Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Hollie]

An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.

Atheism is a faith belief then.

Tis what it is, yo

That's incorrect. I don't have faith that their is no God. I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based. Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.

You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.

Tis what is.

No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.

For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.

I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.

 

[sealybobo]

An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.

Atheism is a faith belief then.

Tis what it is, yo

That's incorrect. I don't have faith that their is no God. I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based. Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.

You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.

Tis what is.

No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.

For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.

I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.

What if I could show you a book written about pink unicorns only it was written 90 years after pink unicorns went extinct? Would you doubt the authors?

 

[HUGGY]

An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.

Atheism is a faith belief then.

Tis what it is, yo

That's incorrect. I don't have faith that their is no God. I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based. Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.

You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.

Tis what is.

No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.

For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.

I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.

What if I could show you a book written about pink unicorns only it was written 90 years after pink unicorns went extinct? Would you doubt the authors?

No. But only if the Pink Unicorns threatened to condem me to an eternity in Pink Unicorn Hell if I did not comply with their demands.

LOL

 

[sealybobo]

An atheist believes (he cannot empirically or philosophically) that God does not exist.

Atheism is a faith belief then.

Tis what it is, yo

That's incorrect. I don't have faith that their is no God. I have no evidence that there is a God. Atheism is not faith based. It is the opposite of faith based. Religion is faith based, and cannot stand on its own merit.

You cannot empirically prove God does not exist, nor philosophically, so, yes, you believe on faith that God is not.

Tis what is.

No one is under any obligation to "prove it isn't". It's meaningless.

For example, I actually can empirically prove the gods don't exist. Prove I can't. See? Disprove my disproof of your gods.

I don't conceive of my lack of belief in your gods as a belief as much as I conceive it as a conclusion based on the asserted models out there and the lack of evidence to support those assertions. As an example, one can't really consider oneself as having the "belief that Invisible Pink Unicorns don't exist". It's just a fact that there is no evidence that such entities exist or have ever existed, and only those who would assert they do are required to support the positive claim with evidence.

What if I could show you a book written about pink unicorns only it was written 90 years after pink unicorns went extinct? Would you doubt the authors?

No. But only if the Pink Unicorns threatened to condem me to an eternity in Pink Unicorn Hell if I did not comply with their demands.

LOL

So without the scare tactics, this book wouldn't be enough to convince you? Interesting.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Well that din't take long.

It sure didn't. This thread turned to crap with a couple of recent visitors.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheists, neither pink unicorns or Christians or God are out to get you.

The religionists have every right to tell you the truth: you cannot prove that God does not exist. Ergo, hmmmm.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What on earth makes you think I have anything to do with the communist party?

I've read your posts...

You REALLY are crazy as a bedbug.

Honestly, I really do envision you as Rev. Jim - a child of the 60's who's excesses have caught up with a vengence.

I hate communists maybe more than I hate religists.

Communism is one of the dumbest and most dangerous ideas ever produced and followed by human beings.

Well hell Rev. Jim, we agree on somethign,

As far as I am concerned we could nuke every communist country to glass beads and I wouldn't lose a wink of sleep.

But not this, this is plain crazy - the product of drug addled thinking.

I am a communist?

Fuck you and the horse you rode in on you piece of stinking dog shit.

Do you advocate for a control economy where Barack Obama ensures that everyone gets a fair share?

You're on the wrong thread, with your communist and Obama BS.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheists, neither pink unicorns or Christians or God are to get you.

The religionists have every right to tell you the truth: you cannot prove that God does not exist. Ergo, hmmmm.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.

Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.

You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Stating the obvious. But has anyone but Astartled actually suggested it is? Is this some kind of movement in Revisionistastan?

I don't know, god doesn't tell me shit.

I guess you know now, why I started this thread. LOL!

 

[Pogo]

It is NOT a religion, and if you keep saying it is, I'm going to start my own tax exempt church, and start pounding on your door at dinner time.

Seriously, it sounds ridiculous when you say it.


re·li·gion
riˈlijən/
noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   "ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
   

   synonyms:

   faith, belief, worship, creed; More

   [TBODY] [/TBODY]

Stating the obvious. But has anyone but Astartled actually suggested it is? Is this some kind of movement in Revisionistastan?

I don't know, god doesn't tell me shit.

I guess you know now, why I started this thread. LOL!

Yeah I was in the mother thread where Astartle never answered me about the Divine Penis.
It sure is an easy topic. I gotta do this kind of low hanging fruit more often.

Until that thread I wasn't aware there was this absurdist revisionism going on. From your Bill Maher video apparently it's been out there a while. Weeeird. Funny, nobody ever did come up with an answer for why they need it to be a "religion". Or how it could qualify as one.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.

Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.

You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.

Nonsense. Thinking God is improbable, is not the same as having faith that he/she exists. I'm not going to fly a plane into a building due to faith of a non God. Don't you dare try to put me on that level.

Respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with your false analogy.

 

[Pogo]

Far more sense than atheists saying the don't have a faith belief if they don't believe in God though they can't prove it.

Logic and philosophy completely unground any such empirical statement by you, CarlaDanger.

You are no better than any religionist when it comes to faith or lack of it.

Nonsense. Thinking God is improbable, is not the same as having faith that he/she exists. I'm not going to fly a plane into a building due to faith of a non God. Don't you dare try to put me on that level.

Respectfully, I'm going to agree to disagree with your false analogy.

Jake is apparently -- hard to navigate what he's saying -- working on the assumption of an "absolute" atheism (#7 on your spectrum). I'm still not sure there is such a thing, certainly none here we know of. I think it's just listed there to set the extreme boundary so that there's a full scale.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.

But she can't prove it, and she knows it. Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.

 

[Pogo]

Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.

But she can't prove it, and she knows it. Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.

Carla doesn't know if God exists. Nobody does. We established that at the beginning. You don't need "faith" to assess a theory that has no evidence (I know that's redundant) and decide to reject it. On the contrary, you need faith to accept it.

Again, game check, this thread is not about who's an atheist of what degree; it's about atheism being indescribable as a "religion". Since atheism is simply the absence/rejection of theism, it has no doctrine of its own, and cannot be described as a "religion".

 

[Hollie]

Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.

But she can't prove it, and she knows it. Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions. No one needs faith to conclude that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. Similarly, I have no need for faith to conclude that your gods are no more a Human invention than the Greek gods.

But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for people to insist that the only option for existence is a historically (maybe "hysterically"), recent invention of the currently configured gods.

And more importantly, there is no rational way of connecting any god so conceived as being connected to any of the sectarian beliefs now running rampant within our species.

Proffering god(s) is simply the tired old "Argument of the uncaused cause" restated using elementary cosmology. But that doesn't make it any more valid, useful or interesting.

Because even if we were to accept your faith pronouncement that something "greater than" the universe had to be responsible for its inception (an iffy conclusion at best) it tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.

It doesn't tell us whether or not it is intelligent, planned, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.

It could be the serial mass murderer of the Judeo-Christian mythology or it could be a completely natural phenomenon.

Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gods" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position, and in the armory of theistic apologetics it doesn’t qualify as a pop gun.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I see some latecomers are, uh, pleasuring themselves on their own inability to read post 33 and were hoping to score meaningless ego points based on semantics.

Perhaps they'll catch up one day.
Perhaps not.

I see that idiots think their opinions trump the dictionary.

Sucks to be you, doesn't it?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Carla doesn't know if God exists. Nobody does. We established that at the beginning. You don't need "faith" to assess a theory that has no evidence (I know that's redundant) and decide to reject it. On the contrary, you need faith to accept it.

Again, game check, this thread is not about who's an atheist of what degree; it's about atheism being indescribable as a "religion". Since atheism is simply the absence/rejection of theism, it has no doctrine of its own, and cannot be described as a "religion".

I suggest you read my post explaining the difference between agnosticism and atheism, you might learn something. I doubt it, but more improbable things have happened.

 

[asaratis]

Perhaps for the purpose of a legal definition within this challenge (haven't had a chance to read it yet) but in terms of English language definitions --- no it is not.

Cherrypicking court summaries is like taking a preordained conclusion to the Googles to "prove" that Barack O'bama was born in Kenya as Hitler's love child. I bet I could find a court or legal artifact somewhere to say that a corporation is a person, or that another person is three-fifths of a person. Try me.

We speak not of legal definitions here, but actual real life ones.

Your astounding lack of comprehension is beyond comprehension. You have baffled me! That you haven't read the court summary is not surprising. You tend to ignore all but your own misguided opinion...and that of the failed [OP] of this failed thread.

--- Then where is your basis to conclude it's a religion?
A religion needs a raison d'être. Where is it?
I keep asking you that, you admit you don't have one. So you have no basis.


'scuse me one sec...





Biased Sample fallacy.
This "atheist prayer" (to who? to what?) would have to apply to all atheists in order to serve your definition. It does not. You're projecting them.

Thus I run rings around you logically.

What a silly conclusion. You have displayed a miniscule command of logic thus far. You continually try to re-inject questions that have been asked and answered...likely due to your reluctance to actually read and understand the material in the cited links.

I said earlier that I am not aware of WHY some atheists have created their own religion complete with the expected trappings of other religions...such as ministers, Sunday school, solicitation of donations...AS I HAVE PROVED HAS HAPPENED. I suggested (and was backed up by a cited source...a source that you evidently did not read) that the driving force may be a need for the fellowship of like-minded believers (that God does not exist).

(quick snip)



Side note here -- what sort of genuine journalism doesn't know the difference between its and it's?

This common mistake (or typographical error) does not detract from the message. You're grasping at straws to appear logical.

He happens to be correct on this issue.

Horse shit! That is your opinion only. The video was nothing more than a diatribe created by paid writers of humor for presentation by a pseudo-intellectual, comical pimp for Atheism. He is the Church Jester! Cute but not intellectually challenging.

I can tell by your current signature that goofy Bill is your idol. Could he be an object of your worship?

To wit: "The next liberal to tell a Republican "You're entitled to an opinion but not your own facts" should really just admit they've never seen Fox News. --Bill Maher"

Yeah I was in the mother thread where Astartle never answered me about the Divine Penis.
It sure is an easy topic. I gotta do this kind of low hanging fruit more often.

Until that thread I wasn't aware there was this absurdist revisionism going on. From your Bill Maher video apparently it's been out there a while. Weeeird. Funny, nobody ever did come up with an answer for why they need it to be a "religion". Or how it could qualify as one.

Again, you revisit issues that have been asked and answered. I would suggest that you re-read this entire thread to see how silly you look in this most recent post. I have great difficulty conjuring up a realization of a more well defined idiot than you appear to be.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Carla is certainly entitled to her faith that God does not exist.

But she can't prove it, and she knows it. Pogo, the verbal navigation is simple: since she can't empirically support her claim, it rests on faith.

False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions. No one needs faith to conclude that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. Similarly, I have no need for faith to conclude that your gods are no more a Human invention than the Greek gods.

But what is important in the context of this discussion is that there is no reasonable justification for people to insist that the only option for existence is a historically (maybe "hysterically"), recent invention of the currently configured gods.

And more importantly, there is no rational way of connecting any god so conceived as being connected to any of the sectarian beliefs now running rampant within our species.

Proffering god(s) is simply the tired old "Argument of the uncaused cause" restated using elementary cosmology. But that doesn't make it any more valid, useful or interesting.

Because even if we were to accept your faith pronouncement that something "greater than" the universe had to be responsible for its inception (an iffy conclusion at best) it tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.

It doesn't tell us whether or not it is intelligent, planned, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.

It could be the serial mass murderer of the Judeo-Christian mythology or it could be a completely natural phenomenon.

Bottom line is that an argument that arbitrarily picks a point on some presumed chain of causality and calls it "Gods" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's sectarian position, and in the armory of theistic apologetics it doesn’t qualify as a pop gun.

Bottom line, you know or don't know, and since you can't prove God does not exist,
so it is faith. Step along, yo.