Atheism Is Not A Religion (New Rules 3rd February 2012) - YouTube

Bill explains it all.


...

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 11:07
http://www.exposay.com/celebrity-photos2/bill-mahers-crocodile-hunter-costume-angers-fans-AoA.jpg


This guy?? Seriously? He's an idealog idiot.

First, he used an incorrect definition, second, he's about as wrong as possible on so many other issues, how could you possibly trot this arsehole out as some sort of subject matter expert.

The question I have now is, do you really want me to get into why, from an agnostic perspective, it is perfectly reasonable to consider atheism as just another religion?

nmk
07-28-2012, 11:27
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322

Just in case anyone is new here and wants to see how illogical some posters can be.

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 11:31
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322

Just in case anyone is new here and wants to see how illogical some posters can be.


And how wrong.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 11:34
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1282322

Just in case anyone is new here and wants to see how illogical some posters can be.

The definitions fit. It fits in the spirit of the words too. From my perspective, it makes sense.

It is very evident that it is hard to admit though. It's obviously an emotionally charged issue. Many can't bring themselves to even agree to disagree on the issue.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 11:35
And how wrong.

More accurately.... Right, but inconvenient to admit.

Odd that it bothers you so much for someone else to have a different opinion than you, don't you think?

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 11:50
More accurately.... Right, but inconvenient to admit.

Insisting that you're right, doesn't make it so, Doc. Which, as I've noted elsewhere, seems to be you're preferred debating tactic.

Odd that it bothers you so much for someone else to have a different opinion than you, don't you think?

The same could be said about you. Pot, meet Kettle.

nmk
07-28-2012, 12:09
I don't believe in bigfoot. Join my religion or squatch will torment you in hell.

nmk
07-28-2012, 12:10
Insisting that you're right, doesn't make it so, Doc. Which, as I've noted elsewhere, seems to be you're preferred debating tactic.



The same could be said about you. Pot, meet Kettle.

Shhh. He still claims to be agnostic.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 12:26
Insisting that you're right, doesn't make it so, Doc. Which, as I've noted elsewhere, seems to be you're preferred debating tactic.



:rofl::rofl::rofl: It's just as valid as you simply claiming I'm wrong.



The same could be said about you. Pot, meet Kettle.

Now, come on. How many times have I offered to agree to disagree with you and let it go? A couple dozen?

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 12:29
Shhh. He still claims to be agnostic.

Odd that is a sticking point. Or is it some sort of an attempt to discredit me by claiming I am being less than truthful.

I guess I could claim something made up about you too, but why?

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 12:30
I don't believe in bigfoot. Join my religion or squatch will torment you in hell.

If you can be serious and honest for a moment, do you believe that there has never been a deity?

Kingarthurhk
07-28-2012, 12:31
It most definately is a religion. It makes, like all major religions a metaphysical presuppsoition. It presumes without evidence that there is No God. This intitiate a clear set of logical coralating beliefs. Since there is no god, there can clearly be no revelation. Without a revelation there can be no meaning, or a common set of morality or eithics. Without meaning there is no purpose. Without purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been branded, "The philosophy of suicide." Because, if there is no meaning or purpose, then why bother.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 12:33
It most definately is a religion. It makes, like all major religions a metaphysical presuppsoition. It presumes without evidence that there is No God. This intitiate a clear set of logical coralating beliefs. Since there is no god, there can clearly be no revelation. Without a revelation there can be no meaning, or a common set of morality or eithics. Without meaning there is no purpose. Without purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been branded, "The philosophy of suicide." Because, if there is no meaning or purpose, then why bother.

Funny about how that is so hard to admit?

Guess they could not claim intellectual superiority if they admitted that they have chosen to believe in something that there is not one shred of evidence to prove. The passive lack of belief is awful curious in a bunch of folks that defend zealously their belief as superior above all others.

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 12:50
:rofl::rofl::rofl: It's just as valid as you simply claiming I'm wrong.

There's another thread (I'm sure you noticed) with hundreds of posts, if not more, of people explaining to you why your wrong, you're argument to all these arguments amounts to nothing more than reciting a few definitions you found online, and say "I'm right".

Oh, and constantly misrepresenting positions, assigning beliefs and philosophies and sidestepping arguments based on the fact that you don't think they're "meaningful" enough.

Pardon me if I'm not sufficiently impressed.



Now, come on. How many times have I offered to agree to disagree with you and let it go? A couple dozen?

But you don't, you show up in other threads (such as this one) to continue the argument. You wanna let it go, let it go, but if you keep bringing it up, expect to be argued with. Don't be surprised when your action brings about the predictable result.


Funny about how that is so hard to admit?

Guess they could not claim intellectual superiority if they admitted that they have chosen to believe in something that there is not one shred of evidence to prove. The passive lack of belief is awful curious in a bunch of folks that defend zealously their belief as superior above all others.

Have I told you in this post that your being disingenuous?

Again.

Surprise:upeyes:

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 12:57
It most definately is a religion. It makes, like all major religions a metaphysical presuppsoition. It does not. It presumes without evidence that there is No God. It does not. This intitiate a clear set of logical coralating beliefs. Since there is no god, there can clearly be no revelation. What the heck is "revelation"? Without a revelation there can be no meaning, or a common set of morality or eithics. We've been over ethics and morality in other threads. Dig them up if you wanna start that again. Without meaning there is no purpose. Who says? Without purpose there is no hope. Who says? That is why Atheism has been branded, "The philosophy of suicide." Because, if there is no meaning or purpose, then why bother.

Only people I've ever seen call it "The philosophy of suicide.", surprisingly (not really), is Theists. Imagine that.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 13:08
There's another thread (I'm sure you noticed) with hundreds of posts, if not more, of people explaining to you why your wrong, you're argument to all these arguments amounts to nothing more than reciting a few definitions you found online, and say "I'm right".

Oh, and constantly misrepresenting positions, assigning beliefs and philosophies and sidestepping arguments based on the fact that you don't think they're "meaningful" enough.

Pardon me if I'm not sufficiently impressed.



Lone,

There are hundreds of posts of people telling me they have a different opinion, and why they feel that way.

Get over it, the fact is that language is not math, and it is perfectly legitimate to state that atheism is a religion. It is grammatically correct, and the definitions fit.

It's VERY hard to admit for some though. That's the really interesting part for me. Why is it so irritating for someone to notice that atheists have made a choice in what to believe?




But you don't, you show up in other threads (such as this one) to continue the argument. You wanna let it go, let it go, but if you keep bringing it up, expect to be argued with. Don't be surprised when your action brings about the predictable result.


So what? I'm supposed to just retreat and shut up?

I'm here to offer my perspective, and discuss issues with atheists and theists alike, and offer my own perspectives on religious issues. You wouldn't begrudge me that?

It would be a lot like me asking you to discuss religion with the theists, and to not mention that god doesn't exist.


Have I told you in this post that your being disingenuous?

Again.

Surprise:upeyes:


And you slid in the ad hom just before closing.

Can you discuss anything with someone you disagree with, and remain a gentleman? I'm beginning to wonder. :whistling:

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 13:25
Lone,

There are hundreds of posts of people telling me they have a different opinion, and why they feel that way.

Get over it, the fact is that language is not math, and it is perfectly legitimate to state that atheism is a religion. It is grammatically correct, and the definitions fit.

It's VERY hard to admit for some though. That's the really interesting part for me. Why is it so irritating for someone to notice that atheists have made a choice in what to believe?

And there you go again.





So what? I'm supposed to just retreat and shut up?

I'm here to offer my perspective, and discuss issues with atheists and theists alike, and offer my own perspectives on religious issues. You wouldn't begrudge me that?

It would be a lot like me asking you to discuss religion with the theists, and to not mention that god doesn't exist.

Never said "shut up". Just said "Don't be surprised when your action brings about the predictable result. "

Where is "shut up" in that?




And you slid in the ad hom just before closing.

Can you discuss anything with someone you disagree with, and remain a gentleman? I'm beginning to wonder. :whistling:

Not when you say:

Guess they could not claim intellectual superiority if they admitted that they have chosen to believe in something that there is not one shred of evidence to prove. The passive lack of belief is awful curious in a bunch of folks that defend zealously their belief as superior above all others.

I defy you to find anywhere I've claimed intellectual superiority, (I'm the first to admit my ignorance in many areas).

I have not "chosen to believe in something that there is not one shred of evidence to prove." as has been explained to you many times, though you wont hear it.



I've repeatedly told you my position and then you reassign me the one you wish me to have.

I just figure, maybe I need to couch it in stronger language.:dunno:

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 13:40
Bill explains it all.


...

Bill Maher, not one of my favorite people.

But funny, nonetheless.

Heres a pretty good article on the subject, should anyone be curious enough to read it.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

Kingarthurhk
07-28-2012, 14:02
Only people I've ever seen call it "The philosophy of suicide.", surprisingly (not really), is Theists. Imagine that.

Revelation is when a god or gods reveal their will which would involve a Personal God, which has a "revelation" e.g. the Bible, the Koran, etc.

I am guessing philosophy and compartive religion is not your strong suit. That is something I studied for four years a lifetime ago. It kept me from getting bored while working on a history degree. When it got dull, phisosophy courses always became interesting.

BTW, as the saying goes: "If you want to spend a gloomy hour, spend it with Schopenhauer."

I didn't really agree with many of the major philosophers. The closest was Immanuel Kant and his view of an absolute morality rather than a pluralistic or utilitarian perspective.

I suspect your comedian friend is also bereft in the study of philosophy as well.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 14:12
And there you go again.







Never said "shut up". Just said "Don't be surprised when your action brings about the predictable result. "

Where is "shut up" in that?






Not when you say:



I defy you to find anywhere I've claimed intellectual superiority, (I'm the first to admit my ignorance in many areas).

I have not "chosen to believe in something that there is not one shred of evidence to prove." as has been explained to you many times, though you wont hear it.



I've repeatedly told you my position and then you reassign me the one you wish me to have.

I just figure, maybe I need to couch it in stronger language.:dunno:

Did you notice my post to Kingarthurhk was not directed at you personally?

You tend to claim to be a passive nonbeliever, and yet are very animated, which is very odd to me. It's almost like you have left something unsaid.

And as far as you are concerned personally, I think you lack a small amount of self control and manners, but all in all, not such a bad guy.

That's not only directed at me, otherwise I would think it was possibly just my position.

Imagine Tilley actually posted something useful in a thread, besides half witticisms.

A man can dream.....


As far as the intellectual superiority, since you asked......

Really? The logic of it should just reach out and slap you silly.

C'mon and think about it Doc, any self respecting deity needs to have a certain skill set. You know, things like omniscience and omnipotence? Maybe the ability to create entire universes in six days simply by saying "let there be light!". How 'bout the ability to step outside the natural order of what he created and view it from the outside in?

Basically, our deity needs "godlike powers" that are innate to his existence, without help of technology. And his existence should probly be eternal, it simply wont do to have a mortal deity.

If our supposed deity is, in any way, bound by the laws of nature, cursed with a finite lifespan or in need of technology for the powers he displays, then he can't have the job, he simply doesn't qualify as anything more than a more advanced alien.



Well, since nothing in any branch of science has turned up a reason to need a deity, everything seems to run just fine without the finger of a god poking around. I'd say there's no need to even look. But in the interest of fairness, lets take this one step at a time, using the method you described in another thread.



Ask a Question

In this case, the question would be "Is there a God who is responsible for all that we see?"



Do Background Research

All evidence to support the existence of such a being is purely anecdotal. Not one scientific clue has been unearthed in the entire history of mankind. If you wanna "find god" you must leave the field of science and journey into philosophy.



Construct a Hypothesis

Well, the whole purpose of this is to find out if there is a god, so he must have godlike qualities.

So the hypothesis might go like this:

There is a being of unlimited power, who is responsible for the creation of mankind, the earth, the galaxy and the entire universe.


Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment

Well, as I understand it, any experiment worth it's salt is set up to test predictions based on your hypothesis, so what predictions could we make based on our hypothesis?

Well, here's where it all seems to break down. There really isn't a testable prediction we can make about an all powerful being. There is no experiment you could attempt, because you cant make any predictions from your hypothesis.


Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion

There is no data. A god is, by definition unknowable, untestable and undefinable. Therefore the entire concept is relegated back into the field of philosophy, where it belongs, and this entire exercise has been a futile waste of time.



Communicate Your Results

Through the scientific method it has been discovered the preponderance of evidence suggests that, at this time, the concept of a deity has as much evidence to support it as Superman. And unless any evidence comes along to change this, the entire idea should be left to philosophers and the clergy. Anyone with critical thinking skills should probably give this as much credence as any other fairy tale or myth, which is to say: None.

:dunno:

If your past practice continues, I'm sure you will claim not to see it. :cool:

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 14:14
Revelation is when a god or gods reveal their will which would involve a Personal God, which has a "revelation" e.g. the Bible, the Koran, etc.

Got it. Your instruction manual.


I am guessing philosophy and compartive religion is not your strong suit. That is something I studied for four years a lifetime ago. It kept me from getting bored while working on a history degree. When it got dull, phisosophy courses always became interesting.

BTW, as the saying goes: "If you want to spend a gloomy hour, spend it with Schopenhauer."

I didn't really agree with many of the major philosophers. The closest was Immanuel Kant and his view of an absolute morality rather than a pluralistic or utilitarian perspective.

You would guess correctly. I've never heard of any of those guys. And before you waste time posting links I won't follow, I really don't wanna know about them.

I suspect your comedian friend is also bereft in the study of philosophy as well.

Ol' Bill aint a friend of mine, while he can be mildly amusing at times, personally, I think he's a horses ass.

steveksux
07-28-2012, 14:27
If you can be serious and honest for a moment, do you believe that there has never been a deity?
Do you believe there has NEVER been a bigfoot? Are you making the metaphysical assumption that bigfoot did NOT create the universe?

That's a religion. By your standards.

why do you despise religion so much that you would devalue it so?

Randy

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 14:30
Did you notice my post to Kingarthurhk was not directed at you personally?

No, you lumped us all together, since I was included, and you made it public, I get to respond.

You tend to claim to be a passive nonbeliever, and yet are very animated, which is very odd to me. It's almost like you have left something unsaid.

You should go and find all my posts in this forum. I'll save you the time.

I pretty much only post in response to you, not 100%, but close.

Why? Because yours is the only opinion I massively disagree with.

Most of the rest of the arguments around here are far to esoteric for me, I simply don't have the knowledge or the interest required to participate.

And as far as you are concerned personally, I think you lack a small amount of self control and manners, but all in all, not such a bad guy.

That's not only directed at me, otherwise I would think it was possibly just my position.

I find some of Tilley's comments rather condescending at times so I poke a little fun, so sue me.




As far as the intellectual superiority, since you asked......



:dunno:

If your past practice continues, I'm sure you will claim not to see it. :cool:

:rofl:

Ok, so the reasonable position that a deity should have a certain skill set is intellectual superiority?

Come on , Doc, you, especially, can't expect to argue about something without defining it.

Then I went on to make the worst "scientific proof" ever, as I seem to recall you pointed out.
:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 14:34
Bill Maher - Atheism Is Not A Religion (New Rules 3rd February 2012) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCJn85isxE&feature=g-high-rec)

Bill explains it all.


...

Bill and you are legally incorrect.

“Atheism is [the inmate'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,” the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said. http://www.wnd.com/2005/08/31895/

Religions have churches:
http://firstchurchofatheism.com/
http://internationalchurcho.fatcow.com/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/atheists-temple_n_1231848.html


Religious members meet together for fellowship:
http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1421068




It fits. :dunno:

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 14:36
No, you lumped us all together, since I was included, and you made it public, I get to respond.



You should go and find all my posts in this forum. I'll save you the time.

I pretty much only post in response to you, not 100%, but close.

Why? Because yours is the only opinion I massively disagree with.

Most of the rest of the arguments around here are far to esoteric for me, I simply don't have the knowledge or the interest required to participate.



I find some of Tilley's comments rather condescending at times so I poke a little fun, so sue me.






:rofl:

Ok, so the reasonable position that a deity should have a certain skill set is intellectual superiority?

Come on , Doc, you, especially, can't expect to argue about something without defining it.

Then I went on to make the worst "scientific proof" ever, as I seem to recall you pointed out.
:rofl:

You set the bottles up, in order to knock them down. A common trait. Anyway, without having proof of a deity, I would be hesitant to assign traits to that deity. But I've kept an open mind, and have not decided. You have, so it is understandable how you could end up there.

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 14:48
You set the bottles up, in order to knock them down. A common trait. Anyway, without having proof of a deity, I would be hesitant to assign traits to that deity. But I've kept an open mind, and have not decided. You have, so it is understandable how you could end up there.

Yes I did, I had a lot of fun with it too, as I recall. I chuckled, I guffawed (but I did not giggle). But I did not claim it to be valid.

Why hesitate to assign characteristics to a deity? Religion seems to have no problem with it, and most of the time it's simply understood that a deity is supernatural and beyond our understanding. After all, if we could understand what he does, then we could reproduce it ourselves and we would become gods. Which kinda blows the whole "higher power" thing out of the water.

And you certainly don't seem to have much of a problem assigning anything you wanna to Atheists.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 15:18
Yes I did, I had a lot of fun with it too, as I recall. I chuckled, I guffawed (but I did not giggle). But I did not claim it to be valid.

Why hesitate to assign characteristics to a deity? Religion seems to have no problem with it, and most of the time it's simply understood that a deity is supernatural and beyond our understanding. After all, if we could understand what he does, then we could reproduce it ourselves and we would become gods. Which kinda blows the whole "higher power" thing out of the water.

And you certainly don't seem to have much of a problem assigning anything you wanna to Atheists.

Simple science. I have found a creature. It is a JIOGLUPLE. Named it myself. Tell me all about it.


See the problem yet? You've bypassed the second step of the scientific method.

Scientific Method Step 1: Ask a Question

Scientific Method Step 2: Make Observations and Conduct Background Research

Scientific Method Step 3: Propose a Hypothesis

Scientific Method Step 4: Design an Experiment to Test the Hypothesis

Scientific Method Step 5: Test the Hypothesis

Scientific Method Step 6: Accept or Reject the Hypothesis


Discovery is an important step in discovering the nature of anything. To assign attributes to a deity without discovering it seems to be scientifically flawed.

Heck, it may have been a giant single celled organism, made of antimatter and matter, that farted, and here we are. After all, the rest was an accident of random chance if it was not caused, the possibilities are ALMOST endless.

Animal Mother
07-28-2012, 15:50
Simple science. I have found a creature. It is a JIOGLUPLE. Named it myself. Tell me all about it.


See the problem yet? You've bypassed the second step of the scientific method. Are you really arguing that in the absence of evidence and observation you have to conclude that something might exist?
Discovery is an important step in discovering the nature of anything. To assign attributes to a deity without discovering it seems to be scientifically flawed.

Heck, it may have been a giant single celled organism, made of antimatter and matter, that farted, and here we are. After all, the rest was an accident of random chance if it was not caused, the possibilities are ALMOST endless.
Such a being wouldn't be a deity, outside of the impossibility of a being composed of both matter and antimatter.

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 16:04
Simple science. I have found a creature. It is a JIOGLUPLE. Named it myself. Tell me all about it.

Anything like a pink pegacorn?


See the problem yet? You've bypassed the second step of the scientific method.


Discovery is an important step in discovering the nature of anything. To assign attributes to a deity without discovering it seems to be scientifically flawed.

I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite.....

We're not arguing science, Doc, it's already been stated (repeatedly) that science cannot even begin to explain a deity. Mostly because there is no starting point.

So pointing out which steps I've bypassed is a bit pointless, yes?

I take the Theists at their word for what their deity is, Omniscient, Omnipotent and eternal.

Take it up with them.









Heck, it may have been a giant single celled organism, made of antimatter and matter, that farted, and here we are. After all, the rest was an accident of random chance if it was not caused, the possibilities are ALMOST endless.

A galactic farting amoeba, I like it.

It would make a great 50's "B" horror flick. Cheesy, with plenty of chances for scantily clad women to scream a lot.

A deity? Not so much.

High-Gear
07-28-2012, 16:28
Yawn....

This same old argument. Don't we have a thread with over 2k posts of the same people going back and forth?

Now if we could just get Snowbird to drop in and tell us how many Muslim attacks have occurred since 9/11 We can the this one die.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 16:41
Anything like a pink pegacorn?




I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite. I will be polite, I will be polite.....

We're not arguing science, Doc, it's already been stated (repeatedly) that science cannot even begin to explain a deity. Mostly because there is no starting point.

So pointing out which steps I've bypassed is a bit pointless, yes?

I take the Theists at their word for what their deity is, Omniscient, Omnipotent and eternal.

Take it up with them.









A galactic farting amoeba, I like it.

It would make a great 50's "B" horror flick. Cheesy, with plenty of chances for scantily clad women to scream a lot.

A deity? Not so much.

So, is your belief that any intelligent designer of any possible nature, has never existed?

Is it possible that something or someone lit the fuse for the big bang? With or without a design? Is it possible that a giant single celled organism made of matter and antimatter with only average human intelligence farted on purpose, with a plan?

Do you only believe that the evidence available suggests that it is impossible that a deity that contains the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, immortality and omnipresence has existed?


Is it more possible that a deity lit the fuse without one or more of those traits?




If it's hard to imagine a deity, why would it be easy to imagine the nature of that deity?

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 16:44
Yawn....

This same old argument. Don't we have a thread with over 2k posts of the same people going back and forth?

Now if we could just get Snowbird to drop in and tell us how many Muslim attacks have occurred since 9/11 We can the this one die.

Send a PM to smacktard.

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 17:10
So, is your belief that any intelligent designer of any possible nature, has never existed?

It has nothing to do with belief. I see no evidence or need to include one.

Is it possible that something or someone lit the fuse for the big bang? With or without a design? Is it possible that a giant single celled organism made of matter and antimatter with only average human intelligence farted on purpose, with a plan?

I suppose all that is possible, right along with skittle pooping, rainbow stomping, pink pegacorns.

But the likelihood is vanishingly small.

Do you only believe that the evidence available suggests that it is impossible that a deity that contains the traits of omnipotence, omniscience, immortality and omnipresence has existed?

Of what evidence do you speak? We don't have evidence of extraterrestrial life, much less that of a deity.

Again, I take my definition from those that assert the existence of deities, again, take it up with them.

And a Galactic, Farting Amoeba would be nothing more than a........galactic, farting amoeba.


Is it more possible that a deity lit the fuse without one or more of those traits?

You tell me. What definition would you like to use?

Just what is it your willing to consider a deity?




If it's hard to imagine a deity, why would it be easy to imagine the nature of that deity?

Why is a deity necessary? I don't need one.

Guss
07-28-2012, 17:56
Bill and you are legally incorrect.
...
For legal purposes, atheism has as much rights as traditional religions under the constitution. Legal definitions are just that, and go no further for real-world applications. Our founders didn't want the country to be dragged down with internal religious squabbling - It's not that they were interested in defining religions, for that is for the religion itself to do. The government may not define a religion because that would violate church state separation. They may, however decide that a group qualifies for constitutional protection under the spirit of the original intent.

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 18:38
For legal purposes, atheism has as much rights as traditional religions under the constitution. Legal definitions are just that, and go no further for real-world applications. Our founders didn't want the country to be dragged down with internal religious squabbling - It's not that they were interested in defining religions, for that is for the religion itself to do. The government may not define a religion because that would violate church state separation. They may, however decide that a group qualifies for constitutional protection under the spirit of the original intent.

Maybe you should read the actual opinion???

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, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972). A religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being (or beings, for polytheistic faiths), see Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U.S. 488, 495 & n. 11, 81 S.Ct. 1680, 6 L.Ed.2d 982 (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, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (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, 90 S.Ct. 1792, 26 L.Ed.2d 308 (1970); United States v. Seeger, 380 U.S. 163, 184-88, 85 S.Ct. 850, 13 L.Ed.2d 733 (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.
6

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., ___ U.S. ___, 125 S.Ct. 2722, ___ L.Ed.2d ___ (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." Id. at *10 (internal quotations omitted). As the Court put it in Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 105 S.Ct. 2479, 86 L.Ed.2d 29 (1985):

http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/F3/419/419.F3d.678.04-1914.html

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 18:54
It has nothing to do with belief. I see no evidence or need to include one.



I suppose all that is possible, right along with skittle pooping, rainbow stomping, pink pegacorns.

But the likelihood is vanishingly small.


When you make light of it like that, it's at least reasonable to suspect that your belief is stronger than you claim.

Do you simply not have evidence of a deity, and therefore lack knowledge (atheistic agnosticism)?

Or

Do you believe that no deity has existed (Atheism) ?

It's a significant difference. I am not clear about where you have landed philosophically.


Of what evidence do you speak? We don't have evidence of extraterrestrial life, much less that of a deity.


If random chance is to blame for us being able to post here, I thought the odds were pretty good that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. Am I not correct in that?



Again, I take my definition from those that assert the existence of deities, again, take it up with them.

And a Galactic, Farting Amoeba would be nothing more than a........galactic, farting amoeba.


But what it if it was just a smidge smarter than you, and did it on purpose, with a plan (regardless of whether the plan was fully achieved)?



You tell me. What definition would you like to use?

Just what is it your willing to consider a deity?



Finally, a salient question. The answer is equally as profound. When I become aware of a deity, I will study it and let you know what it is.

The unknown is...... unknown.




Why is a deity necessary? I don't need one.

I'm sure you don't. I've done pretty well without meeting one either. Better than I expected actually.

A deity is only necessary to understand if one has existed. Otherwise, here is nothing to understand.

Was there one, or not? That's the question. The answer leads to a multitude of other questions with other answers, either way.

What I have noticed, is that some people need to fill in the blanks of human knowledge with their own wishes, and that applies equally to theists and atheists.

:wavey:

muscogee
07-28-2012, 19:09
Bill Maher - Atheism Is Not A Religion (New Rules 3rd February 2012) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCJn85isxE&feature=g-high-rec)

Bill explains it all.


...

One of the best I have ever seen.

muscogee
07-28-2012, 19:13
Without a revelation there can be no meaning, or a common set of morality or eithics.

This nonsense again? One more time, bees exhibit what humans would call moral behavior. Is that because there is a bee God? Do all the bees go to bee church? Do they all read a bee Bible?

muscogee
07-28-2012, 19:21
I didn't really agree with many of the major philosophers. The closest was Immanuel Kant and his view of an absolute morality rather than a pluralistic or utilitarian perspective.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8mgE5gSvrzk

Cavalry Doc
07-28-2012, 19:28
One of the best I have ever seen.

if you have a few minutes

LiveLeak.com - Bill Maher Gets His Ass Handed to Him by John Bolton & Heather Wilson

Bill Maher Gets Owned By George Will - YouTube

Bill Maher gets OWNED by Guests for Supporting SOPA - YouTube


If you are hanging your hat on maher, you missed the nail.

Lone Wolf8634
07-28-2012, 21:54
When you make light of it like that, it's at least reasonable to suspect that your belief is stronger than you claim.

Do you simply not have evidence of a deity, and therefore lack knowledge (atheistic agnosticism)?

Or

Do you believe that no deity has existed (Atheism) ?

It's a significant difference. I am not clear about where you have landed philosophically.

See, there's where you go wrong you naturally, but mistakenly, believe, that to me, the existence, or non-existence, of a deity is meaningful and profound. You seem completely unable to understand that it's not. When I "make light" of the concept by comparing it to mythical creatures that's what I really mean. I'm not being facetious.

I thought I've been pretty clear. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I consign the entire concept of deities to the same bin as those pretty pink pegacorns, possible, since I can't disprove them, but highly unlikely... so unlikely that they're not worth seriously considering.

So I seem to be an Atheist who makes no claims to certain, positive knowledge. If I did claim positive knowledge, that claim would have no more validity then the claim to know for certain there is a god.

I'll not be goaded into making indefensible statements.



If random chance is to blame for us being able to post here, I thought the odds were pretty good that we are not the only intelligent life in the universe. Am I not correct in that?

Doc, I threw that out there as a comparison of the relative difficulty of finding evidence for anything, I did not wish to sidetrack you into a conversation about E.T.


But what it if it was just a smidge smarter than you, and did it on purpose, with a plan (regardless of whether the plan was fully achieved)?

What if pigs had wings?? Your point?

Besides,

If it was just a smidge smarter than me than it certainly wouldn't qualify as a deity.:rofl: You probably need to remind yourself, you're arguing with an ex truck driver who barely graduated high school.

And gas cramps suck. 'Nuff reason to fart, with or without a plan.



Finally, a salient question. The answer is equally as profound. When I become aware of a deity, I will study it and let you know what it is.

The unknown is...... unknown.

You do that.

Till you do, I'll stick with the definitions of the folks making the claim.





I'm sure you don't. I've done pretty well without meeting one either. Better than I expected actually.

A deity is only necessary to understand if one has existed. Otherwise, here is nothing to understand.

Was there one, or not? That's the question. The answer leads to a multitude of other questions with other answers, either way.

What I have noticed, is that some people need to fill in the blanks of human knowledge with their own wishes, and that applies equally to theists and atheists.

:wavey:

What you refuse to notice, is that some people don't have blanks to fill.:dunno:

Guss
07-28-2012, 23:35
Maybe you should read the actual opinion???
Perhaps you should read your own quote. The high court called a non-religion the equivalent of a religion for purposes of protection under the law of the land. Note the expression "NON-RELIGION".

But as I said, outside the realm of the law of the United States of America, it has no significance. No church of the land would allow a court to define its religion for them, and neither would atheists allow a court to define their philosophies.

Tilley
07-29-2012, 01:30
Atheism is a false religion and all atheists are dirtbags.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-29-2012, 06:07
I'm no theologian-philosopher-whatever, but I know that two components of religion are worship and service. If you're an atheist, then:

1. Who (or what) do you worship?

2. Who do you serve?

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 06:31
Perhaps you should read your own quote. The high court called a non-religion the equivalent of a religion for purposes of protection under the law of the land. Note the expression "NON-RELIGION".

But as I said, outside the realm of the law of the United States of America, it has no significance. No church of the land would allow a court to define its religion for them, and neither would atheists allow a court to define their philosophies.

It's pretty clear to me too, even though some describe it as a "non-religion", it still is one, and afforded all the rights due it's status. Not treating Atheism as a religion can land you in legal hot water.



Protected classes under Title VII (http://users.aristotle.net/~hantley/hiedlegl/statutes/title7/protclas.htm)

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 06:42
...
I thought I've been pretty clear. Until I see compelling evidence to the contrary, I consign the entire concept of deities to the same bin as those pretty pink pegacorns, possible, since I can't disprove them, but highly unlikely... so unlikely that they're not worth seriously considering.

So I seem to be an Atheist who makes no claims to certain, positive knowledge. If I did claim positive knowledge, that claim would have no more validity then the claim to know for certain there is a god.

...



...


What if pigs had wings?? Your point?

Besides,

If it was just a smidge smarter than me than it certainly wouldn't qualify as a deity.:rofl: You probably need to remind yourself, you're arguing with an ex truck driver who barely graduated high school.

And gas cramps suck. 'Nuff reason to fart, with or without a plan.



The point is hat if not constrained to your preconceived prerequisites, it opens up more possibilities. If someone or something lit the fuse on creation, I would have no idea what form that being would be in until I found it/him/her.

I barely graduated High school too. Don't feel bad. I didn't start getting good grades until after high school. I wasn't going to pay for C's. I still don't. My kids get B's or higher, or daddy ain't paying for that class. For the most part, grades are not a function of intelligence, but a measure of how much effort you put into it. I had bigger priorities in my high school years.



You do that.

Till you do, I'll stick with the definitions of the folks making the claim.


What you refuse to notice, is that some people don't have blanks to fill.:dunno:

From my perspective, I see things a little differently, that's all.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 06:43
Atheism is a false religion and all atheists are dirtbags.

Generally speaking, generalizing is bad. I've met heroes and zeros in just about every group I could identify.

hogfish
07-29-2012, 07:31
Cavalry Doc, thaks for posting the videos. I just viewed the first one, and thought it was a great back and forth discussion, but the fact that Maher wasn't able to ridicule them doesn't mean that they 'owned' him.

I'll view the others when I get the chance, and I hope they are at least as good.

:)

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 07:44
Cavalry Doc, thaks for posting the videos. I just viewed the first one, and thought it was a great back and forth discussion, but the fact that Maher wasn't able to ridicule them doesn't mean that they 'owned' him.

I'll view the others when I get the chance, and I hope they are at least as good.

:)

Keeping an ill informed comic from ridiculing you is a pretty tall feat. Ridicule is their profession. They did show that he was an ill informed partisan hack. Not bad in my book.

hogfish
07-29-2012, 08:07
Keeping an ill informed comic from ridiculing you is a pretty tall feat. Ridicule is their profession. They did show that he was an ill informed partisan hack. Not bad in my book.

You're right about his sole purpose being to try and ridicule them, all the way to the end. I thought it was pretty cool to see Bolton sort of smile at their last exchange.

:supergrin:

muscogee
07-29-2012, 08:20
Atheism is a false religion and all atheists are dirtbags.

Broad generalizations are nearly always wrong. Have you met all atheists?

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 08:23
You're right about his sole purpose being to try and ridicule them, all the way to the end. I thought it was pretty cool to see Bolton sort of smile at their last exchange.

:supergrin:

Bolton is a good guy in my book.

Geko45
07-29-2012, 08:44
Bolton is a good guy in my book.

For once, we agree on something. And I can't say that I care very much for Bill Maher either. Atheism is about the only common ground I have with the man.

Kingarthurhk
07-29-2012, 12:19
I'm no theologian-philosopher-whatever, but I know that two components of religion are worship and service. If you're an atheist, then:

1. Who (or what) do you worship?

2. Who do you serve?

In reality:

1. Self.

2. Self.

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 13:19
Atheism is a false religion and all atheists are dirtbags.

Way to go Tilly, you've finally matured to the equivalent of an 8th grader! Keep working at it!

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 13:23
I'm no theologian-philosopher-whatever, but I know that two components of religion are worship and service. If you're an atheist, then:

1. Who (or what) do you worship?

2. Who do you serve?

1. No one

2. Personally speaking - my community, but not in the sense you asked.

Lone Wolf8634
07-29-2012, 13:34
The point is hat if not constrained to your preconceived prerequisites, it opens up more possibilities. If someone or something lit the fuse on creation, I would have no idea what form that being would be in until I found it/him/her.






From my perspective, I see things a little differently, that's all.


"Preconceived prerequisites"? Really? Just what are you willing to consider a "god". Advanced technology? Then to some right here on earth, you and I are "gods".

I believe it was Carl Sagan who said "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."

From your perspective, it seems like your willing to consider just about any possibility. Without any reason to consider them. :dunno:

ETA: And you wonder why I poke fun at Tilley:

Atheism is a false religion and all atheists are dirtbags.

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 13:47
I believe it was Carl Sagan who said "It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out."
:

Tim Minchin - If You Open Your Mind Too Much... - YouTube

Lone Wolf8634
07-29-2012, 14:32
Here's another article about the fundamental differences between Atheism and Religion. It's a bit more in depth than just using single sentence definitions from the dictionary. In it, the author uses the lists of characteristics of a religion from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy to prove that Atheism is not a religion.



Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
A social group bound together by the above.


http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm

I've come to the realization that some of those who insist that Atheism is a religion need it to be. No amount of reason or logic will sway them in their belief, Trying to convince them otherwise would be akin to convincing them that there is no God, so this isn't directed at them.

I've also concluded that some just like to irritate others by drawing a comparison between the Atheism and Theism. Since the motivation here is suspect, I predict all sorts of mental gymnastics to argue the points contained, from an all out attack on the points above to the fall back position of single line definitions from a dictionary.

And yes, CD, I'm speaking of you, your entire argument so far has hinged on a single definition from a source that has no interest in defining concepts, only words. This article points out the fundamental differences in the concepts.

You may be able to make an elementary case for the similarity of the definitions, but your argument falls well short of equating the concepts.

Geko45
07-29-2012, 15:22
From your perspective, it seems like your willing to consider just about any possibility. Without any reason to consider them. :dunno:

He will never elaborate on his opinion out of fear of being held to it.

Geko45
07-29-2012, 15:27
Here's another article about the fundamental differences between Atheism and Religion. It's a bit more in depth than just using single sentence definitions from the dictionary. In it, the author uses the lists of characteristics of a religion from The Encyclopedia of Philosophy to prove that Atheism is not a religion.

Excellent post, but I fear that since it relies on the comprehension of multiple complex thoughts simultaneously that it will fall on deaf ears.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 16:11
...


Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
A social group bound together by the above.


http://atheism.about.com/od/aboutatheism/p/AtheismReligion.htm

I've come to the realization that some of those who insist that Atheism is a religion need it to be. No amount of reason or logic will sway them in their belief, Trying to convince them otherwise would be akin to convincing them that there is no God, so this isn't directed at them.

...
And yes, CD, I'm speaking of you, your entire argument so far has hinged on a single definition from a source that has no interest in defining concepts, only words. ...

Words mean things. And the definition's of the words do not require you to agree with them. It simply is.

Now, the distinction I will make, is that many here, by their own description, are wrongly self labeled. In order to be a real atheist, one has to believe there is no deity. Many self described "atheists" here, have only a passive lack of belief, and are awaiting evidence to occur so they can start worshiping as soon as the deity reveals itself.

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

That's pretty clear to me anyway. No ambiguity whatsoever.

I can understand the irritation people feel, when they find out that they aren't really atheists at all, but actually atheistic agnostics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get you to call yourself anything other than what you wish to call yourself. Fine with me, but we may have to disagree on that too.

As far as a religion goes, I understand how many religions have the traits you listed, but all are different in some way too.


Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
If they exist, they would be natural, not supernatural.
A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Objects which represent concepts. Sort of like the concept of atheism as a religion is blasphemy to some.
Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
Do atheists wear wedding bands?
A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Or the lack or presence of one based on the lack of a god. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong, even though it's different in many.
Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
I'm not sure this is even a requirement, but some wonder at science.
Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
Or a lack of it. And even gunhaver, a committed atheist has admitted to calling out to god during... er.... whenever he.... :embarassed:oh hell, on occasion.
A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
Atheists most certainly do have a view based on their belief. It is evident in almost every conversation in RI.
A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
Ditto.....Many religions have no central control, and only a loose set of codes to live by.
A social group bound together by the above.
Meeting at geko's house, if he has been shamed back into accepting the guests he invited... Right?



http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1421068&page=2

The last post by woofie is classic.

Lone Wolf8634
07-29-2012, 16:48
Words mean things. And the definition's of the words do not require you to agree with them. It simply is.

All I can say is, I told ya so.

Now, the distinction I will make, is that many here, by their own description, are wrongly self labeled. In order to be a real atheist, one has to believe there is no deity. Many self described "atheists" here, have only a passive lack of belief, and are awaiting evidence to occur so they can start worshiping as soon as the deity reveals itself.

I've already told you, I will not be goaded into making indefensible statements. Nor, I think, will any other Atheist here.

A "passive lack of belief" is all I will claim, since that is all I can logically defend.

And the phrasing of " and are awaiting evidence to occur so they can start worshiping as soon as the deity reveals itself." is really interesting to me.


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

That's pretty clear to me anyway. No ambiguity whatsoever.

"I've also concluded that some just like to irritate others by drawing a comparison between the Atheism and Theism. Since the motivation here is suspect, I predict all sorts of mental gymnastics to argue the points contained, from an all out attack on the points above to the fall back position of single line definitions from a dictionary.":supergrin:




I can understand the irritation people feel, when they find out that they aren't really atheists at all, but actually atheistic agnostics. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to get you to call yourself anything other than what you wish to call yourself. Fine with me, but we may have to disagree on that too.

Well, since I know my own mind, and I assume everyone else does also, you'll pardon me when I say the bolded is a complete crock o' dung.

And you're disagreement over what I call myself is irrelevant.

As far as a religion goes, I understand how many religions have the traits you listed, but all are different in some way too.

Apples and oranges.




Belief in supernatural beings (gods).
If they exist, they would be natural, not supernatural.

The statement is "supernatural" you don't get to change it to suit your argument. If they ain't supernatural, they ain't gods. Dismissed.



A distinction between sacred and profane objects.
Objects which represent concepts. Sort of like the concept of atheism as a religion is blasphemy to some.

Reaching, really bad. Dismissed.



Ritual acts focused on sacred objects.
Do atheists wear wedding bands?

Wedding bands are not sacred, just a societal acknowledgment of being married. Weak. Dismissed.



A moral code believed to be sanctioned by the gods.
Or the lack or presence of one based on the lack of a god. Everyone has a sense of right and wrong, even though it's different in many.

True: Everyone does have a sense of right and wrong.

False: Atheists derive their moral code from their lack of religion.

Weak. Dismissed.



Characteristically religious feelings (awe, sense of mystery, sense of guilt, adoration), which tend to be aroused in the presence of sacred objects and during the practice of ritual, and which are connected in idea with the gods.
I'm not sure this is even a requirement, but some wonder at science.

I didn't make up the list Doc.


While I am in awe of the natural world around us, it doesn't not fill me with a sense of mystery, guilt or adoration.

Not even close. Dismissed



Prayer and other forms of communication with gods.
Or a lack of it. And even gunhaver, a committed atheist has admitted to calling out to god during... er.... whenever he.... :embarassed:oh hell, on occasion.

Funny, but irrelevant.



A world view, or a general picture of the world as a whole and the place of the individual therein. This picture contains some specification of an over-all purpose or point of the world and an indication of how the individual fits into it.
Atheists most certainly do have a view based on their belief. It is evident in almost every conversation in RI.

Everyone has a view of themselves and their place in the world. Unless you can prove that Atheists derive theirs from the fact that they're Atheists, your claim is false.

Dismissed.





A more or less total organization of one's life based on the world view.
Ditto.....Many religions have no central control, and only a loose set of codes to live by.

Then those religions would fail this point, as does Atheism.

Dismissed.



A social group bound together by the above.
Meeting at gecko's house, if he has been shamed back into accepting the guests he invited... Right?

Also funny, but irrelevant.



Fraid I'm gonna have to work now.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 17:05
....

A "passive lack of belief" is all I will claim, since that is all I can logically defend.

...

That's sig line material.

Guss
07-29-2012, 17:16
...
lists of characteristics of a religion
.....

The list should probably also say (perhaps it's intended in #7) that the believer in religion has religion as a driving force in his life. Contrast that with the atheist who regards his stance on the god hypothesis as merely a minor consequence of more important guiding principles such as rationality. In other words, his atheism is not a cause, but a result.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 17:24
The list should probably also say (perhaps it's intended in #7) that the believer in religion has religion as a driving force in his life. Contrast that with the atheist who regards his stance on the god hypothesis as merely a minor consequence of more important guiding principles such as rationality. In other words, his atheism is not a cause, but a result.

Everything has a shade of gray to it, and a volume...

Many people that claim to be christian do not go to church regularly, or even pray. it's a minor thing to them. I doubt many of them feel strongly enough about religion to post in GTRI, same is probably true for the atheists. The ones that feel more strongly are more likely to be more vocal in it's defense.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-29-2012, 18:59
It seems an easier call to me because atheism lacks so much of the criteria that defines religion. Atheism's characteristics are also just too far removed from religion.

UT football fans treat their pastime in quasi-religious fashion. This almost seems closer to religion than atheism. Atheism is more like those self-awareness and humanistic movements of the 70s. Those might legally get equal time to established religions, but they are quasi-religious at best.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 19:04
re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1 a : the state of a religious <a nun in her 20th year of religion> b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith


Only one is needed to make it so. To me, "4" is a very good fit. To others, not so much.

steveksux
07-29-2012, 19:32
Only one is needed to make it so. To me, "4" is a very good fit. To others, not so much.re·li·gion
noun \ri-ˈli-jən\
Definition of RELIGION
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness
4 a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith
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.The part he conveniently tries to ignore. Bold entries obviously refer to his sacred entry 4 that makes atheism a religion. The "one that fits".

Just don't try to point that out to him, or you will be excommunicated from his Church of Beloved Misrepresentation and put on his Holy Ignore List. Do not dare to blaspheme his Holy Word and point out that obviously, even by his Holy Definition, atheism is not a religion in the sense of Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam and Judaism. For thou are the spawn of Satan if thou should deign to blaspheme so.

The link to His Holy Definition, should you desire to be a sinner and read the word for yourself, rather than follow His Holiestness Cavalry Doc, the High Priest of "Atheism is a Religionism", the One True Faith. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

But beware: You WILL be banished from the Garden of Eden, and bring sin upon the world should you link to the Tree of Knowlege that is Merriam-Webster and eat the apple of reading for yourself.

Randy

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 19:54
The verb "fire" has many meanings.

It could mean to propel at great velocity
Or
To terminate one's employment
Or
To litterally set something ablaze

They will all be found in the dictionary with numbered entries under the woed "fire".

According to CavDoc's logic they all mean the same thing. If I say I was fired, I am not saying I was set ablaze, or shot from a cannon. Most people understand the context in which the word is used.

Doc I guess is free to interpret this how he wishes.

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-29-2012, 19:57
Well, I don't know; it seems sort of contradictory to me. The American Atheists' organization puts emphasis on the statement Religion is ridiculous. They say that religion dulls the mind and a whole lot of other bad things (http://www.atheists.org/religion (http://www.atheists.org/religion)). It seems that this organization wants to distance itself from the word religion.

I take back my statement about serving. Atheists can certainly serve, but some would question to what end. This also becomes more muddled because there are certainly atheists who are far more generous than religious people.

I looked up the word worship. The first definition is connected to a supernatural being. The second definition is the single word idolize. Idolize seems to have a secular connotation, at least to me.

I still think a supernatural component is an essential element of religion, something that atheism lacks. Science and reason are worthy pursuits that can be pursued with zeal, but it's still not religion.

Cavalry Doc
07-29-2012, 20:05
The verb "fire" has many meanings.

It could mean to propel at great velocity
Or
To terminate one's employment
Or
To litterally set something ablaze

They will all be found in the dictionary with numbered entries under the woed "fire".

According to CavDoc's logic they all mean the same thing. If I say I was fired, I am not saying I was set ablaze, or shot from a cannon. Most people understand the context in which the word is used.

Doc I guess is free to interpret this how he wishes.

I've never claimed they were the exact same, quite the contrary. We could spend day's cataloging the differences between islam and atheism. Maybe even weeks. But it is still correct to state that any correct definition of fire, is still fire, even if they are different.

So, atheism is a religion, even though is it different than other religions.

High-Gear
07-29-2012, 20:15
I've never claimed they were the exact same, quite the contrary. We could spend day's cataloging the differences between islam and atheism. Maybe even weeks. But it is still correct to state that any correct definition of fire, is still fire, even if they are different.

So, atheism is a religion, even though is it different than other religions.

You are misapplying your analogy. Being shot from a cannon, and being terminated from a job are completely different things. You could argue the differences in islam and christianity, much like discussing the differences between firing a cannon, and firing a gun.

However, you can not speak about the similarities of terminating a person employment, and the ballistics of an artillary piece.

You are applying the term used as a coloqualism,
Gardening is his religion, hockey is a religion in this town, shooting is like a religion to him.

For the term which means a belief in a supernatural being. You are stretching this definition in an attempt to play word games in order to dismissive, "Oh, Atheism is just another religion."

NorthCarolinaLiberty
07-29-2012, 20:56
So if I get fired from my job, can I burn down my employer's building?



:supergrin:

Syclone538
07-29-2012, 22:38
http://ts2.mm.bing.net/images/thumbnail.aspx?q=4666143319852393&id=072d3db0d59ff8359ac8483298f75d5f

Gunhaver
07-30-2012, 03:00
So what? I'm supposed to just retreat and shut up?



http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m4e60vEoEO1r80p9c.gif

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 04:51
You are misapplying your analogy. Being shot from a cannon, and being terminated from a job are completely different things. You could argue the differences in islam and christianity, much like discussing the differences between firing a cannon, and firing a gun.

However, you can not speak about the similarities of terminating a person employment, and the ballistics of an artillary piece.

You are applying the term used as a coloqualism,
Gardening is his religion, hockey is a religion in this town, shooting is like a religion to him.

For the term which means a belief in a supernatural being. You are stretching this definition in an attempt to play word games in order to dismissive, "Oh, Atheism is just another religion."

And as you have pointed out quite well, different definitions of a single word can be more or less similar than different definitions of another word. It is a language, and it is filled with synonyms, antonyms, and even autoantonyms. Fire has less similar definitions than religion. A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith is pretty similar, and one would say applies to bhuddism for example. The other definitions might also apply to bhuddism. Atheism is different, and yet it is a beliefin a point that is without evidence, with trust, and strong conviction, if you go by the dictionary definition of atheist, and read some posts here, it seems rather obvious to me. Others don't agree.

Lone Wolf8634
07-30-2012, 06:49
And as you have pointed out quite well, different definitions of a single word can be more or less similar than different definitions of another word. It is a language, and it is filled with synonyms, antonyms, and even autoantonyms. Fire has less similar definitions than religion. A system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith is pretty similar, and one would say applies to bhuddism for example. The other definitions might also apply to bhuddism. Atheism is different, and yet it is a beliefin a point that is without evidence, with trust, and strong conviction, if you go by the dictionary definition of atheist, and read some posts here, it seems rather obvious to me. Others don't agree.

How you can manage to get " A system of beliefs" out of "I don't see any evidence for a deity" is beyond me.

And Buddhism may not even qualify as a religion, if you stop and think about it. Philosophy maybe? Dunno, have to check.

And once again your being dishonest, we don't believe in a point with no evidence in its favor, we reject a point due to the lack of evidence in it's favor. Please, I ask you AGAIN. If your gonna state the position of the Atheists here, please do so correctly.

Lone Wolf8634
07-30-2012, 07:06
That's sig line material.

Why? Because I understand that the statement "There is absolutely no God" is as indefensible as the statement "There is absolutely a god"?

If it makes you feel any better, Doc, I used to say the first statement till I was asked to defend it and failed. I believe that's called "learning"?

I can admit when I've been proven wrong. Can you?

And speaking of sig line material.

Many self described "atheists" here, have only a passive lack of belief, and are awaiting evidence to occur so they can start worshiping as soon as the deity reveals itself.
Freudian slip?

muscogee
07-30-2012, 07:32
Cavalry Doc managed to hijack another thread with his one trick pony.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 10:18
Did you read the thread title???

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 10:32
How you can manage to get " A system of beliefs" out of "I don't see any evidence for a deity" is beyond me.

And Buddhism may not even qualify as a religion, if you stop and think about it. Philosophy maybe? Dunno, have to check.

And once again your being dishonest, we don't believe in a point with no evidence in its favor, we reject a point due to the lack of evidence in it's favor. Please, I ask you AGAIN. If your gonna state the position of the Atheists here, please do so correctly.

I have been trying,

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Will you try too?

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 10:36
Why?

Just because.


Because I understand that the statement "There is absolutely no God" is as indefensible as the statement "There is absolutely a god"?

If it makes you feel any better, Doc, I used to say the first statement till I was asked to defend it and failed. I believe that's called "learning"?

I can admit when I've been proven wrong. Can you?


Yes, but I'm still waiting for that to happen.


And speaking of sig line material.

Freudian slip?

Nope. Freud was a little obsessed with another subject. Did you notice the quotation marks?

void *
07-30-2012, 14:01
Words mean things. And the definition's of the words do not require you to agree with them. It simply is.

A statement you should probably apply to yourself, as well as pointing it out to others, given that you have been provided definitions of atheism other than the specific definition you chose, as well as the context showing those definitions are in fact accepted.

Geko45
07-30-2012, 14:14
For someone who keeps beating people over the head with definitions, he has yet to acknowledge that he had the meaning of pantheism all wrong.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 14:27
A statement you should probably apply to yourself, as well as pointing it out to others, given that you have been provided definitions of atheism other than the specific definition you chose, as well as the context showing those definitions are in fact accepted.

Merriam-Webster is a well respected resource for definitions of words in American English, which I speak more often than any other language. I think it is a valid reference, better than the others.

I didn't author the definition.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 14:32
For someone who keeps beating people over the head with definitions, he has yet to acknowledge that he had the meaning of pantheism all wrong.

Such violent imagery is telling.

I'm willing to look at it again if you like, even if it is off topic. Muscogee will be along shortly to chastise you for hijacking the thread.

Main Entry: pan·the·ism
Pronunciation: \ˈpan(t)-thē-ˌi-zəm\
Function: noun
Etymology: French panthéisme, from panthéiste pantheist, from English pantheist, from pan- + Greek theos god
Date: 1732
1 : a doctrine that equates God with the forces and laws of the universe
2 : the worship of all gods of different creeds, cults, or peoples indifferently; also : toleration of worship of all gods (as at certain periods of the Roman empire)

I'll do my best to correctly use the definitions above when referring to pantheism.

Problem solved?

Lone Wolf8634
07-30-2012, 15:36
Just because.

Well, thats a good reason.



Yes, but I'm still waiting for that to happen.

On this particular subject, I'm correct. You've produced nothing to even make me pause. So that won't be happening.


Nope. Freud was a little obsessed with another subject. Did you notice the quotation marks?

From your beloved Merriam Webster

Freudian slip: : a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/freudian%20slip

Mind out of the gutter, Doc.

Lone Wolf8634
07-30-2012, 15:45
I have been trying,

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Will you try too?




Your wearing that out. And it wasn't effective to begin with.

ETA: Your (predictable) fall back position to this definition (which is the only element in your argument) really highlights how weak your assertion really is.

Also it showcases a stubborn inability or unwillingness to incorporate new information.

void *
07-30-2012, 16:20
Merriam-Webster is a well respected resource for definitions of words in American English, which I speak more often than any other language. I think it is a valid reference, better than the others.

I didn't author the definition.

The fact that you think it's "a valid reference, better than the others" doesn't change the fact that the other definitions are out there and used.

The fact that you think it's "a valid reference, better than the others" doesn't change the fact that your entire argument rests on pretending that *one* and *only one* of *multiple* definitions of various terms in m-w itself be the only valid definition of those particular terms.

This has nothing to do with m-w being respected and valid (which I agree with), and everything to do with how you're using those definitions.

Like you said:
And the definition's of the words do not require you to agree with them.

I'm merely pointing out that this applies to the definitions you're deciding to ignore as well as the ones you've arbitrarily decided must be used. If you want to apply the statement you made to other people, and not yourself, go ahead, you're a free agent, nobody can force you to not. This won't change the fact that the other definitions are used and valid, despite your decision to ignore them, and everyone else can observe what you're doing and draw their own conclusions. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 17:59
Well, thats a good reason.





On this particular subject, I'm correct. You've produced nothing to even make me pause. So that won't be happening.




From your beloved Merriam Webster

Freudian slip: : a slip of the tongue that is motivated by and reveals some unconscious aspect of the mind

http://www.merriam-webster.com/medical/freudian%20slip

Mind out of the gutter, Doc.

:rofl: If you noticed the words "self described" and the word "atheist" in quotations, it may make more sense to you. I took your allegation of a Freudian slip as a joke. Are we gonna have to have a seven page debate on the use of punctuation now?

:wavey:

ksg0245
07-30-2012, 18:00
I have been trying,

Main Entry: athe·ist
Pronunciation: \ˈā-thē-ist\
Function: noun
Date: 1551
: one who believes that there is no deity


Will you try too?

Most, if not all, of the atheists here have repeatedly told you that isn't their position, and have cited other, more accurate, definitions. How is telling atheists they don't hold the position they tell you they hold an attempt to correctly describe the position they hold?

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 18:02
Your wearing that out. And it wasn't effective to begin with.

ETA: Your (predictable) fall back position to this definition (which is the only element in your argument) really highlights how weak your assertion really is.

Also it showcases a stubborn inability or unwillingness to incorporate new information.

And here I thought is was a resistance to misdirection and the adulteration of the language.

I've pointed out why it fits in spirit as well as literally.

But hey, it's just my opinion. You have yours. And even when it is pointed out how reasonable my opinion is, it's not the only answer out there. You are obviously more comfortable with your opinion, and I am more comfortable with the truth of the matter. No big.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 18:03
Most, if not all, of the atheists here have repeatedly told you that isn't their position, and have cited other, more accurate, definitions. How is telling atheists they don't hold the position they tell you they hold an attempt to correctly describe the position they hold?

And I've repeatedly pointed out that they are likely mislabeling themselves.

Atheist: One who believes there is no deity.
Atheistic Agnostic: One who lacks belief in a deity.


It's just my opinion, even if it is correct. If labels are unimportant, why is that a problem?

ksg0245
07-30-2012, 18:10
And I've repeatedly pointed out that they are likely mislabeling themselves.

You continue to tell others they're wrong about their postion based on your equivocation?

Atheist: One who believes there is no deity.
Atheistic Agnostic: One who lacks belief in a deity.


It's just my opinion, even if it is correct. If labels are unimportant, why is that a problem?

It is your opinion, but it isn't correct, and you've been given cited information as to why your opinion is incorrect. Why is it such a problem for you? Why is it so important for you to tell atheists they're wrong about themselves?

ksg0245
07-30-2012, 18:11
And here I thought is was a resistance to misdirection and the adulteration of the language.

I've pointed out why it fits in spirit as well as literally.

But hey, it's just my opinion. You have yours. And even when it is pointed out how reasonable my opinion is, it's not the only answer out there. You are obviously more comfortable with your opinion, and I am more comfortable with the truth of the matter. No big.

Obviously not, given your attitude.

High-Gear
07-30-2012, 18:16
And I've repeatedly pointed out that they are likely mislabeling themselves.

Atheist: One who believes there is no deity.
Atheistic Agnostic: One who lacks belief in a deity.


It's just my opinion, even if it is correct. If labels are unimportant, why is that a problem?

If a Christian can doubt any portion of the bible, or dogma and still be a Christian, isn't an Agnostic Atheist still an Atheist?

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 18:20
You continue to tell others they're wrong about their postion based on your equivocation?



It is your opinion, but it isn't correct, and you've been given cited information as to why your opinion is incorrect. Why is it such a problem for you? Why is it so important for you to tell atheists they're wrong about themselves?

I continue to tell people my opinion. In this thread, I have been asked frequently.

It is my opinion that my opinion on this subject is correct. We've been over this before.

Better question is why is it such a big deal? I've been told that I am religious too, for having that opinion. I've been told that I am a closet theist. Both are wrong, but if someone wants to think that, and I cannot convince them otherwise, it's no sweat off my .....

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 18:22
If a Christian can doubt any portion of the bible, or dogma and still be a Christian, isn't an Agnostic Atheist still an Atheist?

Only problem is you have the adjective and noun in the wrong place.

Theists and atheists "know", agnostics do not.

Atheist > Atheistic Agnostic > Agnostic < Theistic Agnostic < Theist.

Which accurately describes how I see the differences.

Cavalry Doc
07-30-2012, 18:23
Obviously not, given your attitude.

Well, yours has left a lot to be desired also. Glass houses and all that jazz.

Lone Wolf8634
07-31-2012, 10:36
:rofl: If you noticed the words "self described" and the word "atheist" in quotations, it may make more sense to you. I took your allegation of a Freudian slip as a joke. Are we gonna have to have a seven page debate on the use of punctuation now?

:wavey:

I'm gonna try and make sense here, but forgive me if I get a bit weird, I just spent the entire night in the E.R and I'm a bit loopy:ack:.

The words "self described" and "Atheist" are irrelevant to the the way you phrased the end of that statement, I was pointing out that you really think that we are "waiting" for evidence we've repeatedly told you is highly unlikely at best. Despite having been told repeatedly that this is not so.

The "Freudian slip" was a joke at my end also, till you used the incorrect definition of it.:supergrin:

And here I thought is was a resistance to misdirection and the adulteration of the language.

The English languge is one of the most perverted, misdirected and adulterated languages in the world. A good percentage of the words aren't even "English". They've been borrowed from other languages or are simply made up to fill a need.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that in the near future, the definition you are so enamored with will be changed to more accurately reflect the concept.

I've pointed out why it fits in spirit as well as literally.

And it's been pointed out why you are mistaken, it's even been pointed out that your own definition would also apply to hockey. Which makes it meaningless at best.

And BTW, M-W isn't the only respected dictionary around. The Oxford Dictionary defines Atheist:

Definition of atheist:

Noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.



But hey, it's just my opinion. You have yours. And even when it is pointed out how reasonable my opinion is, it's not the only answer out there. You are obviously more comfortable with your opinion, and I am more comfortable with the truth of the matter. No big.

Could you be a bit more condescending? The truth of the matter? Really? Reasonable? Really?

Talk about contradiction, you start the statement by saying it's only opinion, and end it with declaring your assertion "the truth of the matter".

Wow........:upeyes: just wow.

void *
07-31-2012, 12:26
Theists and atheists "know", agnostics do not.

There are theists who believe that it is impossible to know because if it were possible to know, faith would not be required, and if faith were not required, there could be no salvation, etc.

Please reconcile the existence of these theists with your claim that to be a theist, one has to know.

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 14:09
There are theists who believe that it is impossible to know because if it were possible to know, faith would not be required, and if faith were not required, there could be no salvation, etc.

Please reconcile the existence of these theists with your claim that to be a theist, one has to know.

Neither really knows, many claim to, but actually only have faith in a belief.

I'd have to say it seems to me both believe, and the theists you are describing have no problems admitting their faith.

You did note the quotation marks around "know", didn't you?

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 14:18
I'm gonna try and make sense here, but forgive me if I get a bit weird, I just spent the entire night in the E.R and I'm a bit loopy:ack:.

The words "self described" and "Atheist" are irrelevant to the the way you phrased the end of that statement, I was pointing out that you really think that we are "waiting" for evidence we've repeatedly told you is highly unlikely at best. Despite having been told repeatedly that this is not so.

The "Freudian slip" was a joke at my end also, till you used the incorrect definition of it.:supergrin:



The English languge is one of the most perverted, misdirected and adulterated languages in the world. A good percentage of the words aren't even "English". They've been borrowed from other languages or are simply made up to fill a need.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that in the near future, the definition you are so enamored with will be changed to more accurately reflect the concept.



And it's been pointed out why you are mistaken, it's even been pointed out that your own definition would also apply to hockey. Which makes it meaningless at best.

And BTW, M-W isn't the only respected dictionary around. The Oxford Dictionary defines Atheist:

Definition of atheist:

Noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.





Could you be a bit more condescending? The truth of the matter? Really? Reasonable? Really?

Talk about contradiction, you start the statement by saying it's only opinion, and end it with declaring your assertion "the truth of the matter".

Wow........:upeyes: just wow.

The last part was tongue in cheek. Loosely based on an old joke about a catholic and Protestant clergy arguing, in the end one tells the other you have a right to worship god in your way, and I have a right to worship him in his.

I've pointed out that you have opinions on the matter, so do I, and we will likely disagree ad infinitum.

All joking aside, hope everything is ok with you and your family. Spending the night in the ER is rarely a fun thing. Best wishes.

Guss
07-31-2012, 15:34
Training for those that need it from an ex-preacher:
http://action.centerforinquiry.net/site/Calendar?id=102961&view=Detail

void *
07-31-2012, 18:43
Neither really knows, many claim to, but actually only have faith in a belief.

I'd have to say it seems to me both believe, and the theists you are describing have no problems admitting their faith.

You did note the quotation marks around "know", didn't you?

You do realize that to claim to know, even being incorrect, requires an actual claim to know, don't you? Which means that quotation marks or not, the existence of both theists and atheists who do not claim to know - who will in fact (and already have, in the case of various atheists on this board) tell you straight up that it's question with an uknowable answer, directly contradicts your claim that "Theists and atheists "know"" - for both theists and atheists, with or without quotation marks.

Cavalry Doc
07-31-2012, 19:21
You do realize that to claim to know, even being incorrect, requires an actual claim to know, don't you? Which means that quotation marks or not, the existence of both theists and atheists who do not claim to know - who will in fact (and already have, in the case of various atheists on this board) tell you straight up that it's question with an uknowable answer, directly contradicts your claim that "Theists and atheists "know"" - for both theists and atheists, with or without quotation marks.

The purpose of the quotations was to avoid a literal interpretation. I guess you missed that part?

It wasn't meant that way. :dunno:


Your question has been answered. "I'd have to say it seems to me both believe, and the theists you are describing have no problems admitting their faith."

Gunhaver
07-31-2012, 20:55
I was under the impression that Christians get to define Christianity, Muslims get to define Islam, Hindus get to define Hinduism, ect. and so on and so forth. If a Muslim or "agnostic" came in here and started telling people what Christianity is all about then I'll bet he could expect some disagreement. Especially if he got it flat out wrong. The way you could tell he was flat out wrong would be the fact that every single Christian on the board is telling him he's wrong.

Every atheist on this forum and every atheist I know is saying that atheism isn't a religion. Isn't that up to the atheists to decide? If every Christian agrees that Christ died for our sins then I can dispute that that actually happened but who am I to define what they believe based on some convoluted reasoning and one definition that I have to cling to because that's all I have? "Christianity is actually a system of worshiping a talking snake because I found this book right here that says so!" starts to sound pretty retarded when every damn Christian you run across tells you it's actually exactly the opposite. Was Merriam Webster the atheist prophet that set the terms and conditions of what all atheists believe and now somehow all atheists have gone astray from his original message or is it really a matter of accepting what the atheists themselves are saying and getting over your stupid inaccurate definition?

We say it's not a religion. You have pages and pages of very good reasons why it's not a religion the best reason being that WE ALL FLIPPIN' AGREE THAT IT'S NOT A RELIGION! How many religions can you find where all members agree on what it's all about? There's nothing to argue about so we don't argue. Except with 1 bone headed theist posing as agnostic that can't admit to his ongoing epic fail and let an issue go.

Lone Wolf8634
07-31-2012, 23:54
The last part was tongue in cheek. Loosely based on an old joke about a catholic and Protestant clergy arguing, in the end one tells the other you have a right to worship god in your way, and I have a right to worship him in his.

Hmm, ok I'll let that go.

I've pointed out that you have opinions on the matter, so do I, and we will likely disagree ad infinitum.

As long as you insist Atheism is a religion, we will disagree. It's likely that if this ridiculous notion wasn't used by Theists to discount and trivialize arguments from Atheists by saying "Oh look, you have a religion too, so you can't say anything about mine" most of us would just let it go. But since that isn't the case, we must rebut the notion whenever it rears its ugly head. So it's not really your opinion on the matter that I care about, you could believe this nonsense till the cows come home and I wouldn't care. It's that you put this misinformation out there where folks who may not understand the issue at all will read it and be influenced by it. So it becomes necessary to argue the point ad infinitum. So you have your work cut out for you if you think you'll ever have the last word on this subject.

Please note that never once did I say you didn't have the right to put your opinion out there. I'm just explaining why we continue to argue this so vehemently (with "ardor" if you wish) and why you will never win.

And one more thing, why is it that you only want to use the definition that you posted, what, exactly, is wrong with the Oxford definition, other that it invalidates your position?

All joking aside, hope everything is ok with you and your family. Spending the night in the ER is rarely a fun thing. Best wishes.

Thank you. I had a massive allergic reaction to..... something, I don't know what. But my immune system totally overreacted so for two days I swelled up like a balloon and itched. when it tried to close my airway I finally consented to go to the hospital. It took about 10 hrs of I.V. antibiotics, epinephrin, steroids and antihistamines to get it under control. I go in next week for more tests, some blood work gave them the impression that I may have blood clots in my lungs, though a CT scan didn't find any.

Not a good start to the week.

void *
08-01-2012, 00:43
The purpose of the quotations was to avoid a literal interpretation. I guess you missed that part?

It wasn't meant that way.

Then what way was it meant, given your statement that "Neither really knows, many claim to, but actually only have faith in a belief.", if not that you are claiming that people are saying they know, but don't actually? And look how you stepped back from an all-inclusive "theists and atheists "know"" to a 'many claim to' when called on it. Please, precisely define what you meant by "theists and atheists "know"".

Your question has been answered. "I'd have to say it seems to me both believe, and the theists you are describing have no problems admitting their faith."

The problem with what you have to say is that one is defined by believing, and the other is defined by *not* believing. Your claim that you somehow have to say something doesn't make what you have to say any less incorrect.

Roering
08-01-2012, 11:55
Bill Maher - Atheism Is Not A Religion (New Rules 3rd February 2012) - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gCJn85isxE&feature=g-high-rec)

Bill explains it all.


...

"New Rules" indeed.:rofl:

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 18:17
Then what way was it meant, given your statement that "Neither really knows, many claim to, but actually only have faith in a belief.", if not that you are claiming that people are saying they know, but don't actually? And look how you stepped back from an all-inclusive "theists and atheists "know"" to a 'many claim to' when called on it. Please, precisely define what you meant by "theists and atheists "know"".


If you had just read a little further....
Your question was answered in the second half of my post.


The problem with what you have to say is that one is defined by believing, and the other is defined by *not* believing. Your claim that you somehow have to say something doesn't make what you have to say any less incorrect.

The other is defined as a belief. Check out Merriam Websters any time you'd like to.

Atheist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist)

I think I have proven one thing beyond a reasonable doubt. That "atheist" is defined as "one" that has a belief, and that it is hard to admit by many.


There is nothing wrong with leaving an unanswered question unanswered if there is really no evidence to answer it. Really, it's OK. I've not been struck down by any deity, or process of science for simply realizing that we don't know everything, most certainly we have not proven whether or not an intelligence was involved in us being where we are at. I don't need to polarize myself to claim that I am an atheist to believe what I believe. I don't need to take a more extreme position of denying the existence of any possible deity in order to argue with theists.

The only thing for sure is that it is what it is.

Lone Wolf8634
08-01-2012, 18:47
the other is defined as a belief. Check out merriam websters any time you'd like to.

atheist (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheist)

atheist (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/atheist?region=us) Why, I believe we have a discrepancy here.....

i think i have proven one thing beyond a reasonable doubt. That "atheist" is defined as "one" that has a belief, and that it is hard to admit by many.

You have come nowhere close to proving this.

And it's hard to admit because it's incorrect.


There is nothing wrong with leaving an unanswered question unanswered if there is really no evidence to answer it. Really, it's ok. I've not been struck down by any deity, or process of science for simply realizing that we don't know everything, most certainly we have not proven whether or not an intelligence was involved in us being where we are at. I don't need to polarize myself to claim that i am an atheist to believe what i believe. I don't need to take a more extreme position of denying the existence of any possible deity in order to argue with theists.

The only thing for sure is that it is what it is.


There's nothing wrong with rejecting an assertion because it has no evidence to back it up. Really, it's ok.

void *
08-01-2012, 19:17
If you had just read a little further....
Your question was answered in the second half of my post.

No, it wasn't. You wrote some words, but you did not precisely define what you meant. I might infer a particular meaning from what you wrote - like, it appears you are now using "know" to mean "believe" - but then, I might write a comment based on that inference, and you can just turn around and say that's not what you meant, either. Which you've shown in the past you are very willing to do.

So I ask again, please provide a precise definition of what 'atheists and theists "know"' means. What is your 'nonliteral' definition of "know"?

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 19:31
You have come nowhere close to proving this.

And it's hard to admit because it's incorrect.


In this case, you can take my statement literally.

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc
i think i have proven one thing beyond a reasonable doubt. That "atheist" is defined as "one" that has a belief, and that it is hard to admit by many.

It is defined that way. I've demonstrated that scores of times.

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 19:35
No, it wasn't. You wrote some words, but you did not precisely define what you meant. I might infer a particular meaning from what you wrote - like, it appears you are now using "know" to mean "believe" - but then, I might write a comment based on that inference, and you can just turn around and say that's not what you meant, either. Which you've shown in the past you are very willing to do.

So I ask again, please provide a precise definition of what 'atheists and theists "know"' means. What is your 'nonliteral' definition of "know"?

It means they don't really know, but some think they do. Many just believe they know. Many believe they don't know, but choose to believe that way anyway. Some can admit that, some can't.

Read that a couple of times, pretty sure I got that right. :wavey:

Lone Wolf8634
08-01-2012, 19:35
In this case, you can take my statement literally.



It is defined that way. I've demonstrated that scores of times.

atheist (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/atheist?region=us) Why, I believe we have a discrepancy here.....




:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
08-01-2012, 19:40
:whistling:

Let me point out that if it is defined one way, it is defined that way. Period, true statement.

Whether or not it is defined another way in Britain is completely irrelevant.

Lone Wolf8634
08-01-2012, 19:48
Let me point out that if it is defined one way, it is defined that way. Period, true statement.

Whether or not it is defined another way in Britain is completely irrelevant.

You need to re-read the page. That is the definition in the U.S. English edition.

If you want the British definition (http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/atheist?region=us) . Seems exactly the same, but the link at the bottom will take you right back to the U.S. English dictionary.

void *
08-01-2012, 19:56
It means they don't really know, but some think they do.

Again, we are back to my pointing out that there are theists and atheists who freely admit that they do not know. The fact that /some/ claim to know does not mean you get to apply that to the group as a whole.

Your definition also contradicts your usage in the sentence. "Atheists and theists X' quite directly means that all atheists and theists are X. But you are now claiming that "know" means that they don't really know, but /some/ claim to. Which is full circle back to my original objection, the existence of theists and atheists who do not actually have the attribute you claim. Not all dogs are brown just because some dogs are brown - and some atheists and theists claiming to know does not mean you get to pretend that *all* do in the face of direct counterexamples (like most of the atheists posting responses to you, and theists who think that the ability to know would mean that no faith is required, etc).

I'll add another thing for people to think about as well: There is no definition of know in m-w that would make 'atheists and theists "know"' mean 'atheists and theists don't know but some think they do". In fact, the *only* non-literal definition of know in m-w is the biblical sense of the word. Consider that CD is requiring everyone to use m-w for particular definitions when it suits him, but is perfectly happy to claim a 'non-literal' definition that is not supportable with m-w when it happens to allow him to pretend an objection raised by someone responding to him doesn't apply.

ksg0245
08-01-2012, 22:20
Well, yours has left a lot to be desired also. Glass houses and all that jazz.

My attitude is that I don't get to tell people what they actually believe, which seems a tad more defensible and reasonable than the attitude that presumes to tell others their beliefs or lack thereof aren't what they say.

ksg0245
08-01-2012, 22:23
I continue to tell people my opinion. In this thread, I have been asked frequently.

It is my opinion that my opinion on this subject is correct. We've been over this before.

Better question is why is it such a big deal? I've been told that I am religious too, for having that opinion. I've been told that I am a closet theist. Both are wrong, but if someone wants to think that, and I cannot convince them otherwise, it's no sweat off my .....

I'll repeat the question: why is it so important for you to tell atheists they're wrong about themselves?

G23Gen4TX
08-02-2012, 00:20
I'll repeat the question: why is it so important for you to tell atheists they're wrong about themselves?

Because he doesn't have control over us and that is all religion is about.

Cavalry Doc
08-02-2012, 10:01
I'll repeat the question: why is it so important for you to tell atheists they're wrong about themselves?


It seems to come up in conversation a lot. That's all.

I have a perspective, you have a perspective. They aren't the same. That's what makes people so interesting.

Cavalry Doc
08-02-2012, 10:13
Again, we are back to my pointing out that there are theists and atheists who freely admit that they do not know. The fact that /some/ claim to know does not mean you get to apply that to the group as a whole.

Your definition also contradicts your usage in the sentence. "Atheists and theists X' quite directly means that all atheists and theists are X. But you are now claiming that "know" means that they don't really know, but /some/ claim to. Which is full circle back to my original objection, the existence of theists and atheists who do not actually have the attribute you claim. Not all dogs are brown just because some dogs are brown - and some atheists and theists claiming to know does not mean you get to pretend that *all* do in the face of direct counterexamples (like most of the atheists posting responses to you, and theists who think that the ability to know would mean that no faith is required, etc).

I'll add another thing for people to think about as well: There is no definition of know in m-w that would make 'atheists and theists "know"' mean 'atheists and theists don't know but some think they do". In fact, the *only* non-literal definition of know in m-w is the biblical sense of the word. Consider that CD is requiring everyone to use m-w for particular definitions when it suits him, but is perfectly happy to claim a 'non-literal' definition that is not supportable with m-w when it happens to allow him to pretend an objection raised by someone responding to him doesn't apply.

know
verb \ˈnō\
knewknownknow·ing
Definition of KNOW
transitive verb
1
a (1) : to perceive directly : have direct cognition of (2) : to have understanding of <importance of knowing oneself> (3) : to recognize the nature of : discern b (1) : to recognize as being the same as something previously known (2) : to be acquainted or familiar with (3) : to have experience of
2
a : to be aware of the truth or factuality of : be convinced or certain of b : to have a practical understanding of <knows how to write>
3
archaic : to have sexual intercourse with


Good spin attempt. Not sure where you are trying to land, but you'd impress some olympic gymnastics judges with that one.

For the most part, I was using the a(1) definition.

All are valid in English though.

ksg0245
08-02-2012, 18:18
It seems to come up in conversation a lot. That's all.

I have a perspective, you have a perspective. They aren't the same. That's what makes people so interesting.

You didn't answer the question.

Geko45
08-02-2012, 20:24
You didn't answer the question.

What does god need with a starship?

:supergrin:

Geko45
08-02-2012, 20:27
It seems to come up in conversation a lot. That's all.

I have a perspective, you have a perspective. They aren't the same. That's what makes people so interesting.

But why was it so important to you that you spent 90+ pages on it?

void *
08-02-2012, 20:43
Good spin attempt. Not sure where you are trying to land, but you'd impress some olympic gymnastics judges with that one.

For the most part, I was using the a(1) definition.

All are valid in English though.

Sorry, but the a(1) definition doesn't make the statement "Theists and atheists "know"' mean 'atheists and theists don't know but some think they do'.

If you were using a(1), your statement would read, by substitution, as one of the following:
a) 'Theists and atheists perceive directly'
b) 'Theists and atheists have direct cognition of'

Neither of which is the statement 'atheists and theists don't know but some think they do' or anything at a resembling a statement that has the same meaning - and that's ignoring the fact that a(1) is not a nonliteral definition. (People can look this up themselves, you know - the only nonliteral definition is definition 3).

If anyone's a gymnast here, it's you. :wavey:

My basic point stands: You're claiming that atheists and theists do something, and then when you had it pointed out to you that there are direct counterexamples, you stated that you were using some nonliteral definition that means 'they don't but some think they do'. Now you're claiming you meant yet an even *different* definition because someone pointed out the contradiction between your insistence on m-w definitions from others and the fact that m-w doesn't support the definition you claimed when you were asked to precisely define what you meant. Keep jumping. ;)

steveksux
08-04-2012, 08:18
Sorry, but the a(1) definition doesn't make the statement "Theists and atheists "know"' mean 'atheists and theists don't know but some think they do'.

If you were using a(1), your statement would read, by substitution, as one of the following:
a) 'Theists and atheists perceive directly'
b) 'Theists and atheists have direct cognition of'

Neither of which is the statement 'atheists and theists don't know but some think they do' or anything at a resembling a statement that has the same meaning - and that's ignoring the fact that a(1) is not a nonliteral definition. (People can look this up themselves, you know - the only nonliteral definition is definition 3).

If anyone's a gymnast here, it's you. :wavey:

My basic point stands: You're claiming that atheists and theists do something, and then when you had it pointed out to you that there are direct counterexamples, you stated that you were using some nonliteral definition that means 'they don't but some think they do'. Now you're claiming you meant yet an even *different* definition because someone pointed out the contradiction between your insistence on m-w definitions from others and the fact that m-w doesn't support the definition you claimed when you were asked to precisely define what you meant. Keep jumping. ;)Kind of like when his definition of religion keeps contradicting his position. M-W keeps betraying him, why does he love it so?

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-04-2012, 16:22
Sorry, but the a(1) definition doesn't make the statement "Theists and atheists "know"' ...

If you take my statement in the context it was given, including the specific and intentional inclusion of the quotation marks, it's obvious to anyone willing to admit it that you are spinning things out of context for a reason.

If you cannot comprehend the use of quotation marks in a debate, I cannot help you. It's neither my problem nor my fault. You'll have to find your own way out of that particular wilderness.

Only problem is you have the adjective and noun in the wrong place.

Theists and atheists "know", agnostics do not.

Atheist > Atheistic Agnostic > Agnostic < Theistic Agnostic < Theist.

Which accurately describes how I see the differences.

You think you "know", but you don't really, and that is the rub.

Oh well.

Cavalry Doc
08-04-2012, 16:25
But why was it so important to you that you spent 90+ pages on it?

Why do you post here? Why do you converse on the internet at all?


It has been a very interesting conversation for me, that's enough.

Geko45
08-04-2012, 17:37
Why do you post here? Why do you converse on the internet at all?

Why do you always answer a question with a question?

I've never spent 90 pages on one single poorly developed thought.

Geko45
08-04-2012, 17:39
You think you "know", but you don't really, and that is the rub.

Oh well.

Irony...

Cavalry Doc
08-04-2012, 19:13
Why do you always answer a question with a question?

I've never spent 90 pages on one single poorly developed thought.

Always? That's another false charge, not that you care. Good way to avoid answering the question. Why do you post on the internet at all? It's a simple question, with a simple answer, if you can admit it.

At this point, you have been embarrassed, and are doing what you can to get even. It's painfully obvious. It's not my fault that you didn't understand simple concepts about the scientific method while proclaiming that scientists begin with a hypothesis, instead of a question. You tap danced around your misunderstanding, but it was still obvious. It's not my fault, I'm sure there are some elementary or middle school teachers you should be directing your ire towards, instead of me, but I'm probably easier to get a hold of. :dunno:


I simply have a different perspective. One that I feel is perfectly valid. It's not the only perspective, there are plenty of other valid ones. This is just mine.

You are allowed your own perspective, and opinion, but not your own facts. Regardless of what we think, wish or want, it still is what it is. A question that is unanswered.

Many have faith that they "know" the answer.

Geko45
08-04-2012, 22:12
Always?

Case in point.

At this point, you have been embarrassed, and are doing what you can to get even. It's painfully obvious.

:animlol:

G23Gen4TX
08-04-2012, 23:20
Like every day, stupid religious people try to bring us into their set of standards so we must be a religion.

Grow up. Fairy tales are for kids.

Blast
08-05-2012, 00:56
Like every day, stupid religious people try to bring us into their set of standards so we must be a religion.

Grow up. Fairy tales are for kids.
As opposed to stupid atheists who try to impose their ideology and think they know all the answers?
You use a wide brush, but that is typical of the ignorant. :upeyes:
I know lots of atheists who are intelligent and mature. Atheists like you and some others in this forum make all atheists look foolish and hate ridden.

Yes, fairy tales are for kids so grow up, jr.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 07:22
As opposed to stupid atheists who try to impose their ideology and think they know all the answers?

Atheists don't claim to know all the answers, we just insist that theists acknowledge that they don't either.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 07:30
Atheists don't claim to know all the answers, we just insist that theists acknowledge that they don't either.

Is that all you want??? You've said you wanted more:

Tell you what, I'll concede that my entire line of reasoning was illegitimate if you concede that religion is a scourge on the human race that must be eliminated if we are ever to be truly free.

And then we'll call it... totally lopsided in my favor.

:thumbsup:


Religion is not something worthy of respect. It is a scourge upon humanity that costs us precious time, resources and lives. The only ethical and moral position is to combat it to the fullest extent allowed within the confines of individual liberty and the law.



That seems to be a loftier goal than just getting people with different beliefs than yours to acknowledge that they don't know all the answers.

Some might even consider your position as radical.

void *
08-05-2012, 14:23
If you take my statement in the context it was given, including the specific and intentional inclusion of the quotation marks, it's obvious to anyone willing to admit it that you are spinning things out of context for a reason.

My original assumption was that "know" in quotes meant a claim to know (i.e. they think they know, but are mistaken). I gave counterexamples to show that you cannot make the claim that either theists or atheists claim to know merely by being theist or atheists, which means that the group as a whole cannot be said to "know" (in the sense of thinking they know, but not really knowing). You accused me of not understanding and then changed your definition multiple times during the course of the conversation, including changing it to 'don't know but some think they do' (which is nonsensical because it can't be applied to the entire group in question). Who is spinning? it's certainly not me, and whether or not you actually write that you agree, the people reading this thread will see what you're doing for what it is.

You think you "know", but you don't really, and that is the rub.

Shall I link to the large number of posts in which I have directly told you that I do not claim to know?

We can start with this one: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16263699&postcount=26, within which you asked me if I know that Vishnu doesn't exist, and I responded 'Nope', and you further asked me if I could prove it, and I stated that it can't be proven one way or another.

Shall I keep going, or will you retract your false statement? You've been told enough times that you ought to be able to remember.

Edit: Shall I conclude based on the fact that you keep telling people they "know", despite those people directly telling you that they make no such claim, that you think you know what other people's positions are better than they themselves do? By your logic, this would make telling other people that they are religious, your religion.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 15:56
My original assumption was that "know" in quotes meant a claim to know (i.e. they think they know, but are mistaken). I gave counterexamples to show that you cannot make the claim that either theists or atheists claim to know merely by being theist or atheists, which means that the group as a whole cannot be said to "know" (in the sense of thinking they know, but not really knowing). You accused me of not understanding and then changed your definition multiple times during the course of the conversation, including changing it to 'don't know but some think they do' (which is nonsensical because it can't be applied to the entire group in question). Who is spinning? it's certainly not me, and whether or not you actually write that you agree, the people reading this thread will see what you're doing for what it is.



Shall I link to the large number of posts in which I have directly told you that I do not claim to know?

We can start with this one: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16263699&postcount=26, within which you asked me if I know that Vishnu doesn't exist, and I responded 'Nope', and you further asked me if I could prove it, and I stated that it can't be proven one way or another.

Shall I keep going, or will you retract your false statement? You've been told enough times that you ought to be able to remember.

Edit: Shall I conclude based on the fact that you keep telling people they "know", despite those people directly telling you that they make no such claim, that you think you know what other people's positions are better than they themselves do? By your logic, this would make telling other people that they are religious, your religion.

Seems to me that we agree that neither has direct knowledge, but that many believe. Which was what I said in the post that sent you off on this serpentine tangent.

So what are you going on so long about again?

Lone Wolf8634
08-05-2012, 16:23
Seems to me that we agree that neither has direct knowledge, but that many believe. Which was what I said in the post that sent you off on this serpentine tangent.

So what are you going on so long about again?

The basic problem here is you keep telling everyone what they "know" or "believe".

Of course, you have to, otherwise your argument that Atheists have "faith" in their "religion" falls on its face. Not that it hasn't already.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 16:48
That seems to be a loftier goal than just getting people with different beliefs than yours to acknowledge that they don't know all the answers.

LOL! I have my own internet stalker! :woohoo:

No, these claims are not contradictory. I never claimed to have all the answers, but theists do. That is what makes religion so dangerous. Having faith that you are right allows one to justify all sorts of crimes against others. My position has only ever been that people should be left alone to decide for themselves how to best live their life. Theists can never seem to leave others alone so I will continue to argue against them given every (legal) avenue available to me.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 16:50
Of course, you have to, otherwise your argument that Atheists have "faith" in their "religion" falls on its face. Not that it hasn't already.

It has for everyone except CD himself.

nmk
08-05-2012, 16:51
Atheists don't claim to know all the answers, we just insist that theists acknowledge that they don't either.

You will never get a sincere reply to this.

nmk
08-05-2012, 16:54
LOL! I have my own internet stalker! :woohoo:

No, these claims are not contradictory. I never claimed to have all the answers, but theists do. That is what makes religion so dangerous. Having faith that you are right allows one to justify all sorts of crimes against others. My position has only ever been that people should be left alone to decide for themselves how to best live their life. Theists can never seem to leave others alone so I will continue to argue against them given every (legal) avenue available to me.

I thought CD was supposed to be the GTRI poster child for "not having all the answers". He sure doesn't seem agnostic. Never mind. This entire thread is ridiculous. Someone please help me name my new religion....we don't believe in dolphins that speak French.

void *
08-05-2012, 16:58
Seems to me that we agree that neither has direct knowledge, but that many believe.

Trying to change the subject again?

Let me write it for you plainer:

If someone claims that dogs are brown, and someone else points out that there are dogs that are white with black spots, the person who claimed that dogs are "brown" does not get to pretend his statement was correct just because some dogs are brown.

So, when you claim that atheists and theists "know", and I point out that there are plenty of atheists and theists who will tell you straight up that they do not claim to know, and thus, do not in fact "know" (in the sense of claiming to know but being wrong), you don't get to pretend your statement was correct because some claim to know. I'm sure you're smart enough to understand that a line of argument that requires *all* atheists and theists to be something is not valid just because *some* are. Which leads me to wonder why you would pretend that you meant some nonliteral definition of "know" other than the one I thought you meant (which was, basically, claiming to know but being incorrect).

Also, are you going to retract your statement to me that "You think you "know", but you don't really, and that is the rub."?
Another post in which you should have gotten the point that I don't claim to know: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=16717460&postcount=726

muscogee
08-05-2012, 17:11
I thought CD was supposed to be the GTRI poster child for "not having all the answers". He sure doesn't seem agnostic. Never mind. This entire thread is ridiculous. Someone please help me name my new religion....we don't believe in dolphins that speak French.

afrancophoneDelphinidae

Of course you will have to specify which type of French speaking dolphin you don't believe in or someone will insist that you do. Calvary Doc will insist that it's just a belief because you can't prove that French speaking dolphins don't exist.

void *
08-05-2012, 17:18
Someone please help me name my new religion....we don't believe in dolphins that speak French.

I had a vision the other day that a dolphin jumped out of the ocean and said "Si longtemps, et merci pour tous les poissons". I assert this is a divine revelation from the French speaking dolphins, you heretic.

muscogee
08-05-2012, 17:40
Atheists don't claim to know all the answers, we just insist that theists acknowledge that they don't either.

This is a real paradox for theists. They insist that it takes faith to know that God exists. If it takes faith, then they don't' know. If they know, then faith isn't necessary.

They can't even say there probably is a God because that leaves open the possibility that there is no God and that implies a lack of faith.

muscogee
08-05-2012, 17:43
I had a vision the other day that a dolphin jumped out of the ocean and said "Si longtemps, et merci pour tous les poissons". I assert this is a divine revelation from the French speaking dolphins, you heretic.

francophoneDelphinidae akbar

Geko45
08-05-2012, 17:57
francophoneDelphinidae akbar

Beni soit son nom

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 18:44
The basic problem here is you keep telling everyone what they "know" or "believe".

Of course, you have to, otherwise your argument that Atheists have "faith" in their "religion" falls on its face. Not that it hasn't already.

See, now you are missing the point again.

Atheists, by definition, believe that there is no deity.

Many people are claiming to be atheists, but do not claim to believe that there is no deity. That's where the problem is. In my own opinion, I think many of the people around here are not truly atheists, but are more accurately described as atheistic agnostics.

When you think about it that way, it makes perfect sense.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 18:45
LOL! I have my own internet stalker! :woohoo:

No, these claims are not contradictory. I never claimed to have all the answers, but theists do. That is what makes religion so dangerous. Having faith that you are right allows one to justify all sorts of crimes against others. My position has only ever been that people should be left alone to decide for themselves how to best live their life. Theists can never seem to leave others alone so I will continue to argue against them given every (legal) avenue available to me.

It's almost like you are on a crusade. :whistling:


Your previously stated position is not to leave everyone alone, but to eliminate it.

That's very unConstitutional of you. But the zealots gotta do what the zealots gotta do.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 18:47
Atheists, by definition, believe that there is no deity.

Many people are claiming to be atheists, but do not claim to believe that there is no deity. That's where the problem is. In my own opinion, I think many of the people around here are not truly atheists, but are more accurately described as atheistic agnostics.

And once again you feel to grasp the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 18:51
Trying to change the subject again?

Let me write it for you plainer:

[/url]

Don't bother. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I initially said, and spinning it beyond recognition.

We agree that no one really knows whether or not there is or was a deity, but many believe that there either was or wasn't one.

I cannot help you understand the meaning of quotation marks around a word, you'll have to learn that life lesson from someone else.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 18:52
And once again you feel to grasp the difference between inductive and deductive reasoning.

And once again, you cannot grasp the definition to common words.

Not my fault or my problem.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 18:55
This is a real paradox for theists. They insist that it takes faith to know that God exists. If it takes faith, then they don't' know. If they know, then faith isn't necessary.

They can't even say there probably is a God because that leaves open the possibility that there is no God and that implies a lack of faith.

Agnostics can see it plainly too.

If you simply lack belief, but don't think you know the real answer to whether or not a deity has existed, you are correct. But an atheist believes, at least according to American English anyway.

Atheists, by definition, have made a choice in what to believe.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:00
I thought CD was supposed to be the GTRI poster child for "not having all the answers". He sure doesn't seem agnostic. Never mind. This entire thread is ridiculous. Someone please help me name my new religion....we don't believe in dolphins that speak French.

A lot of the "atheists" around here seem to refute atheism. The belief that there is no deity.

It is odd, that I seem to be the only one that is not a theist than can be honest about my beliefs. The true atheists are afraid to admit their choice in belief. It's very odd, and also very hard to admit for them, because if they do admit it, then I've been right all along.


It's simply denial, with a purpose.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:07
And once again, you cannot grasp the definition to common words.

Does anyone here agree with CD's assessment that I am failing to grasp the definitions of common words? Setting aside a disagreement with my position, does anyone really doubt that I have a firm grasp of the English language?

steveksux
08-05-2012, 19:11
Does anyone here agree with CD's assessment that I am failing to grasp the definitions of common words? Setting aside a disagreement with my position, does anyone really doubt that I have a firm grasp of the English language?
CD is hardly the arbiter of grasping definitions of common words given his claims regarding M-W's definition of religion "proving" atheism is a religion.

Now if he accused you of misrepresenting the definitions of common words, you would have to acknowledge he is a subject matter expert on that. However since that calls into question his honesty, you would still have ample grounds to dismiss this accusation as well due to lack of credibility.

Randy

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:11
Does anyone here agree with CD's assessment that I am failing to grasp the definitions of common words? Setting aside a disagreement with my position, does anyone really doubt that I have a firm grasp of the English language?

Looking for affirmation from the rest of the faithful doesn't help your position at all.


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. Language is funny that way.

One that has made statements as radical as yours does not seem to be a moderate in this discussion. Or at least as moderate as you pretend.

void *
08-05-2012, 19:14
Don't bother. You are intentionally misrepresenting what I initially said, and spinning it beyond recognition.

Let's see what you initially said.

Only problem is you have the adjective and noun in the wrong place.

Theists and atheists "know", agnostics do not.

Atheist > Atheistic Agnostic > Agnostic < Theistic Agnostic < Theist.

Which accurately describes how I see the differences.

I took "know" in 'Theists and atheists "know"' to mean roughly 'claim to know'. I pointed out that there are theists and atheists who do not, in fact, claim to know.

You told me I was interpreting "know" incorrectly,

You then told me it somehow means 'they don't know but some think they do'.

I am trying to point out to you that even if you actually meant 'they don't know but some think they do' (besides the fact that you keep changing what you say you meant), the fact that it's only some derails your entire line of argumentation.

You can't say 'some dogs are brown, therefore dogs are brown'. Likewise, you can't say 'some atheists and theists don't know but think they do, therefore atheists and theists don't know but think they do'.

Do you get it yet? Do you understand that 'theists and atheists X', whatever x is, implies that all atheists and theists X, no matter what the definition of X is? Do you understand that by defining "know" 'with quotes' to somehow mean 'only some' (which everyone is supposed to magically know, right?) means that it is *you* that are quite obviously spinning?

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:21
Looking for affirmation from the rest of the faithful doesn't help your position at all.

Hey, if your claim has validity then certainly others must see it too, right?

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.

OMG (pun intended)! OCD much?

BTW, when have I ever played this definition game with you?

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.

And you continue to miss the difference between inductive versus deductive reasoning.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:24
Atheism is a religion.

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion

:animlol:

And I don't understand the definitions of common words?! Try looking up antonym!

void *
08-05-2012, 19:30
Let me put it another way, CD.

Your profile says "MAJ (USA Ret.)". So you're a retired Major.
Well, some retired majors accept bribes:(http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/13/retired-u-s-army-major-to-be-sentenced-for-accepting-bribes-from-contractors-delivering-water-to-troops/)

So you take bribes, right, because some do? Except that we can't actually conclude that, because only some do. Stating it as 'Retired Majors take "bribes"' and stating that the quotes somehow magically mean 'only some' does not change the fact that you still can't draw the conclusion.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:38
Let's see what you initially said.



I took "know" in 'Theists and atheists "know"' to mean roughly 'claim to know'. I pointed out that there are theists and atheists who do not, in fact, claim to know.

You told me I was interpreting "know" incorrectly,

You then told me it somehow means 'they don't know but some think they do'.

I am trying to point out to you that even if you actually meant 'they don't know but some think they do' (besides the fact that you keep changing what you say you meant), the fact that it's only some derails your entire line of argumentation.

You can't say 'some dogs are brown, therefore dogs are brown'. Likewise, you can't say 'some atheists and theists don't know but think they do, therefore atheists and theists don't know but think they do'.

Do you get it yet? Do you understand that 'theists and atheists X', whatever x is, implies that all atheists and theists X, no matter what the definition of X is? Do you understand that by defining "know" 'with quotes' to somehow mean 'only some' (which everyone is supposed to magically know, right?) means that it is *you* that are quite obviously spinning?

I'm beginning to think that you are prone to get stuck on minor points to the point of a disability.

Some theists and atheists believe strongly enough to be very sure that they are right. Many even live their lives as if they are.

But it is all based on belief, as there is no real evidence one way or the other.

If you cannot grasp that, I don't believe that I will ever be able to help you.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:40
If you cannot grasp that, I don't believe that I will ever be able to help you.

Is that it? Do you think atheists need your help? Do you hold that belief with ardor and faith?

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:42
:animlol:

And I don't understand the definitions of common words?! Try looking up antonym!

It's not math, it's language, and there are plenty of odd occurrences.

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a complete and grammatically correct sentence.

Atheism being accurately described as a religion is correct, both in the definition of all of the words used, and if you'll pardon the expression, in the spirit of the words.


It's not my problem, just my observation. It's a controversial subject, that tends to generate the same level of offense as blasphemy, which is humorously ironic.

void *
08-05-2012, 19:43
I'm beginning to think that you are prone to get stuck on minor points to the point of a disability.

I'm beginning to think you're writing off the fact that there are theists and atheists who don't claim to know, as you have acknowledged by your statement (roughly paraphrased) that they 'don't know but some think they do', is a minor point, when in fact it throws your entire argument out the window.

Oh, and retired Majors take "bribes", so you take "bribes".

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:44
Is that it? Do you think atheists need your help? Do you hold that belief with ardor and faith?

Oh, I'm sure that I cannot help you. No doubt there.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:46
Oh, I'm sure that I cannot help you. No doubt there.

Ah, I'm beyond redemption according to your belief system. Got it

Smacktard
08-05-2012, 19:47
Let me put it another way, CD.

Your profile says "MAJ (USA Ret.)". So you're a retired Major.
Well, some retired majors accept bribes:(http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2012/06/13/retired-u-s-army-major-to-be-sentenced-for-accepting-bribes-from-contractors-delivering-water-to-troops/)

So you take bribes, right, because some do? Except that we can't actually conclude that, because only some do. Stating it as 'Retired Majors take "bribes"' and stating that the quotes somehow magically mean 'only some' does not change the fact that you still can't draw the conclusion.


Why is it so hard for a retired Major to admit that he takes bribes???


....

Limedust
08-05-2012, 19:47
It most definately is a religion. It makes, like all major religions a metaphysical presuppsoition. It presumes without evidence that there is No God. This intitiate a clear set of logical coralating beliefs. Since there is no god, there can clearly be no revelation. Without a revelation there can be no meaning, or a common set of morality or eithics. Without meaning there is no purpose. Without purpose there is no hope. That is why Atheism has been branded, "The philosophy of suicide." Because, if there is no meaning or purpose, then why bother.

Well, that's one way to torture logic . . . or to not use it at all.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:48
I'm beginning to think you're writing off the fact that there are theists and atheists who don't claim to know, as you have acknowledged by your statement (roughly paraphrased) that they 'don't know but some think they do', is a minor point, when in fact it throws your entire argument out the window.

Oh, and you take "bribes".

That is a very interesting imagination you have there. Not sure where you came up with that.

There are people that claim to be atheists, that don't fit within the definition of "atheist".

That is an oddity, but not one of my making, it is of theirs. I'd imagine that doing verbal battle with theists would be more difficult if they admitted that they don't know, they only believe. When confronted with an agnostic, that admits they don't know, but the atheists act as though they do, they quickly change to a more passive belief statement.

Not everyone finds it easy to honestly state their beliefs as I do. It's sad, funny, and odd, all at the same time.

void *
08-05-2012, 19:49
That is a very interesting imagination you have there. Not sure where you came up with that.

You're a retired Major, aren't you?

Or maybe you're a retired Major, that doesn't fit the definition of retired Major ... Regardless, I used the magic quotes that mean 'only some', so I still get to say you take "bribes".

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:52
I'm beginning to think you're writing off the fact that there are theists and atheists who don't claim to know, as you have acknowledged by your statement (roughly paraphrased) that they 'don't know but some think they do', is a minor point, when in fact it throws your entire argument out the window.

Oh, and retired Majors take "bribes", so you take "bribes".

OK, so you have no integrity at all then.

Duly noted. Not everyone can be as open about being a classless lout as you can. I guess your mother can be proud that you have reached a pinnacle of some sort after all. Not all mothers remember all the names of the fathers of their children, so I'll not make any assumptions that yours knew yours.

Fair enough?



Ay chance you are going to answer the rest of my post that you clipped out?

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:52
Atheism being accurately described as a religion is correct, both in the definition of all of the words used, and if you'll pardon the expression, in the spirit of the words.

Except everyone seems to agree that atheism is an antonym for religion, but you are the only one that believes it is a religion.

Kinda on your own little island with that one.

void *
08-05-2012, 19:54
Not everyone finds it easy to honestly state their beliefs as I do. It's sad, funny, and odd, all at the same time.

That's funny, because I've honestly stated my beliefs multiple times - and you keep telling me that you know better than I do what I actually believe.

Like, for instance, I tell you that I recognize that there are god postulates that are unprovable, and I don't claim to be able to prove them false - and I don't claim to actually know that they are false with absolute certainty. I don't see any reason to treat them as true unless there is some sort of factual basis to treat them as true (which is not the same thing as believing something as a matter of faith).

Yet you continually tell me that I claim to know.

Sounds a whole lot like someone claiming something they can't possibly know to me. (You are not other people, so you cannot know what other people are thinking - yet you sure do a lot of telling other people what they think and believe).

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:55
Why is it so hard for a retired Major to admit that he takes bribes???


....

The better question is why is it so hard to admit that atheism is a choice to believe in something that cannot be proven?

It's even hard for some here to admit that they are really atheists. The disciple Peter would be proud of you all. Especially you.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:56
Sounds a whole lot like someone claiming something they can't possibly know to me. (You are not me, so you cannot know what I am thinking).

Almost like they are claiming it with ardor and faith?

void *
08-05-2012, 19:57
OK, so you have no integrity at all then.

Ahh, so when *I* use "word" to mean "some do word", in a situation where the sentence implies that all of the subject are/do whatever the 'word' is, it's a matter of integrity - but when you do it, it's not.

Duly noted.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:58
The better question is why is it so hard to admit that atheism is a choice to believe in something that cannot be proven?

I've acknowledged many times that it can not be deductively proven. You keep bypassing that statement to hold on to your belief that atheists are not willing to acknowledge that.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 19:58
That's funny, because I've honestly stated my beliefs multiple times - and you keep telling me that you know better than I do what I actually believe.

Like, for instance, I tell you that I recognize that there are god postulates that are unprovable, and I don't claim to be able to prove them false - and I don't claim to actually know that they are false with absolute certainty. I don't see any reason to treat them as true unless there is some sort of factual basis to treat them as true.

Yet you continually tell me that I claim to know.

Sounds a whole lot like someone claiming something they can't possibly know to me. (You are not me, so you cannot know what I am thinking).

I think you are finally on to something. You have stated you don't claim to actually know with absolute certainty.

I have noted that by definition, atheists believe in a certain thing.



I have never claimed you were an atheist, by definition.

You may be a mislabeled atheistic agnostic.

Maybe a little self discovery is due for you?

Geko45
08-05-2012, 19:58
Ahh, so when *I* use "word" to mean "some do word", it's a matter of integrity, but not when you do it.

Duly noted.

I'm not sure, but I think he is calling you a heretic.

steveksux
08-05-2012, 19:59
Atheism being accurately described as a religion is correct, both in the definition of all of the words used,

X lies to his wife about where he was last night.

CD lies in bed at night.

CD and X are both liars, by the definitions of all the words used.

Just like Christianity and atheism (and football, for that matter) are religions according to those definitions quoted out of context.

Why is it so hard to admit CD is a liar?

Mixing connotations has some interesting side effects, as 90+ pages of another thread have proven.

Anyone being honest would admit they're not necessarily the same kind of liars. Except one isn't honest enough to admit that those are not the same kind of "religions". So sometimes definitions aren't mutually exclusive like they are when antonyms are involved.

Randy

Geko45
08-05-2012, 20:01
You have stated you don't claim to actually know with absolute certainty.

I have noted that by definition, atheists believe in a certain thing.

Pretty sure that he still self-identifies as an atheist. As do I.

Try again.

void *
08-05-2012, 20:01
The better question is why is it so hard to admit that atheism is a choice to believe in something that cannot be proven?

Because it's actually a choice to not believe in something that cannot be proven.

There was a bit on the Atheist Experience today that went, roughly paraphrased, "Agnostics are atheists who don't want the label".

"I have never had the least sympathy with the a priori reasons against orthodoxy, and I have by nature and disposition the greatest possible antipathy to all the atheistic and infidel school. Nevertheless I know that I am, in spite of myself, exactly what the Christian would call, and, so far as I can see, is justified in calling, atheist and infidel." -- Thomas Henry Huxley

Sounds a whole lot like a guy who knew that he met the definition of 'atheist' but didn't like the label to me.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 20:03
Mixing connotations has some interesting side effects, as 90+ pages of another thread have proven.

When I called him on his OCD, he simply transposed his obsession to this thread.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 20:03
I've acknowledged many times that it can not be deductively proven. You keep bypassing that statement to hold on to your belief that atheists are not willing to acknowledge that.

If you have inductive proof, and deductive proof of any fact, which is the higher level of proof?

Using inductive proof, isn't there always the possibility that you are wrong?

For you, do you believe that no deity exists, or do you know it?

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 20:05
Because it's actually a choice to not believe in something that cannot be proven.

And would that position not be better described as atheistic agnosticism?

Think about it, think about it for a while, then respond.

Cavalry Doc
08-05-2012, 20:06
Pretty sure that he still self-identifies as an atheist. As do I.

Try again.

Don't let your OCD driven stalking of me get in the way of a conversation that I am having with another.

Wait your turn, and I'll get to you. :rofl:

Geko45
08-05-2012, 20:08
If you have inductive proof, and deductive proof of any fact, which is the higher level of proof?

I can not prove deductively that leprechauns and unicorns don't exist. It is only by inductive reasoning that one can say that they are not real (and quite reasonably so). A supreme deity is similar. I can not deductively prove it, but it is no more likely than mythical horned ponies or gold mongering Irish midgets with magical powers.

Geko45
08-05-2012, 20:10
Don't let your OCD driven stalking of me get in the way of a conversation that I am having with another.

Ah, the time honored "I know you are but what am I" argument. I yield before your rapier wit.

:rofl:

void *
08-05-2012, 20:13
And would that position not be better described as atheistic agnosticism?


"I am an atheist" is a true statement, when I say it, because I do not believe in gods.
"I am an agnostic" is a true statement, when I say it, because I do not think it can be proven that there are *no* gods (if there's even one unprovable concept of a god, then you can't prove that there are no gods - and there is more than one unprovable concepts of a god or gods, in fact, the number of unprovable concepts of god or gods might be infinite - if you could get someone to sit and think of them forever).

Since both statements are true when stated alone, trying to claim that when I say "I'm an atheist" I'm somehow mislabeling myself is utter bollocks.

void *
08-05-2012, 20:18
Why is it so hard for a retired Major to admit that he takes bribes???


....


You have to use the quotes, I.E. 'Why is it so hard for a retired Major to admit that he takes "bribes"?', otherwise you can't later come back and say "oh, I meant that some take bribes ... didn't you see the quotes?"

Geko45
08-05-2012, 20:20
You have to use the quotes, I.E. 'Why is it so har for a retired Major to admit that he takes "bribes"?', otherwise you can't later come back and say "oh, I meant that some take bribes ... didn't you see the quotes?"

Ah, like some retired army doctors exhibit "OCD" like symptoms on the internet?

muscogee
08-05-2012, 20:45
Ah, like some retired army doctors exhibit "OCD" like symptoms on the internet?

You noticed that too?

G23Gen4TX
08-05-2012, 21:55
As opposed to stupid atheists who try to impose their ideology and think they know all the answers?
You use a wide brush, but that is typical of the ignorant. :upeyes:
I know lots of atheists who are intelligent and mature. Atheists like you and some others in this forum make all atheists look foolish and hate ridden.

Yes, fairy tales are for kids so grow up, jr.

Yeah, yeah, eat my body, drink my blood, afterlife, split the sea, burning bush, chariot of fire etc. etc. etc.

Syclone538
08-05-2012, 22:16
"I am an atheist" is a true statement, when I say it, because I do not believe in gods.
"I am an agnostic" is a true statement, when I say it, because I do not think it can be proven that there are *no* gods (if there's even one unprovable concept of a god, then you can't prove that there are no gods - and there is more than one unprovable concepts of a god or gods, in fact, the number of unprovable concepts of god or gods might be infinite - if you could get someone to sit and think of them forever).

Since both statements are true when stated alone, trying to claim that when I say "I'm an atheist" I'm somehow mislabeling myself is utter bollocks.

I don't think you will ever get him to admit to understanding this.

void *
08-06-2012, 00:17
I'm not sure, but I think he is calling you a heretic.

Actually, rereading the thread -

I have this terrible habit of hitting 'submit reply' instead of 'preview post', and then editing. I shouldn't do that, but I do it all the time.

I changed 'Oh, and you take "bribes"' to 'Oh, and retired Majors take "bribes", so you take "bribes".', to make it more clear that I was referring to this post: http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19275156&postcount=168.

You can see the difference in http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1434654&page=8 compared to http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19275241&postcount=179

I hit submit on the final change two minutes after I hit the original submit reply.

I originally took it as his complaining that I accused him of taking "bribes", but it's quite possible that he thinks editing a post without actually or intending to substantially change the meaning means he gets to accuse me of lacking integrity and being a classless lout, as well as veiled insults directed towards my mother.

Whether or not that's what he's getting at, CavalryDoc is someone who has posted that he's going to search and see if the people he's arguing with have ever insulted anybody, and has made comments here and there about some atheists being impolite, etc, as though that would make a difference as to whether or not someone's position is correct.

Just something else for people to think about when they evaluate his posts.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 04:32
Void,

I always try to be polite, but I also reserve the right to point out when someone crosses a line of civility, and to occasionally join them there in my response.

You appeared to go off topic and accuse me personally of illegal misconduct, if that was your intention, I have no hard feelings if you were also offended.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 04:34
Ah, the time honored "I know you are but what am I" argument. I yield before your rapier wit.

:rofl:

Just pointing out your projection issues.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 04:37
Ah, I'm beyond redemption according to your belief system. Got it

Read it slowly again. I said I can not help you, I did not say you were beyond help. I have no obligation or motivation to help you. You've gone from touting your superior intellect and claiming to be a master debater, to a nonstop stream of ad Homs. You've stopped discussing and started stalking since you embarrassed yourself so badly in an earlier thread, and you are evidently still butt sore over your small but significant misstep.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 04:45
"I am an atheist" is a true statement, when I say it, because I do not believe in gods.
"I am an agnostic" is a true statement, when I say it, because I do not think it can be proven that there are *no* gods (if there's even one unprovable concept of a god, then you can't prove that there are no gods - and there is more than one unprovable concepts of a god or gods, in fact, the number of unprovable concepts of god or gods might be infinite - if you could get someone to sit and think of them forever).

Since both statements are true when stated alone, trying to claim that when I say "I'm an atheist" I'm somehow mislabeling myself is utter bollocks.

Well, when I describe atheism as a religion, it is by the definition of atheist used in the dictionary. If you don't believe you fit that definition, feel free to consider yourself not included in my observation.

We may still disagree with your use of labels, which is ok with me.

Blast
08-06-2012, 05:06
Yeah, yeah, eat my body, drink my blood, afterlife, split the sea, burning bush, chariot of fire etc. etc. etc.
There you go with the wide brush again.:yawn:
Your first two "comments" represent Catholic doctrine. I'm not Catholic. In fact, I have no affiliation with any organized religious institutions or churches.

As for "afterlife", "split the sea", "burning bush", "chariot of fire" etc. etc. etc., though I have no evidence of such, do you have evidence to the contrary?

:popcorn:





Just as I thought. Of course you don't.:wavey:

RC-RAMIE
08-06-2012, 06:35
There you go with the wide brush again.:yawn:
Your first two "comments" represent Catholic doctrine. I'm not Catholic. In fact, I have no affiliation with any organized religious institutions or churches.

As for "afterlife", "split the sea", "burning bush", "chariot of fire" etc. etc. etc., though I have no evidence of such, do you have evidence to the contrary?

:popcorn:





Just as I thought. Of course you don't.:wavey:

What evidence does one look for or find for something that was never there? Is the one who makes the claims the one who should be bringing evidence?




....

Lone Wolf8634
08-06-2012, 07:28
See, now you are missing the point again.

Atheists, by definition, believe that there is no deity.

Many people are claiming to be atheists, but do not claim to believe that there is no deity. That's where the problem is. In my own opinion, I think many of the people around here are not truly atheists, but are more accurately described as atheistic agnostics.

When you think about it that way, it makes perfect sense.

Once again, may I point out the definition in the Oxford Dictionary (American English version, thank you very much) that kinda blows your whole "This is the definition everyone must stick to because I said so" argument out of the water:

Definition of atheist
noun

a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods: he is a committed atheist


http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/atheist



You can continue to ignore it, but it won't go away.

I don't even post this to refute your claim on the definition, I only wish to show that your simplistic approach to a complex concept is, at best, naive (www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naive) I'm using the first definition here), And at worst, completely disingenuous since you persist in this fiasco despite having been schooled on modern Atheist thought.


And once again, you cannot grasp the definition to common words.

Not my fault or my problem.

Once again, you cannot grasp concepts.

Don't worry, we're here to help.

Agnostics can see it plainly too.

If you simply lack belief, but don't think you know the real answer to whether or not a deity has existed, you are correct. But an atheist believes, at least according to American English anyway.

Atheists, by definition, have made a choice in what to believe.

See definition above. Again. And again. I really hate to leave this argument on such a superficial level as this, but you keep insisting.

A lot of the "atheists" around here seem to refute atheism. The belief that there is no deity.

It is odd, that I seem to be the only one that is not a theist than can be honest about my beliefs. The true atheists are afraid to admit their choice in belief. It's very odd, and also very hard to admit for them, because if they do admit it, then I've been right all along.


It's simply denial, with a purpose.

Need I say it again? See above definition.

No, we're not. Because we don't believe anything you insist we do. We lack belief. I cannot figure out why that simple concept is so hard for you to grasp.

Looking for affirmation from the rest of the faithful doesn't help your position at all.

Faulty logic based on simplistic ideas that don't take into account the complexities of a CONCEPT vs a DEFINITION.


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

Atheism is also listed as an antonym of religion. Language is funny that way.

One that has made statements as radical as yours does not seem to be a moderate in this discussion. Or at least as moderate as you pretend.



Antonym:

: a word of opposite meaning <the usual="" <i="">antonym of good is bad>

From your beloved M-W dictionary.

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

So I ask, since you admit that Atheism is listed as an antonym of religion, how in blue blazes a word that means the opposite of another word, BE THE SAME AS THE WORD IT'S THE OPPOSITE OF???




It's not math, it's language, and there are plenty of odd occurrences.

"Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo" is a complete and grammatically correct sentence.

Atheism being accurately described as a religion is correct, both in the definition of all of the words used, and if you'll pardon the expression, in the spirit of the words.


It's not my problem, just my observation. It's a controversial subject, that tends to generate the same level of offense as blasphemy, which is humorously ironic.

That (yet again) makes me question your motives. Seriously.

The better question is why is it so hard to admit that atheism is a choice to believe in something that cannot be proven?

It's even hard for some here to admit that they are really atheists. The disciple Peter would be proud of you all. Especially you.

Because it's not. As has been explained to you over, and over, and over, and over again.

Tell me, do you cover your eyes and yell "I"M NOT READING YOU!!!" really loud when someone posts this little nugget of info?

And BTW, I AM an Atheist.

Well, when I describe atheism as a religion, it is by the definition of atheist used in the dictionary. If you don't believe you fit that definition, feel free to consider yourself not included in my observation.

We may still disagree with your use of labels, which is ok with me.

I'm so glad I have your go ahead to disregard your observation. I'm was troubled because I thought I would have to do it without your leave. What a weight off my shoulders.

And the difference between us and you? We label ourselves. No one else.

At this point, I think you won't admit you're wrong because you've argued so long and hard that you simply cant let it go. Stubborn pride IMHO.
</the>

Geko45
08-06-2012, 07:49
but it's quite possible that he thinks editing a post without actually or intending to substantially change the meaning means he gets to accuse me of lacking integrity and being a classless lout, as well as veiled insults directed towards my mother.

Well, don't feel bad. He also seems to think that I am somehow embarrassed because he explicitly identified a step in the scientific process that I assumed was understood and implied simply because it was superfluous to the point I was trying to make at the time.

This is his characteristic strategy for dealing with a valid argument placed before him. Find some extraneous tangent and run with it. He believes that if he keeps that up long enough people will forget that he was already shown to be wrong and he can keep spewing his same nonsensical ramblings.

Almost like a tenet of his faith...

:whistling:

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 08:31
The fact is, I have laid out a perfectly reasonable case for atheism, as it is clearly defined as being a choice to believe in something that is without tangible evidence. It is a religious belief.

It's not necessary for anyone else to see it from that perspective. We all look at what is out there and come to many different conclusions. Why is it so difficult for you to simply acknowledge that people see things differently than you? If not for the radical perspective that you have clearly stated, it would be difficult to understand. I think it's clear why you have a certain bias.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 08:35
.



And BTW, I AM an Atheist.



I'm so glad I have your go ahead to disregard your observation. I'm was troubled because I thought I would have to do it without your leave. What a weight off my shoulders.

And the difference between us and you? We label ourselves. No one else.

At this point, I think you won't admit you're wrong because you've argued so long and hard that you simply cant let it go. Stubborn pride IMHO.
</the>

We just see things differently. And it seems perfectly ok for you to assign labels to me that I would not agree with, but somehow it's not ok for me? We only disagree a bit, that's all. I don't consider continuing to hold my opinion nearly as stubborn as your repeated calls that I change my opinion to match yours.

GreenDrake
08-06-2012, 08:39
Bill Maher: Atheism is Not a Religion - YouTube

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 08:58
Yeah, bill maher is not at the top of my list to go to for anything. He's a grade A arse on so many issues that it would be difficult to list them all.

void *
08-06-2012, 09:32
Well, when I describe atheism as a religion, it is by the definition of atheist used in the dictionary.

As has been noted ad infinitum - so do I. I just don't demand the exact specific definition you do, nor do I claim that there's only one valid dictionary.

void *
08-06-2012, 09:48
You appeared to go off topic and accuse me personally of illegal misconduct, if that was your intention, I have no hard feelings if you were also offended.

You should actually read the thread, you know. I wasn't accusing you of personally illegal conduct. I was trying to make a point, and in the context of the thread, that should be quite clear.

I was saying that you're a retired Major, and since retired Majors take "bribes", you take "bribes".

http://www.glocktalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=19275156&postcount=168

In other words, I was doing to you exactly what you do to other people when you say things like:

Theists and atheists "know", agnostics do not.

and

You think you "know", but you don't really, and that is the rub.

while also claiming

It means they don't really know, but some think they do.

Given your reaction, I hope you actually got the point. I mean, you did see the quotes, right?

Edited: By the way, I wasn't offended. Mostly because I know that I have integrity, and I know that what you said about my mother isn't true - but partly because it was a spectacular display of your reaction to your own tactics.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 10:44
As has been noted ad infinitum - so do I. I just don't demand the exact specific definition you do, nor do I claim that there's only one valid dictionary.

I am not demanding that you do anything. You can consider another definition if you choose, I choose to use the definition that I am using. That's all. Even the Oxford definition includes the word "disbelieves", which is an active choice.

void *
08-06-2012, 10:54
I am not demanding that you do anything. You can consider another definition if you choose, I choose to use the definition that I am using. That's all. Even the Oxford definition includes the word "disbelieves", which is an active choice.

No, you use the definition you're using and then tell people what they think. Which is basically demanding that things be framed by the definition you choose.

And I just looked it up:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
disbelieve/dɪsbɪˈliːv/
▶verb be unable to believe.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
disbelief/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
▶noun inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

Note the 'or'. So much for your argument that it has to connotate an active choice, eh?

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 12:11
No, you use the definition you're using and then tell people what they think. Which is basically demanding that things be framed by the definition you choose.

And I just looked it up:
Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
disbelieve/dɪsbɪˈliːv/
▶verb be unable to believe.

Concise Oxford English Dictionary © 2008 Oxford University Press:
disbelief/dɪsbɪˈliːf/
▶noun inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real.

Note the 'or'. So much for your argument that it has to connotate an active choice, eh?

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

I cannot make you use a definition, I can choose to use the one that I consider accurate.

It's still my opinion, you have another opinion. Neither of us has budged very much after a lengthy discussion. You will likely continue to disagree with me, and that's ok with me.

I consider a choice to believe something that has no tangible proof about a crucial detail of the beginning/creation of the universe is religious in nature. It's a valid opinion. You believe your opinion is more valid, and that's where we are.

void *
08-06-2012, 12:25
I consider a choice to believe something that has no tangible proof about a crucial detail of the beginning/creation of the universe is religious in nature

You're choosing to believe that saying "We don't know, but there's no reason to believe it's a deity" is religious in nature.

When it is in fact not, both because "Hey, we don't know what happened before x" is not a claim to know something, and because not believing something that requires faith to believe does not require faith.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 12:38
You're choosing to believe that saying "We don't know, but there's no reason to believe it's a deity" is religious in nature.

When it is in fact not, both because "Hey, we don't know what happened before x" is not a claim to know something, and because not believing something that requires faith to believe does not require faith.

What I am saying is that there is a neutral option available. We don't know what happened before "x", so we simply don't know.

Not directed at any particular person, but taking that another step to choose to believe there was not a deity, to the point of arguing that no deity has existed, is a choice to believe.

Seems to me that a passive lack of belief leads one toward agnosticism, and that an active belief is needed to claim that no deity has existed. That's just the other side of the coin from theism to me.

void *
08-06-2012, 13:00
Seems to me that a passive lack of belief leads one toward agnosticism, and that an active belief is needed to claim that no deity has existed. That's just the other side of the coin from theism to me.

Is what you describe as 'a passive lack of belief' the same thing as believing in gods? no? Then that 'passive lack of belief' meets commonly used definitions of atheism, and therefore it is not wrong, or mislabeling, for someone who approaches the world in a manner that requires belief to be backed up by something other than faith to call themself an atheist. I am an atheist, simply because I do not believe in gods. I am using the word correctly when I state that, because there are commonly used defintions of 'atheist' and 'atheism' which merely require that you not believe.

You refuse to recognize that, and sometimes I wonder if you refuse to recognize that because you don't want to admit that there are definitions of 'atheist' for which you yourself (being an "agnostic", and thus also not believing that gods exist - assuming you're correctly representing your beliefs) meet the definition. You appear to be much more comfortable denigrating people who use that label.

"There is no difference. The Agnostic is an Atheist. The Atheist is an Agnostic. The Agnostic says: 'I do not know, but I do not believe there is a God.' The Atheist says the same." -- Robert G. Ingersoll, otherwise known as The Great Agnostic.

Except, you seem to be having trouble admitting the 'do not believe there is' bit.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 13:08
Is what you describe as 'a passive lack of belief' the same thing as believing in gods? no? Then that 'passive lack of belief' meets commonly used definitions of atheism, and therefore it is not wrong, or mislabeling, for someone who approaches the world in a manner that requires belief to be backed up by something other than faith to call themself an atheist. I am an atheist, simply because I do not believe in gods. I am using the word correctly when I state that, because there are commonly used defintions of 'atheist' and 'atheism' which merely require that you not believe.

You refuse to recognize that.


Seems to me that atheists as defined do believe something without evidence. You refuse to recognize that. Again, that is just where we disagree. I'm not asking for you to like my opinion. Whether you do or not changes nothing.

void *
08-06-2012, 13:16
Seems to me that atheists as defined do believe something without evidence. You refuse to recognize that.

Because it's not actually true. It does not require believing without evidence to *not* believe a posit that lacks evidence. If it did, your definition of agnosticism would also be a religion, because it requires both not believing there are gods, and not believing there are *not* gods, without evidence.

Again, that is just where we disagree. I'm not asking for you to like my opinion. Whether you do or not changes nothing.

Ingersoll admitted the word atheist applied to him, so did Huxley. Why can't you?

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 13:20
Ingersoll admitted the word atheist applied to him, so did Huxley. Why can't you?

I haven't had an opportunity to meet either of them. Why can't they agree with me?

I'm perplexed as to why that would be an actual point.

void *
08-06-2012, 13:23
I haven't had an opportunity to meet either of them. Why can't they agree with me?

I'm perplexed as to why that would be an actual point.

The guy who coined the term 'agnostic' and a very famous early agnostic (who happened to be known as The Great Agnostic) both admitted that the word atheist applied to them - and you claim it's not relevant.

That's pretty funny. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 13:32
The guy who coined the term 'agnostic' and a very famous early agnostic (who happened to be known as The Great Agnostic) both admitted that the word atheist applied to them - and you claim it's not relevant.

That's pretty funny. :wavey:

There is a very long list of famous people that I disagree with. If you'd check, I'm sure you could say the same.

void *
08-06-2012, 13:40
There is a very long list of famous people that I disagree with. If you'd check, I'm sure you could say the same.

I'm sure I can.

However, I'm not the one claiming that the person who coined the term, as well as a well known famous agnostic, were wrong when they admitted that the term atheist applied to them.

It's kind of like claiming that James Naismith was wrong to call it basketball because the players don't carry a basket, or because the ball doesn't have handles, or something silly like that. :wavey:

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 13:57
I'm sure I can.

However, I'm not the one claiming that the person who coined the term, as well as a well known famous agnostic, were wrong when they admitted that the term atheist applied to them.

It's kind of like claiming that James Naismith was wrong to call it basketball because the players don't carry a basket, or because the ball doesn't have handles, or something silly like that. :wavey:

I'm ok with disagreeing with him. Gay used to mean something different also.

If it will help, I'll share a someone I agree with.

"The philosopher William L. Rowe said that in the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively, and that in the strict sense agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of rationally justifying the belief that deities do, or do not, exist."



William Rowe
Born July 26, 1931 (age*81)

Main*interests Philosophy of religion
William Leonard Rowe (born 26 July 1931) is a professor emeritus of philosophy at Purdue University who specialises in the philosophy of religion. His work has played a leading role in the "remarkable revival of analytic philosophy of religion since the 1970s". He is most notable for his formulation of the evidential argument from evil.

He's probably spent more time considering this situation than both of us combined.

Why can't you agree with him??

Still, I can't think of anyone I agree with completely.

void *
08-06-2012, 14:15
He's probably spent more time considering this situation than both of us combined.

Why can't you agree with him??

Why can't you differentiate between 'popular sense' and 'strict sense' in the quote you provided?

Why can't you acknowledge that viewing agnosticism as relating to knowledge and theism/atheism as relating to belief is a valid and accepted view?
Why can't you acknowledge that belief is something does not mandate that faith be involved? (For instance, if you believe that someone threw a baseball through your window, becuase the glass is broken and there's a ball on the floor, you're justified in that belief based on the apparent evidence *even if that's not actually what happened*. You might be wrong, but you have evidence to support your belief. Whereas *not* believing that there's an invisible baseball on your floor and invisible broken glass is justified when there's no evidence for the invisible baseball and glass).

I submit that it looks a whole lot to me like you just don't like the label 'atheist' and thus you are choosing to ignore that there are accepted meanings of the word such that if you *don't* believe in gods, you meet the definition.

Lone Wolf8634
08-06-2012, 14:26
Void* actually has him reduced to "why can't you all just agree with me?"

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Good show.

Lone Wolf8634
08-06-2012, 14:32
I'm ok with disagreeing with him. Gay used to mean something different also.

Ahh, so definitions change as the concepts they attempt to represent narrow.

You're gonna get it, one day. I have faith in ya, Doc.:supergrin:


Still, I can't think of anyone I agree with completely.

This is not surprising.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 20:48
Void* actually has him reduced to "why can't you all just agree with me?"

:rofl::rofl::rofl:

Good show.

Hate to turn a smile upside down, but you obviously missed post 225 where I was asked why I couldn't just agree with void and his pals first.

Your journalistic integrity is almost reaching the level of NBC.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 20:52
Ahh, so definitions change as the concepts they attempt to represent narrow.

You're gonna get it, one day. I have faith in ya, Doc.:supergrin:




This is not surprising.

Definitions do change. They write them in these books called dictionaries, and they print them frequently.

Currently I am grammatically correct. I'm correct in spirit too, IMHO.

Cavalry Doc
08-06-2012, 20:57
Why can't you differentiate between 'popular sense' and 'strict sense' in the quote you provided?

Why can't you acknowledge that viewing agnosticism as relating to knowledge and theism/atheism as relating to belief is a valid and accepted view?
Why can't you acknowledge that belief is something does not mandate that faith be involved? (For instance, if you believe that someone threw a baseball through your window, becuase the glass is broken and there's a ball on the floor, you're justified in that belief based on the apparent evidence *even if that's not actually what happened*. You might be wrong, but you have evidence to support your belief. Whereas *not* believing that there's an invisible baseball on your floor and invisible broken glass is justified when there's no evidence for the invisible baseball and glass).

I submit that it looks a whole lot to me like you just don't like the label 'atheist' and thus you are choosing to ignore that there are accepted meanings of the word such that if you *don't* believe in gods, you meet the definition.


I like the label atheist just fine. It fits many places quite nicely as an adjective.

Your submission is noted. So? We see things differently.

It is becoming apparent that your problem is not my position, but more that I won't accept yours as my own.

That's just wierd.

ksg0245
08-06-2012, 23:03
I like the label atheist just fine. It fits many places quite nicely as an adjective.

Your submission is noted. So? We see things differently.

It is becoming apparent that your problem is not my position, but more that I won't accept yours as my own.

That's just wierd.

I think the problem is that you keep telling atheists you know better than they do what their position really is, and that they're being dishonest for claiming otherwise.

G23Gen4TX
08-07-2012, 00:45
There you go with the wide brush again.:yawn:
Your first two "comments" represent Catholic doctrine. I'm not Catholic. In fact, I have no affiliation with any organized religious institutions or churches.

As for "afterlife", "split the sea", "burning bush", "chariot of fire" etc. etc. etc., though I have no evidence of such, do you have evidence to the contrary?

:popcorn:





Just as I thought. Of course you don't.:wavey:

I also don't have evidence of Zeus, unicorns, the tooth fairy and mickey mouse.

I do know there is a nuclear car on Mars and it didn't find god 350 millions miles away from here as well.

I don't need to prove that **** that doesn't exist. doesn't exist. You say it does, prove it.

void *
08-07-2012, 01:06
I like the label atheist just fine. It fits many places quite nicely as an adjective.

Then why can't you admit that there are commonly used definitions of the term that actually apply to you, assuming that you're not a theist (i.e., don't believe in gods)? (Edit: See, for instance, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_atheism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_and_explicit_atheism, http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-definitions.html (cites the OED definitions), etc. etc. etc)

It is becoming apparent that your problem is not my position, but more that I won't accept yours as my own.

No, that's *your* problem. You know, the problem of the guy who is trying to tell atheists that atheism is a religion, despite the fact that he has been told repeatedly by many of them that they don't see it that way, and have justified not seeing it that way with precisely defined definitions and models. The problem of the guy who tells people they know, when the people he is telling that have told him innumerable times that they make no such claim. The problem of a guy who tells other people that they are mislabeling themselves despite the fact that they are using the label in a perfectly acceptable manner in accordance with accepted definitions - just not the definition that guy's argument happens to depend entirely on.

ksg summed up quite nicely.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 03:52
I think the problem is that you keep telling atheists you know better than they do what their position really is, and that they're being dishonest for claiming otherwise.

Have I not stated that we disagree. I am pretty sure that I'm right, everything about the statement "atheism is a religion" makes sense to me. Literally and in the true meaning of the concepts. There are obviously people that disagree.

I have acknowledged that people have different opinions and that they feel strongly that their opinion is better supported. Many think I am mistaken, I think many others are mistaken. I have been falsely accused of dishonesty countless times in this forum. I think some people are a little more further down the road in their belief than their passive statements, but that may be something they haven't admitted to themselves. One person has repeatedly stated that all other religions are the scourge of humanity and suggested they be banned. From a civil liberties perspective, that's a pretty RADICAL position, and yes, I have a hard time believing a statement that strong is based on a passive lack of belief. Void on the other hand, can split hairs with the best of them, but I believe him when he says that he beleives he only lacks belief. He probably is an atheistic agnostic that has become comfortable calling himself an atheist, but that doesn't make him dishonest about it, merely passionate in his belief that he is an atheist. People can be honestly mistaken. I'm sure he honestly thinks it's me. I honestly think its him. Then again, maybe we are all wrong, and we'll never know.

I've offered to agree to disagree countless times.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 03:58
I also don't have evidence of Zeus, unicorns, the tooth fairy and mickey mouse.

I do know there is a nuclear car on Mars and it didn't find god 350 millions miles away from here as well.

I don't need to prove that **** that doesn't exist. doesn't exist. You say it does, prove it.


Just noticing. Any chance you know the ratio of the distance of this trip, to the distance of the nearest star, or the distance to the edge of visible space?

Seems the distance to mars is a bit irrelevant in a search of the universe.

Lone Wolf8634
08-07-2012, 06:40
Hate to turn a smile upside down, but you obviously missed post 225 where I was asked why I couldn't just agree with void and his pals first.

Your journalistic integrity is almost reaching the level of NBC.

A bit of levity to light my own mood, don't read too much into it.

Definitions do change. They write them in these books called dictionaries, and they print them frequently.

/drytone/ Yeah, we've established that, although you seem to believe there is only one of them. /drytone/

Currently I am grammatically correct. I'm correct in spirit too, IMHO.

Mmmmmmmm....not so much. You seem to wanna ignore that pesky Oxford dictionary thingy.

Lone Wolf8634
08-07-2012, 06:41
Just noticing. Any chance you know the ratio of the distance of this trip, to the distance of the nearest star, or the distance to the edge of visible space?

Seems the distance to mars is a bit irrelevant in a search of the universe.

You missed the point. Again.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 07:25
You missed the point. Again.

He's not missing the point, he's dodging the point. Like I said, he finds an extraneous tangent and ignores the original point altogether.

G23Gen4TX
08-07-2012, 08:18
Just noticing. Any chance you know the ratio of the distance of this trip, to the distance of the nearest star, or the distance to the edge of visible space?

Seems the distance to mars is a bit irrelevant in a search of the universe.

God is said to be in the heavens do if we past that and can't find god then yes the size of the universe is irrelevant to the non existance of god.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 08:28
A bit of levity to light my own mood, don't read too much into it.



/drytone/ Yeah, we've established that, although you seem to believe there is only one of them. /drytone/



Mmmmmmmm....not so much. You seem to wanna ignore that pesky Oxford dictionary thingy.

Ignore it? I've referenced it too. After a humorous misunderstanding from a British colleague once, I understand that the British and us are two similar people separated by a common language. She asked me in front of several others, since we were staying on the same floor of a hotel at a conference, to come by her room in the morning and knock her up. Trust me, she didn't mean it the way we all initially understood it. I consider M-W more accurate. Just something else we disagree on, that's all. My reasons predate this topic by about 17 years.

Cavalry Doc
08-07-2012, 08:31
God is said to be in the heavens do if we past that and can't find god then yes the size of the universe is irrelevant to the non existance of god.

If you assume that a deity has a physical presence, and you are going to look for it, wouldn't you have to look everywhere before you claim it is not in existance anywhere? Sounds like middle schooler looking for a book bag. The parents here will get that.

G23Gen4TX
08-07-2012, 08:33
If you assume that a deity has a physical presence, and you are going to look for it, wouldn't you have to look everywhere before you claim it is not in existance anywhere? Sounds like middle schooler looking for a book bag. The parents here will get that.

Start looking then. Let me know when you find him/her/it whatever.

Geko45
08-07-2012, 09:05
If you assume that a deity has a physical presence, and you are going to look for it, wouldn't you have to look everywhere before you claim it is not in existance anywhere? Sounds like middle schooler looking for a book bag. The parents here will get that.

Do I have to perform an exhaustive search before dismissing the existence of Zeus, Odin, unicorns, leprechauns, etc, etc?

G23Gen4TX
08-07-2012, 09:07
Do I have to perform an exhaustive search before dismissing the existance of Zeus, Odin, unicorns, leprechauns, etc, etc?

Don't forget Mickey Mouse.