Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Carla_Danger]

It probably just means that we have not talked specifically about their religion.


.

We haven't discussed Christianity? Have you been posting with your head up your ass?

Here was your quote you cut off... "I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?"

You didn't specifically say Christianity. Am I a freaking mind reader, windbag? It is not my job to define the different types of Christianity, and it's certainly not your job to define atheism.

 

[HUGGY]

Of course it is the religists job to define everything having to do with religion....ESPECIALLY Atheism. It's right there in their "Babble". If they are not the bosses of everything "religion" who is? Gaawwwdddd said it in his own words that they get to call all the shots. AND when THEY don't...Gaaawwwddd Jr the Allah gets his turn. Why don't you think the Muzzlims would just as soon lop off your head as any Christian's? It's cuz they are jealous of our lifestyle Cuz. The Nuzzlums are just as pissed at the Christians for dropping the ball and allowing people to appear to NOT BELIEVE. Fiddlesticks !!! EVERYBODY HAS FAITH !!! Realizing this the American ChristoFacsist Religist Terrorists have been picking up the speed and taken a more hands on approach to demanding that THEY get to decide who is and who ain't a religion.

 

[Hollie]

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

In order for any of those things to be a conclusion you have to present some type of argument to support them. The fact that I have to point that out is indicative that you don't know what you are talking about.

The problem you share with fundie Christians is that evidence running counter to your beliefs is viewed as a threat to those beliefs.

 

[Hollie]

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

Why are you having such trouble reading people's posts?

What evidence, other than the fact that Pratchet doesn't agree with you, do you have that he is a fundamentalist Christian?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

It has been pointed out repeatedly that simply declaring something to be true is neither reason or rationality. If you had the ability to use either you would be able to provide some examples of them.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

What theistic worldviews has he expressed? I must have missed it in all the times he expressly said he doesn't believe in God.

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

Another example of you arguing with the voices in your head.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. All is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

Prove my faith is based on assumptions.

Keep in mind as you do so that you will be wrong no matter what you say.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

What makes you think I think the Egyptian gods are not real?

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.

While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than “but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”, I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to assume in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.

Once again, Pratchet is not a Christian, but feel free to keep arguing with those voices in your head.

Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.

 

[PratchettFan]

I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.

Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".

It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?

For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. All is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than “but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”, I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to assume in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.

It is interesting that you tell me I am a fundamentalist Christian immediately after the post where I tell you I am not a Christian and have no interest in arguing Christianity. And then proceed to ignore everything else I wrote.

You say you opt for reason and rationality but when I ask for the evidential basis of your position you have none. This is not reason and rationality. I agree we are all shackled to reality. That is my point really. Part of the reality is our own human nature but you think you are free of that nature. You are not.

In any case, my interest in this discussion is the nature of belief, not the existence of gods. Gods are your thing, not mine.

 

[Hollie]

I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.

Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".

It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?

For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. All is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than “but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”, I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to assume in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.

It is interesting that you tell me I am a fundamentalist Christian immediately after the post where I tell you I am not a Christian and have no interest in arguing Christianity. And then proceed to ignore everything else I wrote.

You say you opt for reason and rationality but when I ask for the evidential basis of your position you have none. This is not reason and rationality. I agree we are all shackled to reality. That is my point really. Part of the reality is our own human nature but you think you are free of that nature. You are not.

In any case, my interest in this discussion is the nature of belief, not the existence of gods. Gods are your thing, not mine.

What's interesting is that your "prove it isn't" sidestepping is a typical pattern of behavior for fundie Christians. It’s an old ploy of religionists. It's the nonsensical demand that others prove something "doesn't exist" as you believe it calms an emotional requirement that placates your belief in the supernatural. That's why you sidestep the requirement to disprove the Greek gods as the true gods.

You're repulsed at the use of reason and rationality to come to conclusions about the natural world because you're left to explain reality with nothing more than appeals to supernaturalism. Thus, your inability to actually address challenges to fears and superstitions that are used by religions to whip a populace into submission.

The catalyst that generally ends belief in the tooth fairy is the exposure of that parental fraud. Similarly, your nonsensical “prove it isn't" is an artifact of such fraud. It permits the apologist to dismiss such inconvenient details with a counter claim of fabrication.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I can impose nothing on you. Only you can do that. So if what you claim is actually true, that you just don't believe and there is no doctrine or dogma to follow - why do you care? Why apply a name to it? Why do you need a definition? Why do you bother talking about it at all?

To use one of your analogies, I don't believe in unicorns. Do you know how long you could keep me in a conversation on the subject of whether or not they existed? Zero time. The best you would get from me would be a blank stare and I would quickly find an excuse to wander away.

No, I'm not buying your claim of non-belief. You are showing both faith and dogma, the trappings of religion. There is even proselytizing, courtesy of the Christian influence. Atheism is not of itself a religion, you all just turned it into one.

Utter absurdity. Oh never mind, you just did.
Having a freaking preference or opinion on something does not a religion make. You may prefer Ford over Chevy or Pepsi over Coke. You may like South Dakota passionately and work for its Tourism Department. That doesn't make Ford, Pepsi or South Dakota "religions".

It doesn't make Christianity religion either. So you tell me, what does make it religion? What are the attributes we need to look for?

For this leave us go back to post 395 (directed originally to Emily) -- roll tape:

religion [ri-lij-uh n]
noun
1.
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. (Dictionary.com)

-- what you keep seeming to veer off to with these tangents on Constitutionalism and non-smokers are nothing more than belief systems about how government should work or what smokers should do with their habit. That's not "religion" -- we have sets of beliefs about what we'd like for dinner or which is the best way to get to Springfield; that doesn't make them "religions" either. All that is is having an opinion.

I don't know where you get these strange ideas about Buddhism but Buddhists do not "worship Buddha" -- he's considered a teacher, as is for example Lao Tzu. That doesn't make them deities; the point in those religions is the teachings, not the teacher. That's perhaps the difference from a personality cult such as Christianism. However that (their not being deities) does not mean Buddhism and Taoism (and others) are not religions, as their teachings and guiding principles DO address those spiritual questions in the definition.

(As we said much earlier, every culture has some kind of religion, but not every religion has theism as part of it).

So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge. Buddhism does that, so it's a religion. Taoism does that so it too is a religion. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shintoism, Jainism, Sikhism, Bahá'í, Zoroastrianism, they all do that and are therefore "religions".

Not smoking does not do that; Constitutionalism does not do that; atheism does not do that. None of them therefore are "religions". I get the impression some here believe that proselytizing for any cause whatsoever constitutes a "religion" but it doesn't. It constitutes advocacy. Nothing more.


--- which last point still doesn't apply to atheism since it's a personal conclusion.

Perhaps the missing ingredient in all this is the admission that beliefs are not necessarily always extroverted. There's no reason they need to be to qualify as either belief or religion. Atheism is by definition introspective. Trying to pretend it "proselytizing" is like trying to pretend a desert is "against" the idea of water.

That was a definition not a list of attributes. I would point out that even with that definition Atheism would not be excluded. It is a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe. But I would not call Atheism a religion simply because it fit a definition.

That's absurd. There is no such "set of beliefs". Any given atheist may have wildly different beliefs about religions, general moral guidelines, politics or anything else. They have nothing in common on the basis of atheism except not believing in the Easter Bunny theistic approach to religion.

I challenge you to prove your point by listing this "set of beliefs" -- or any part of it.

The only attribute I can see described is this, "So religion addresses some human thirst for spiritual/mystical knowledge." Do you want to go with that or are there other attributes you would prefer?

All beliefs are personal conclusions. All beliefs are introspective. Until we master the mind meld, it can be no other way.

If there's a point in that section. I don't see it.

As to proselytizing, I think it was Hollie (or perhaps Huggy) who said they wanted to convince people of the truth. The truth being their own beliefs. Call it what you like, there is no difference between that and someone saying they want to bring you to Jesus. Proselytizing is an attribute in some religions, but not all.

Agree with the last sentence. Haven't seen the rest. Also haven't seen where anyone declining theisim professes to "know the truth". Seems to me religion by definition tries to address the Unknowable. And it stays that way, for if something is knowable, we call that "science".

Ok, a set of beliefs: And keep in mind that these need not be taken as absolutes but with varying degrees of ardor. I would refer you back to Dawkins list for that.

1- There are no gods
2- The various god based religions are false
3- The universe has no controlling force behind it
4- The universe is not an artifact

Will those work for a start?

No, they wont.

Conclusion - all gods are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition. At no time in human history have any of the gods made themselves known in any extant way.

Conclusion - religious traditions are built upon earlier traditions and many religions tend to define their gods as simply grander, more powerful versions of the gods that ruled the preceding religions. And why not? Why would a more recent religion establish itself as subordinate to a prior religion? Thus, the incorporation and inclusion of earlier traditions in mankinds formulation of newer religions.

Conclusion - nothing in the natural world indicates or even suggests supernatural forces. For instance, the assertion that creation "clearly is evidence of god" ignores that "creation" and "nature" are indistinguishable in that sense, and if they are indistinguishable, no assertion that they are "created" holds value. This is the "coming upon a watch in the woods" paradigm, which ignores the fact that-- I know it is a watch because it is clearly and quantitatively different from a natural object.

I’ll submit that by employing evidence and reason, we can readily discriminate between which of our competing theories (mine being natural laws; yours being supernatural intervention), deserves the greater credibility. We actually have direct observational evidence that natural law exists (and has existed as far back in time as we can observe), while we have no observational evidence of any kind that your god (among many asserted gods), exists. The choice is not a difficult one. At least... not difficult for an objective observere who has managed to separate themselves from a prior commitment to dogma.

Conclusion - The universe is immensely old. That is in direct contradiction to biblical tales and fables and contradicts other religious tales.

In fact, the only model I see that opens up the possibility of nature gone awry is the theistic one. How often does nature simply allow a sea to part, or a dead man to rise? How many natural pillars of fire, burning bushes, or global floods are there? How often do virgins spontaneously impregnate? Where else do angels and demons fly about with abandon?

Understand from the beginning that I am not a Christian. I do not consider the Bible a science book. At best it has some historical significance. If you wish to argue Christianity, you will need to find someone else.

But I am willing to take your belief sets. I don't know if Pogo will or not.

1- all god are creations of humans borne of fear and superstition.
This is a pretty direct statement that gods are not real. They do not exist but are entirely imaginary. I really don't see how your statement could be taken any other way. So, please present your evidence to support this conclusion. And if you are going to use the argument that they have not made themselves known, you are going to have to explain your position that if they existed they would make themselves known. Otherwise, it is irrelevant.

2- Religious institutions are built on earlier traditions.
I'll grant you that and would consider this a valid statement based upon objective evidence. I am not clear on how that matters. If you could clarify that for me I would appreciate it.

3- Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force.
I am not aware of anything which does. OTOH, I am not aware of anything which suggests it doesn't. The current theory (at least I think it is) is a singularity expanded to create the universe. I am aware of nothing which indicates the origination of the singularity or the cause of the expansion. Nor any current theory as to why the natural forces you speak of exist at all. I stipulate they are there, but why they are there is a matter of speculation. So, do you have any objective evidence that supernatural (I really dislike that word) forces were not involved?

Keep in mind that what I am attempting to do here is determine the nature of your conclusions, not whether or not they are true. You have as much chance of getting it right as I do.

Why are you having such difficulty with acknowledging your fundamentalist Christian beliefs?

It’s been pointed out repeatedly and tediously that reason and rationality lead to conclusions that leave as superficial and subordinate, your allegiance to supernaturalism and mysticism.

In your theistic worldview, what accounts for the existence of all are Supreme Beings whose minds we can never know, whose methods are wholly mysterious, whose goals are self-contradictory (an all supreme being cannot have any challenges or goals-- there is nothing beyond its ability to achieve, instantaneously, hence has no wants).

This, you religionists claim, is the "origin" of existence, and it's supposed to be a defendable position?. Well, what have you fundies "answered" in this paradigm? That an unknowable being, for unfathomable, self-contradictory reasons, using methods beyond our scope to perceive, created everything. This "answer" is not only tantamount to no answer, it is also purposely accepting no answer as the answer precluding one from ever discovering any answer.

We are in agreement on numerous levels. There is no evidence for your gods or anyone else’s gods. All is assumption from the religious perspective, (the theist assumes gods, the materialist assumes logic). Given the plethora of gods thoughout human history, none of which are open to any proof, yes, it is rational and logical to conclude that gods are invented to explain phenomenon. Unless you are willing to argue that any number of assertions of gods other than the one you selected as "true" doesn't illustrate this fact very clearly. I’m still waiting for you to support your gods as true to the exclusion of the Egyptian gods, which were obviously meant to "explain existence" and have no more or less authority than that of the conclusions of your Judeo-Christian gods.

You simply cannot disprove the fact that your gods are false and the Egyptian gods are true.

Nothing in the natural world suggest a supernatural force. That is true.
While challenges to your fundamentalist views are met with nothing more than “but… but… but…. but you can’t prove it isn’t”, I opt for reason and rationality as a conclusion primarily because as a member of the natural universe, we can most correctly assess natural realities as empirically supported. Other than assuming logic is cohesive, there is nothing more to assume in the rationalist camp. While there are so-far unanswered questions, these questions do not leap frog out of the physical and into the metaphysical at any point, and even in analogies where reality doesn't behave quite like we expected to (quantuum mechanics for instance), you religionists are just as shackled to that reality as is the rationalist.

It is interesting that you tell me I am a fundamentalist Christian immediately after the post where I tell you I am not a Christian and have no interest in arguing Christianity. And then proceed to ignore everything else I wrote.

You say you opt for reason and rationality but when I ask for the evidential basis of your position you have none. This is not reason and rationality. I agree we are all shackled to reality. That is my point really. Part of the reality is our own human nature but you think you are free of that nature. You are not.

In any case, my interest in this discussion is the nature of belief, not the existence of gods. Gods are your thing, not mine.

Maybe it's how you treat religion. Kinda like how you said atheism is not a religion, it's how atheists treat their atheism that makes it a religion...whatever that means. Maybe you treat religion the same as a fundie.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Thanks PF
Aside from all the arguing in circles over terminology
can we agree then there is not agreement on the
different types, levels, or meanings of EITHER "atheism" OR "religion"

So we are better off talking one-on-one about what each of us believes or calls things,
and UNDERSTAND that to QW, he may ONLY see atheists as "believing there is no God period"

That is the dictionary definition of atheist, and some idiots in this thread are arguing they don't believe that, even though they argue exactly that position. The fact that I refuse to let them do that is indicative of my search for truth. The fact that they continue to claim they don't actually believe that is proof they are not seeking truth.

Your Merriam Webster definition is inaccurate. There are much better definitions out there for those not looking to cherry pick.



Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957

atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.

disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.

Unlike most dictionaries, this one traces the course of how the term "athiesm" has been used over the centuries, leading us to the more modern usage which incorporates anything which simply does not bother believing in any gods.

Dictionary Definition of Atheism How Modern Dictionaries Define Atheism Atheists

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here was your quote you cut off... "I know people who believe very passionately in God who do not practice a religion as defined by atheists in this thread. Does that mean they don't have faith or does it just mean atheists are full of shit when they attempt to define religion?"

You didn't specifically say Christianity. Am I a freaking mind reader, windbag? It is not my job to define the different types of Christianity, and it's certainly not your job to define atheism.

Would you prefer me pointing out that there are Muslims that don't practice religion by going to Mosques and praying in a group? That Buddhist there are Buddhist that don't practice religion? That every religions group has people who consider themselves more spiritual than religions, and thus reject the trappings of religion that idiots you have not challenged insist are the defining elements of religion?

At least you have demonstrated one thing, you are definitely posting with your head up your ass.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem you share with fundie Christians is that evidence running counter to your beliefs is viewed as a threat to those beliefs.

Why don't you present the evidence that you think run counter to my beliefs and see how I react to it? Could it be because you have no idea what my beliefs actually are?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.

The only claim I mad is that Pratchet has repeatedly said he is not a Christian. I can easily support that by quoting the many post where he said that, all of which you ignored because they run counter to your beliefs.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Your Merriam Webster definition is inaccurate. There are much better definitions out there for those not looking to cherry pick.

Is that because it disproves your bigoted delusion that atheism is not a belief?

Webster's Unabridged Encyclopedic Dictionary, 1957

1957? Is it remotely possible that the way people define something has changed in the last half century?

atheism: Disbelief in the existence of God; the state of godlessness. Atheism: unbelief in or denial of God or any supernaturalism; to ancient Greek it meant denial and lack of recognition of state gods. In 18th cent. it was a protest against religious hypocrisy; in 19th cent. it was any system not recognizing the idea of a personal Creator or any one supreme being. It sees marter, not spirit, as sole universal principle; its history one of opposition. Term often loosely used in referring to agnostics who neither deny nor admit the existence of God, or in regard to others who disagree with current theological doctrine.

What, exactly, does disbelief mean? Lets find out, shall we?

From your link.

A common theme throughout the definitions on this page is the primary use of "disbelieve" when defining atheism. Some modern dictionaries drop this, but most comprehensive dictionaries do not. For some reason, however, people simply ignore this word and move right along to the secondary sense of "denial." When we take a closer look at the word "disbelieve," however, we find two senses: an active and a passive.

In the passive sense, "disbelieve" simply means "not believe" — thus a person who disbelieves a claim may simply not accept the truth of the claim without going any further, like asserting the opposite. This is the broadest sense of atheism, lacking belief in any gods. In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim). Once again, however, this is not the same as asserting that the claim is false and represents a slightly narrower version of weak atheism.

In the active sense, "disbelieve" involves deliberately refusing to believe something (possible reasons might include a lack of evidence or an incoherent claim). Thus, the definition of atheism, dating back at least to 1903 and probably much earlier, encompasses both the "weak" and the "strong" senses of atheism used by atheists today. The same will be true, with minor changes in wording, through nearly all of the dictionary definitions quoted here. ​

Damn, look at that. If you assert actively that there is no god you are stating a belief, even if you term it a disbelief. People who simply do not believe have ne need to attack other people that disagree with them, which is why you rarely see people defending there lack of belief in unicorns. They simply do not care, they just don't believe.

Perhaps you should learn the difference in active and passive voice before you try to use words to outsmart an author.

disbelief: lack of belief, unbelief.

Unlike most dictionaries, this one traces the course of how the term "athiesm" has been used over the centuries, leading us to the more modern usage which incorporates anything which simply does not bother believing in any gods.

Dictionary Definition of Atheism How Modern Dictionaries Define Atheism Atheists

By the way, thanks for the link that debunks your claim that atheism is simply not believing in something.

 

[Hollie]

The problem you share with fundie Christians is that evidence running counter to your beliefs is viewed as a threat to those beliefs.

Why don't you present the evidence that you think run counter to my beliefs and see how I react to it? Could it be because you have no idea what my beliefs actually are?

More likely, you have no idea what your beliefs are.

 

[Hollie]

Once again, we have you making claims you are unable to support.

The only claim I mad is that Pratchet has repeatedly said he is not a Christian. I can easily support that by quoting the many post where he said that, all of which you ignored because they run counter to your beliefs.

I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.

 

[Pogo]

That's the same colloquial sense I just finished describing. And as you're devolving to your usual ad hom tantrums, you're back on ignore.

I apologize to the thread for feeding the troll in his glorious Second coming.

Pointing out that Pogo is wrong is a personal attack on Pogo because he never admits he is wrong.

I think it is the adversarial approach setting both of you off
is what is going wrong here.

When I debate or discuss with you separately, I find you are each able to explain where we are talking past each other, or saying the same thing, etc.

So when the two of you clash, it is from too much other defensiveness or clashing perceptions causing interference.

You are both level headed, articulate, intelligent people.
Sometimes we clash online, but please don't take that as a reason to judge each other for it.

You are both better than that, and I have seen plenty of points and discussions where you are clearly above
any need for namecalling or ignoring.

Sorry you don't bring out the better sides of each other.
If you can drop that and start with points we agree on,
I'd like to finish this conversation successfully and come to helpful solutions.

Pogo seems to respond to the term nontheist better, and quit arguing what is or what is not an atheist
since there are too many different views of that anyway. Let's just stick to what we believe
and how to explain that to each other, and that's good enough for me.

Thank you!

Hey, Emily.

In answer to the last paragraph the more I think on it I think you are correct, I like "nontheist" better than "atheist", as "non-" implies nothing more than the non-presence of some attribute, where "a-" can imply almost an "anti", a sort of antagonism to the attribute. Technically it doesn't carry that connotation (q.v. atonal, amoral, asexual) but perhaps that's the emotional baggage that those defensive about "atheist" have brought to it.

So yes I would lean to nontheist as more accurate, given that it has been largely out of range of attacks such as we see here, and through no fault of its own connotes better the concept of simple innately passive absence of something (zero) rather than the active removal of something. That's useful, as some walk among us who refuse to acknowledge the nature of Zero as a void, rather than the result of "one-minus-one".

Numerical value of theism in one theist: one
Numerical value of theism in one atheist: zero
Numerical value of atheism: does not exist

Thank you for your kind words. I'm not interested in exchanges with Windbag; he's a dedicated Contrarian -- if you pointed to the sky and said it was "up" he would insist it was "down" and then proceed to insult you about it... as he did me, as he's doing to others since. That's why I pass over his posts; they're a complete waste of time. He has no wish to discuss any topic --- all he wants to do is drag every thread into the ground to see his name on the internet. It's sad.

 

[Pogo]

Okay, I think I see the problem here. Maybe once you learn the definition of religion, you'll see the flaws in your argument.

Hi Carla_Danger
I also see the similar problem in not agreeing what is meant by religion, which varies per person or context,
and what is meant by atheism which also varies.

Can we start by just talking and listening to each other by what we do believe or understand
and not whether this fits a label or not? Otherwise we are arguing about the labels.

If the main issue is what are your beliefs, what are mine, and how do these align.
That can happen without agreeing if mine or yours "counts as" atheism or religion or whatever label.
We don't have to agree on that to listen to each other's ideas and principles.

Some of the helpful uses of religion are to organize people by association so we can communicate in mass groups.

If we are going to discuss what we mean by terms,
why not come right out and discuss what is MEANT by "God" or "Jesus"
not for the purpose of ARGUING about it, but for ORGANIZING by groups.

So if people who believe in God as Wisdom know to hang out with the Buddhists,
and people who believe in Jesus as Equal Justice or Social Justice or Peace and Justice
hang out with those groups, then we can all align with likeminded neighbors
and not argue why one group teaches Jesus as Salvation and another as Justice.

We can have all going on, and just delegate to each group the
members who relate to that approach and can be most effective there.

I don't think "what is meant by religion" is relevant except as a benchmark to refute the myth of a zero being a "religion". It's an interesting question but we speak of atheism, which is not the absence of religion, but the absence of theism. As one possible (but not mandatory) component of religion, theism is also not a religion, but a modality of expression within a religion. Nontheism simply rejects that modality as unworkable. It doesn't establish, prescribe or suggest (as a real religion must) what a working modality is -- just rejects the one it finds flawed.

Analogy:
Your car may run on gas while my car may run on diesel. Neither gas nor diesel are "cars" but the fuel that powers them. Your car is therefore "adiesel".

 

[Quantum Windbag]

More likely, you have no idea what your beliefs are.

In your bigoted and delusional world, I probably don't. In the rel world, I know them much better than you ever will.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.

What content has he posted that runs counter to anything other than your delusional belief that you can read minds?

 

[Hollie]

More likely, you have no idea what your beliefs are.

In your bigoted and delusional world, I probably don't. In the rel world, I know them much better than you ever will.

Of course you do, dear.

Wonderful folks you self-hating fundies.

 

[Hollie]

I ignore many claims that run counter to the content and context of what some posters post. Your hope to contribute meaningful dialogue would be among the many claims that run counter to the content and context of what you actually post.

What content has he posted that runs counter to anything other than your delusional belief that you can read minds?

Make a list for us. There's a good fellow.