Why is it so hard to admit Atheism is a Religion? - Page 74

RC-RAMIE · 05-09-2012, 06:57

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

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

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

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

....

RC-RAMIE · 05-09-2012, 06:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

....

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 07:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

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

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

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

....

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

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

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

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 07:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

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

....

Has science proven that no inteligence was involved in creation?

It hasn't proven that there was either.

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

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

RC-RAMIE · 05-09-2012, 07:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Has science proven that no inteligence was involved in creation?

It hasn't proven that there was either.

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

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

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

....

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 07:24

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

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

....

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

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

RC-RAMIE · 05-09-2012, 08:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 08:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

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

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

RC-RAMIE · 05-09-2012, 09:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 09:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by RC-RAMIE

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

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

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

Syclone538 · 05-09-2012, 09:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

Quote:

Originally Posted by G23Gen4TX

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

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

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

And that is where the faith comes in.

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

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

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

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 10:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syclone538

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

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

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

Syclone538 · 05-09-2012, 11:22

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 12:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by Syclone538

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

FSM has a well documented origin.

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

Gunhaver · 05-09-2012, 12:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 13:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gunhaver

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

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

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

G23Gen4TX · 05-09-2012, 13:02

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

FSM has a well documented origin.

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

Scientology. Is all I got to say.

user · 05-09-2012, 13:22

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 13:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by user

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

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

Lone Wolf8634 · 05-09-2012, 13:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

You may or may not believe atheism is a religion.

I don't.

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

**Cavalry Doc** · 05-09-2012, 13:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by G23Gen4TX

Scientology. Is all I got to say.

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

G23Gen4TX · 05-09-2012, 13:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

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

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

RC-RAMIE · 05-09-2012, 14:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by user

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

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

***Geko45*** · 05-09-2012, 14:46

I don't have to believe in some alternate theory of how everything came about in order to not believe that some deity made it all. That's not agnosticism and it's not religion either.

Phaze5ive · 05-09-2012, 15:26

This is a box. That is a box. That, over there, is not a box, but because it is not a box it falls into a box of its own, and thus a box.

I see your logic there.

After all, the empty set is a set, right?

Seriously...