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.
How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it. And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it. He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact. So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.
Of course they told that story!!! Now I get why. Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't. So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.
I use to do the same thing. Had my own spin on Christianity. Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy. But its still a lie. It's why I no longer call myself a Christian. If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.
If some people view their atheism as a religion, they're doing it wrong. We've already covered the Hindus, and have determined that atheism is not a religion by itself.
How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it. And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it. He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact. So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.
Of course they told that story!!! Now I get why. Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't. So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.
I use to do the same thing. Had my own spin on Christianity. Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy. But its still a lie. It's why I no longer call myself a Christian. If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.
There you go telling people what they believe again.
By the way, Jesus never used the word whale, that is just how we translate it. That means that no one is obligated to believe that Jesus said that Jonah despite your ignorant demands.
How you gonna be a christian and then say you don't believe Jonah lived in the belly of a whale for 3 days when Jesus himself supposedly said it. And from what Christians say, he wasn't speaking metaphorically or in allegories or whatever they called it. He supposedly said it happened as a matter of fact. So either Jesus is a liar, you believe in living in the belly of a whale and living after 3 days.
Of course they told that story!!! Now I get why. Because if you are going to believe Jesus came back to life after 3 days, you first have to be dumb enough to believe the Jonah story, which I'm sure you don't. So stop calling yourself a Christian if you know it's all a lie.
I use to do the same thing. Had my own spin on Christianity. Just followed "Jesus" not the religion because he seemed like a good guy. But its still a lie. It's why I no longer call myself a Christian. If there is a god he can't like me lying and saying I believe when I don't.
There you go telling people what they believe again.
By the way, Jesus never used the word whale, that is just how we translate it. That means that no one is obligated to believe that Jesus said that Jonah despite your ignorant demands.
Well if you can explain this away or re interpret it I guess you'll be able to edit the bible however and whenever you please so just admit it's a book that changes and doesn't really mean what it says.
First, let me say that the historicity of this account is vital to the Christian. Believing it is not an option, for Jesus Christ Himself believed it and made it a model for the doctrine of His resurrection. "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth (Matthew 12:40).
Did Jonah Really Get Swallowed by a Whale
This is the second time me looking into this where the Christian site I use says Christians MUST believe this because Jesus himself said it.
Oh??? The story of Jonah is one of those Scripture passages that we as Catholics would say is a TRUE story, but not necessarily FACT. Catholics believe that everything in the Bible is TRUE in a religious sense. However, when it comes to scientific and historical truth (facts), there are times that the Bible is not totally accurate.
Was Jonah literally swallowed by the Whale - Busted Halo
You guys are a hoot!
If Jonah can stand living in a whales belly for 3 days, I can take the cross for 3 too.
I didn't say that. They are just wrong on their definition of atheism.If some atheists consider atheism a religion they are wrong.There is nothing I typed that contradicts what I just said.
Can I ask you why you ignore the fact that some atheists consider atheism a religion if your claim that you are willing to change your views when presented new facts is true? If I insisted that no Christian believes that the Earth is 6000 years old, and you presented evidence that contradicted me, which is abundantly available, and I continued to insist that no one believes that, wouldn't you argue, rightfully, that proves I am a religious zealot? Why do your actions not merit the same label? The only real difference is that you are the one doing it, after all.
If some Christians believe that the Earth is 6000 years old they are wrong.
Uh huh. I get you. They're not real Atheists.
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.
They keep bouncing back between the words belief, faith and religion. They want atheism to be all three. Doesn't matter that we don't have a Vatican or Grand Poobah leading us. In fact nothing we post will matter so I'm moving on.
I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?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?
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
I'm not a Christian. It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion. It has been done many times in the thread alone. Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara. He brought it up. If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
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.
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.
So your feelings about Islam is Dogma? Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
I simply don't believe god(s) exist. I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?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?
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
I'm not a Christian. It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion. It has been done many times in the thread alone. Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara. He brought it up. If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
2. A particular system of faith and worship:
This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
Atheism still doesn't belong here.
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.
They keep bouncing back between the words belief, faith and religion. They want atheism to be all three. Doesn't matter that we don't have a Vatican or Grand Poobah leading us. In fact nothing we post will matter so I'm moving on.
I"M GETTING THE LAST WORD IN!!! LOL!
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.
I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either. I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
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.
I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either. I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
I don't see religion and belief as the same thing. You have a belief, you are a member of a religion. In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
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.
I'm not sure there must be a sense of "us", either. I think that if a person had a set of beliefs about a god or gods, rules by which those deities required the person to live, etc. yet no one else shared those beliefs, it could still qualify as a religion.
I also think there can be a lot of gray area between religion and philosophy.
I don't see religion and belief as the same thing. You have a belief, you are a member of a religion. In fact, you can be a member of a religion and not believe.
What religion do you belong to?
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA
You feel you are being spoon fed definitions so what do you do? You add another definition.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.
So your feelings about Islam is Dogma? Your feeling about Jehova or Joseph Smith is Dogma?
Assuming your a christian, is your disbelief in Bigfoot dogma?
I simply don't believe god(s) exist. I think you are either making too much over it or you are trying to bring us down to your level of stupid dogma that you clearly have.
I only gave you the first definition. Do you guys really not understand what a religion is?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?
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
I'm not a Christian. It is obviously possible to call Atheism a religion. It has been done many times in the thread alone. Saying it can't be by definition is dogma.
As to what has been addressed, tell Tuatara. He brought it up. If a false argument is being made, then I will point out it is false.
2. A particular system of faith and worship:
This is the 2nd definition which would include Buddhism, Taoism & Shintoism.
Atheism still doesn't belong here.
Are you going to just spoon feed definitions to us? If you want to do this by definition this is Websters:
: the belief in a god or in a group of gods
: an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods
: an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group
Please note the last item and welcome to the club.
"The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he doesn't exist."
Sounds like how atheists really aren't trying to make their religion the one and only accepted religion in the USA
