Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.
Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
Not based upon what you write here.
There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.
This contradicts what you just said.
Plenty of evidence.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
You do not lack belief, calling it a lack of belief is your dogma - which you will not question. You're in a loop.
Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
Not based upon what you write here.
There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.
This contradicts what you just said.
I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs. How ridiculous.
What I lack is a belief in God. I have no faith. That is not a religion.
If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.
If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.
Don't Muslims convert to Christianity everyday and visa versa? Don't atheists sometimes (rarely) convert to Christianity or the Islam faith or even the Jewish faith?
I don't care what some atheists do. We are not a collective "one". This isn't the Borg on Star Trek. LOL.
If Jesus or God came and talked to me I'd no longer be an atheist. That is the exact thing us atheists require to believe in God(s). God(s) would have to show themselves to us. No more thinking thunder is Zeus for us.
Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
Oh now it's religion "in the modern world", which is different than what people believed just 200 years ago and as we see more and more people are leaving organized religions every day.
Maybe not in Iran or the Deep Dirty Bible Belt South but everywhere else. It use to be the North West was the most atheistic but now we see the north east is starting to enlighten and I'm sure a lot of people are atheists in California. It is the secluded middle America that will probably remain bible thumpers for centuries just like the crazies in the middle east. And I don't see Mormon's going away anytime soon.
Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
That's already been addressed.
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Religion requires none of those things to be religion. Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes. Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion. So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions. If they do not, then the are not requirements. The attributes I have identified are:
Group identity - as indicated religion is social. There must be a sense of "us".
Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them. If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief. That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
Is this how you guys see the definition of religion.
Religion : The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods: Also anyone who does not have these beliefs
So Buddhism, fully recognized as a religion, is not a religion. Is that what you are saying? Taoism is not a religion. Shintoism is not a religion. Shall I go on?
Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organisation or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion. See also: Atheism is a religion.
Atheists may subscribe to any additional ideologies, philosophies and belief systems they choose, eg. Buddhism, Jainism, Universalism, Environmentalism, Pragmatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Libertarianism, Conservatism, etc. They may even appreciate components of traditional religion and spiritualism, including any supernatural elements unrelated to a god. Common among many atheists, however, is an appreciation for secularism, rationalism, humanism, skepticism, naturalism, materialism and freethinking – none of which are implicit or derived from atheism, nor necessary in order to lack belief.
Religion requires none of those things to be religion. Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes. Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion. So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions. If they do not, then the are not requirements. The attributes I have identified are:
Group identity - as indicated religion is social. There must be a sense of "us".
Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them. If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief. That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
Religion requires none of those things to be religion. Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes. Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion. So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions. If they do not, then the are not requirements. The attributes I have identified are:
Group identity - as indicated religion is social. There must be a sense of "us".
Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them. If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief. That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
/shrugs.....yet you're the one watching it and I'm not......I'm sorry I wish it were all true but you people are just so dumb.
wouldn't know.....never have seen it.......One Sunday I noticed for hours and hours this TCT religious tv channel was brainwashing you dumb Americans with that Jesus talk. I didn't see any atheist shows. Perhaps some atheist out there wants to have a show on that religious channel. I could see that. I could easily start arguing that atheism should be considered a religion if I wanted it to be one.
As of right now, we don't. I can't speak for all atheists but for this argument, no we are not a religion.
Atheism has no sacred texts, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
I love it when idiots say stupid things.
FYI, very few people watch TCT. From this thread it seems that more people who calim to be atheists watch it than people who don't,I don't recall ever watching even a minute of its programming in my entire life. In other words, of anyone is brainwashed, it is you.
You mean even Christians have a problem with TCT? Do tell?
Then they aren't really Christians. It won't be long before people who think like that leave the church. OR, the church itself will change with society. So in that sense you are right. Religions are not above changing their beliefs. Sure the Catholics hold out a long time but soon they'll have women priests and birth control will be acceptable.
Religion requires none of those things to be religion. Religion is a human activity and it is not identified by definition but by attributes. Tuatara made a statement about attributes, which was at least on the right track, but the attributes themselves were clearly inaccurate because they failed to include multiple religions as religion. So if you are going to establish attributes as requirements, then they must apply to all religions. If they do not, then the are not requirements. The attributes I have identified are:
Group identity - as indicated religion is social. There must be a sense of "us".
Belief based - the reason for the group is a shared belief
Dogma - the unquestioned acceptance of doctrine
If you wish to dispute any of those I am happy to discuss them. If you want some added, that is open as well but if there is a religion which does not the attribute then it will not stand.
I see you are still holding to the "lack of belief" claim despite your clearly having belief. That makes your particular version of Atheism in line with the three attributes I have indicated.
Personally, I object to the inclusion of dogma as an attribute of religion. Many religions are dogmatic, but some are open to change if their beliefs are proven to be wrong. Many Christians actually accept evolution, and even argue that things defined as sin in the Bible are not, in and of themselves, wrong.
This is why I would use the word doctrine to denote that a religion has teachings, and perhaps even a set of rules, but I am not sure all religions would fit if we used the word rules.
Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
Not based upon what you write here.
There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.
This contradicts what you just said.
Plenty of evidence.
Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. If we deconstruct the term ‘atheism’ we find ‘a – theism’ which means ‘without – theism’ which, in turn, means ‘without – belief in god(s)’. It is, therefore, not a positive belief or a claim to knowledge. Instead, it is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
Giving me a definition, which has been repeatedly demonstrated to be inaccurate, which I am to accept without question. This is not evidence, it is dogma. You do not lack belief, so either the definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist. Carla does not lack belief, same situation. In fact, I have yet to meet an Atheist that meets that definition.
BTW, your understanding of how that word works is also wrong.
Then they aren't really Christians. It won't be long before people who think like that leave the church. OR, the church itself will change with society. So in that sense you are right. Religions are not above changing their beliefs. Sure the Catholics hold out a long time but soon they'll have women priests and birth control will be acceptable.
I forgot I was speaking to god himself, who is the only real authority on who is, and is not, a Christian, as well of the personal beliefs of everyone on the planet.
That's already been addressed.
Many Christians seem to believe that atheism is a religion, but no one with an accurate understanding of both concepts would make such a mistake. Atheism lacks every one of the characteristics of religion. At most, atheism doesn’t explicitly exclude most of them, but the same can be said for almost anything. Thus, it’s not possible to call atheism a religion. It can be part of a religion, but it can’t be a religion by itself. They are completely different categories: atheism is the absence of one particular belief while religion is a complex web of traditions and beliefs.
Atheism is Not a Religion Ideology Belief System Philosophy World View or Anything Similar
Until you admit that some people see atheism as their personal religion all you are doing is ignoring reality, just like the idiots who think the Earth is only 6000 years old.
By the way, that is part of the beliefs of some Hindus, so don't pretend that is exclusively on the Bible in an attempt to deflect from your personal refusal to deal with reality,
Again, you are incorrect with your mind reading. When presented with new facts and information, I certainly do question my beliefs. I really think you need to work on your terminology.
Not based upon what you write here.
There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.
This contradicts what you just said.
I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs. How ridiculous.
What I lack is a belief in God. I have no faith. That is not a religion.
You do have belief in God. You have made that clear and I pointed it out above. The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief. You do not lack belief. It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.
Not based upon what you write here.
There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
I asked you some time back, I am pretty sure, if you considered there being no gods as more likely than there were gods and you said yes. You have indicated on the scale created by Dawkins that you are a 6 (or somewhere between a 5 and a 6). I have asked you to provide one single shred of evidence to support your conclusions and so far all you have done is insist you have no beliefs. Since you have no evidence to support your conclusions, the only thing those conclusions can be is belief. Thus, you have beliefs. Not a lack of belief, not non-belief ... belief.
This contradicts what you just said.
I like how you change up your wording. I NEVER, NOT ONCE said I had no beliefs. How ridiculous.
What I lack is a belief in God. I have no faith. That is not a religion.
You do have belief in God. You have made that clear and I pointed it out above. The fact it is a negative belief does not make it any less a belief. You do not lack belief. It is this insistence that an arbitrary definition, an inaccurate definition at that, creates reality which is making it religion.
Nonsense! I don't care how you word it. There in no religion for simply not believing.
