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.
The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
What about this fact do you not grasp?
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
We're not dealing with anything.Wait. What? You want evidence?False. Gods are easily disproved. But since you can't disprove my disproof, your denials mean nothing.Hollie, your denial is the falsehood.
You believe that God does not exist, and thus hoisted on your own petard.
But since you can't prove it, your denial means nothing.
I'm open. What's your disproof?
What an audacious statement.
I'll ask that of those making the positive claim for their partisan gods.
I have and they consistently fail to provide it. Their position is one of belief. You said you can easily disprove gods. That is your claim. So we are dealing with it. I presume that is being handled in your other post, so I'll wait for your evidence there.
Where is your disproof?
I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
What about this fact do you not grasp?
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
It's not religion because it's not a belief system.Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
We don't have anything like a bible.
We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
We have no myths to defend.
we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.
If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?
I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
What about this fact do you not grasp?
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
Since the atheistic Zionists founded Israel it is not a religious nation. It is a fraud.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
- the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
"ideas about the relationship between science and religion"
It's not religion because it's not a belief system.Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
We don't have anything like a bible.
We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
We have no myths to defend.
we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.
If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?
It's not religion because it's not a belief system.Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
We don't have anything like a bible.
We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
We have no myths to defend.
we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.
If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?
Yes. That is the dogma.
You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
What about this fact do you not grasp?
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.
Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".
Yet, you can't identify a single connection between religious dogma and conclusions regarding the non-existence of various gods.It's not religion because it's not a belief system.Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
We don't have anything like a bible.
We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
We have no myths to defend.
we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.
If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?
Yes. That is the dogma.
You can think whatever you wish. Your desperate need to assign conclusions regarding the supernatural as a "religion" is a fallacy of many believers.I'm aghast that you're unable to disprove my disproof. If proof of the gods was as overwhelming as the many believers of many different gods and religions claim it is, it should be a simple matter to present the evidence that establishes the reality of your gods vs. all the other gods.The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.False. There is no requirement for faith to reach conclusions.
Conclusions reached, and strongly held, absent any evidence, are based on faith.
What about this fact do you not grasp?
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
The part where you present your evidence. Simply saying you don't have any is not the same as having it.
You say there is an absence of evidence. Tell me what evidence you would expect to find if there were a God and provide your objective support for identifying it as the required evidence. Until you do that, then saying there is no evidence is itself a statement of pure belief.
I'm afraid I'm going to have to disappoint you. I spend no greater amount of time disproving your gods than I do disproving the gods of others, the Easter Bunny, Bigfoot or Nessie.
You commit the fallacy of requiring others to "disprove" your gods when it is the one making the positive claim who bears the burden of proof. So, yes, my disproof of your gods stands until you disprove my disproof.
You are the one who said you could easily do it. I am simply asking you to back up your claim. I assume you can't, so your position is faith based. There really is no other option. Either you have objective evidence to support your position or your position is belief.
I have asked this before and haven't gotten an answer from anyone. Why is having beliefs such a horrible thing that you would spend so much energy denying it?
Why is asking for you to prove your argument such a horrible thing? I am simply asking you, the one making the positive claim, to support your argument.
I think I have proven my argument. My argument is that yours is a position of pure belief. As evidence, I present your posts which are entirely lacking in an objective evidence while stating you think gods are improbable. That is the only argument I have made here.
Now, I take it your statement of how easily you could disprove gods was a mistake on your part. It would help if you just said "oops".
You still haven't disproven by disproof of your gods and other gods. It's actually comical that you demand others disprove claims that you offer no support for and claim that you are under no obligation to do so.
It would help if you just append "... because I say so", to your claims.
Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.
Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.
then Buddhism and Hinduism don't need to be religions either.
1. There is no need for them to be religions, because they are still practiced and taught the same way.
Where many practictioners don't consider these to be religions, but just spiritual laws that naturally exist.
2. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require people to convince each other of this
in order to exist. In Buddhism the emphasis is on "independent investigation"
and has been compared with the "scientific method" of
a. seeking to understand what is the hypothesis or possible truth in a situation to be understood
b. testing and studying the theory or process
c. finding and confirming an answer or solution
d. applying that solution to resolve an issue or conflict for learning and growth
With Greek ethics, Constitutional laws, Buddhist teachings, Atheist or secular humanity philosophy
about natural laws on peace and justice for all humanity, we don't need to make religions out of these.
I agree with you. But that doesn't mean people DON'T make religions out of them.
My mother preaches about Buddhism and doesn't think she is being religious
but just speaking the truth. And how does the Christian feel who is just sharing God's truth
and told "no thanks, that's your religion not mine" My mother can see when Christians do this
but can't see when she does it.
I can get VERY preachy and fundie when it comes to Constitutionalism so I figured out that must be my religion.
I just happen to be very Universalist/Inclusive about it, and try to include both the liberal prochoice extremes
and the conservative prolife and progun sides equally; and now learning what is going on with libertarians
that practice both prochoice and progun beliefs as part of their Constitutionalism.
I understand my beliefs about natural laws can come across as religious.
And likewise when I work with people in a neutral context, it can be completely secular, too.
The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
The answer to your questions is satisfied by "The gawds did it"The absence of evidence applies to every single model, configuration and proposal for gods.
Even if that were true, which it certainly is not, it would not be evidence that there is not or cannot be some sort of supernatural power.
What part of that fact are you having difficulty grasping?
What I grasp is that your position is irrational, based on your desire rather than the facts.
What makes the particle charmed appear and disappear? String theory postulates it is shifting into higher dimension that we cannot perceive. If this is true, then we have supernatural reality right there - beyond the natural realm. Your insistence that nothing beyond your senses can exist is just as absurd as the belief in a goat herder god sacrificing his son.
I admit that I have no clue as to whether there is a greater intelligence guiding reality - but it is just as likely that there is, as that there is not. 8th dimension beings manipulating us like a video game? Probably not, but certainly plausible within the confines of brane worlds.
Atheists are arrogant in their ignorance, so sure that their lack of knowledge is the final word.
Atheism is not a religion simply because there is no need for it to be one.
Theism HAS to be a religion because it wouldn't exist without humans convincing each other in the existance of the unbelievable.
then Buddhism and Hinduism don't need to be religions either.
1. There is no need for them to be religions, because they are still practiced and taught the same way.
Where many practictioners don't consider these to be religions, but just spiritual laws that naturally exist.
2. Buddhism and Hinduism do not require people to convince each other of this
in order to exist. In Buddhism the emphasis is on "independent investigation"
and has been compared with the "scientific method" of
a. seeking to understand what is the hypothesis or possible truth in a situation to be understood
b. testing and studying the theory or process
c. finding and confirming an answer or solution
d. applying that solution to resolve an issue or conflict for learning and growth
With Greek ethics, Constitutional laws, Buddhist teachings, Atheist or secular humanity philosophy
about natural laws on peace and justice for all humanity, we don't need to make religions out of these.
I agree with you. But that doesn't mean people DON'T make religions out of them.
My mother preaches about Buddhism and doesn't think she is being religious
but just speaking the truth. And how does the Christian feel who is just sharing God's truth
and told "no thanks, that's your religion not mine" My mother can see when Christians do this
but can't see when she does it.
I can get VERY preachy and fundie when it comes to Constitutionalism so I figured out that must be my religion.
I just happen to be very Universalist/Inclusive about it, and try to include both the liberal prochoice extremes
and the conservative prolife and progun sides equally; and now learning what is going on with libertarians
that practice both prochoice and progun beliefs as part of their Constitutionalism.
I understand my beliefs about natural laws can come across as religious.
And likewise when I work with people in a neutral context, it can be completely secular, too.
Emily... You take my post and totally missrepresent it.
Your response entirely ignores the tenents of what I said.
You should have just left me out of what you had to say in the above post which REALLY had something or more to do with Buhdists and absolutely NOTHING to do with what I SAID. I would LIKE to think you read my post but I really believe you didn't.
I would be happy to have a dialogue with you about my comments. Believe me it had NOTHING to do with the Buhdist RELIGION.
It's not religion because it's not a belief system.Why are the religists so desperate to label atheism a religion?
We don't share ANY of the definitions of that type of an organization that they live by and enjoy all of the priviledges allowed by law.
We don't have anything like a bible.
We think and speak for ourselves as individuals.
We have no myths to defend.
we don't threaten anyone that there will be eternal punnishement for not adhereing to some made up tenents.
If I as an idividual that does not believe in the possibility of a sky fairy am a religion of one I want the same government subsidies accorded any other religion.
You can call me a religion of one if it pleases you as soon as all I have to do is apply to the government for religious status and start enjoying the tax free life. I would love to get donations of real estate and other real property without having to pay anything in gift taxes.
The myth which is being so vehemently defended is that Atheists have no beliefs. I have no need to label Atheists, but they have this desperate desire to pretend their position is not based upon belief. Once belief overshadow reality, where reality is being denied in favor of the belief, then you are in the arena of religion. It isn't about labels, it is about actions.
You said you actively try to convince people about the truth. Your "truth" is based solely upon belief. So now we have an example of proselytizing as well as faith overshadowing reality. Faith, dogma and proselytizing. I ask again, how is that not religion?
Yes. That is the dogma.
Dogma is the absence of dogma?
Nigga PUUULLEEEZZZZ !!!!
