Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Hollie]

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.

(Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

 

[Montrovant]

If the prefix 'a' means 'without', rather than atheism being a doctrine, wouldn't it mean being without a doctrine?

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English. Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here. That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit. Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not. If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief. Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief. Are you neutral?

Except that you are, in effect, using your own definition here. What is the question which you have decided inherently makes atheism a belief? Words certainly do change with usage and there have been new meanings. Because of that, the very question of what a person's position is will be different depending on what definition is being used. So when you say atheism is a belief, it is based on the definition you are using of the word. If someone defines atheism as a lack of belief in god, then it most certainly is not a belief. It requires no objective evidence of anything. It becomes more like the common usage of agnosticism.

 

[Montrovant]

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.

No, it doesn't. I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
Belief is the basis of the group. As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
Dogma.

It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot. Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question. You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief. Despite the fact that it is a belief. The definition must be changed to meet this dogma. Contradictions to it must be ignored. I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled. It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.

You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief. The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position. Do you?

What is objective evidence for not believing in something? Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.

 

[asaratis]

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.

(Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

That you do not recognize that belief that God does not exist is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable. We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved. That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion. You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence. It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.

 

[PratchettFan]

perhaps, if you were talking about adoctrinists instead of atheists.....

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English. Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here. That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit. Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not. If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief. Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief. Are you neutral?

Except that you are, in effect, using your own definition here. What is the question which you have decided inherently makes atheism a belief? Words certainly do change with usage and there have been new meanings. Because of that, the very question of what a person's position is will be different depending on what definition is being used. So when you say atheism is a belief, it is based on the definition you are using of the word. If someone defines atheism as a lack of belief in god, then it most certainly is not a belief. It requires no objective evidence of anything. It becomes more like the common usage of agnosticism.

I am saying a belief is a belief. Calling it something else does not make it something else. The Atheists I have talked to here have consistently stated that it is more likely there are no gods than there are, but they have nothing other than that assertion to support this claim. I am open to using another word, if that helps. What would you call a conclusion arrived at in the total absence of supporting evidence?

 

[PratchettFan]

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.

No, it doesn't. I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
Belief is the basis of the group. As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
Dogma.

It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot. Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question. You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief. Despite the fact that it is a belief. The definition must be changed to meet this dogma. Contradictions to it must be ignored. I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled. It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.

You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief. The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position. Do you?

What is objective evidence for not believing in something? Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.

I have no idea. You see, this is a subject so completely unknown we can't even identify what evidence we would need to investigate.

Do you consider the potential for there being gods to be equal to the potential there are no gods?

 

[asaratis]

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.

No, it doesn't. I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
Belief is the basis of the group. As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
Dogma.

It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot. Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question. You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief. Despite the fact that it is a belief. The definition must be changed to meet this dogma. Contradictions to it must be ignored. I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled. It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.

You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief. The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position. Do you?

What is objective evidence for not believing in something? Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.

Not believing that something exists is truly not identical to believing that it does not exist. The difference between them is akin to the difference between agnostic and Atheist.

 

[asaratis]

Well, if -isms are doctrines, and the prefix 'a' means without, wouldn't that make theism a doctrine and atheism without that doctrine?

No, it wouldn't. A prefix or suffix applies to the root, not to each other. This really is middle school English stuff.

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Not if you want to strictly follow the rules of English. Words change with usage and that might add new meanings to a definition, which is what is happening here. That is why I don't think using a definition is worth spit. Either a position is supported by objective evidence or it is not. If it is not, then the only thing that position can be is a belief. Thus, unless someone has some evidence somewhere they are not showing, any position on this question save neutrality is a belief. Are you neutral?

Except that you are, in effect, using your own definition here. What is the question which you have decided inherently makes atheism a belief? Words certainly do change with usage and there have been new meanings. Because of that, the very question of what a person's position is will be different depending on what definition is being used. So when you say atheism is a belief, it is based on the definition you are using of the word. If someone defines atheism as a lack of belief in god, then it most certainly is not a belief. It requires no objective evidence of anything. It becomes more like the common usage of agnosticism.

I am saying a belief is a belief. Calling it something else does not make it something else. The Atheists I have talked to here have consistently stated that it is more likely there are no gods than there are, but they have nothing other than that assertion to support this claim. I am open to using another word, if that helps. What would you call a conclusion arrived at in the total absence of supporting evidence?

conjecture?...defined by some among us as:

an opinion or judgment that is not based on proof; a guess:

Who knows how the Atheists will want to define it?

 

[Tuatara]

Disbelief.

Webster: the act of disbelieving : mental rejection of something as untrue

Oxford: Inability or refusal to accept that something is true or real:

In other words, atheism is a belief that something is untrue, which makes me right even using your sources to disprove my assertions.

Why not just admit you are wrong instead of going out of your way to prove you do not understand English?

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

 

[Tuatara]

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

 

[Hollie]

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.

(Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

That you do not recognize that belief that God does not exist is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable. We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved. That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion. You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence. It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.

Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.

Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?

Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.


What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since Reason and Rationality as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural

Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.

The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

 

[Tuatara]

I remember years ago watching this documentary on people who actually believed in fairies. These people have a belief in the existence of fairies. Most of us I'm sure do not believe in the existence of fairies. That is not a belief. It is really that simple.

I'm sure some other members here like asaratis, Pratchettfan and Quantum would assert that we have beliefs that fairies don't exist. They are simply inverting the definition by applying it to the negative.

eg. You believe such & such does not exist.

 

[percysunshine]

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

The epistemology of science limits science to the description and theory of the observable natural universe. Any possibility and probability calculations of science pertaining to the existence of any super-natural beings are irrelevant, by the definition of the word 'science'.

.

 

[asaratis]

Here's another trusted dictionary definition:

disbelief
noun /ˌdɪs·bəˈlif/ us

› the refusal to believe that something is true:

disbelief - definition in the American English Dictionary - Cambridge Dictionaries Online

These modern day Atheists depend on Richard Dawkins and other idiots to soften the defining terms for them.

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

You cannot prove either of those claims.

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God. It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works. They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand. Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.

You are simply full of yourself.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

If you weren't ignoring the posts I've been responding to, you would have seen that it was not me who brought up -ism meaning a doctrine. It was PratchettFan. I responded to that. You then inserted yourself into the conversation as though I were the one who started that. I don't know if you didn't bother to read all the quoted text or what.

Feel free to look at post #1473.

PostmodernProf's adoctrinists response also seemed to ignore the fact that I was responding to PratchettFan's post in which an -ism is defined as a doctrine.

I wasn't ignoring anything, I was pointing out that your interpretation of the word atheism as a lack of doctrine is stupid. I am not the only one that pointed it out, but since you seem to be able to ignore posts that contradict your lack of understanding of English, you cannot apply a prefix to a suffix and totally ignore the root word that they both apply to. If we apply the doctrine definition to ism the way you attempted to we would see that atheism is the doctrine that there is no god, not that there are no doctrines.

Want to tell me how smart you are again? Or point out that I am ignoring a post you responded to when I am not?

 

[Hollie]

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

Exactly! You're beginning to wake up! It means "without god"....

Which still doesn't add up to a religion.

No, it doesn't. I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"
Belief is the basis of the group. As I have argued elsewhere, unless you have evidence to support your position it is a belief.
Dogma.

It's that last bit where you all shoot yourselves in the foot. Dogma is a doctrine which must be accepted without question. You establish that Atheism is a lack of belief, or a non-belief, or a rejection of belief, but it most certainly can't be a belief. Despite the fact that it is a belief. The definition must be changed to meet this dogma. Contradictions to it must be ignored. I have pointed out that Dawkins list shows a strong Atheist as being certain there is no God (a most definite belief), but every time I have pointed this out it is just ignored because it is a contradiction to the dogma which cannot be reconciled. It is the last attribute of dogma which makes Atheism a religion and the only people who can do that are the Atheists themselves.

You can prove me wrong by showing it is not a belief. The only way to do that is to show you have objective evidence to support your position. Do you?

What is objective evidence for not believing in something? Not believing is different from denying the possibility of something.

Not believing that something exists is truly not identical to believing that it does not exist. The difference between them is akin to the difference between agnostic and Atheist.

You actually were able to assemble words into coherent sentences this

Refusal to believe is not a belief. I can see why this is hard for you to grasp this concept seeing that you think Richard Dawkins is an idiot.

Not a complete idiot...just in regard to his lack of skepticism.

Read this bipartisan blog concerning the The Grand Fubar of Atheism.

Richard Dawkins is a joke from the forums - The UK Libertarian

I agree with Vladimir...

Vladimir
April 24th, 2010 at 10:37 am
There is a saying, “He’s a stupid person’s idea of what an intelligent person is like.” That’s usually directed at Stephen Fry, but I think it also applies to Dawkins, who displays all the hallmarks of an eccentric but brilliant professor, but crucially omits and capacity for rational self-examination.

I agree entirely with Agalloch where he doubts Dawkins’ skepticism. Dawkins has never been skeptical of his own beliefs. He has never made a good case against God’s existence, not even in his books. Instead he obfuscates the issue by deliberately confusing it with (for example) Biblical inerrancy, and assuming a proiri that *some* worldly religion is revealed truth. Genuinely skeptical scientists would call parts of The God Delusion a “straw man argument”.

Dawkins’ early success may have been down to his undoubted abilities, but his recent success comes from his deification by an atheistic establishment looking for a figurehead to justify the things they always knew, i.e. “there is no God” and “science proves it”. It helps that underneath the science, he is one of them – a radical thinker who dabbled with Marxism in the Sixties and has never given up on the socialist ideal. Nowadays, the man has become more L. Ron Hubbard than Albert Einstein, and I have zero respect for him.

What a hack this Vladimir guy is. Does he actually refute any of the body of work represented in any of Dawkins books? I noticed he didn't give any names of these "skeptical scientists". Then he goes on to use the terms socialist and Marxist. What a hack. You think this guy is smarter than Dawkins?? Holy Shiit. Even if you don't agrree with someone, if you can't realize that they are more intelligent than most you have problems. It's like on the other thread where people are calling Hawkings an idiot.

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Not one person in this forum is and certainly not you.

You cannot prove either of those claims.

Do you want me to narrow it down to I haven't met the person who has no beliefs in gods? No problem. I haven't. Certainly not here. Any conclusion arrived at in the utter absence of supporting evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief.

Anyone can make a claim about a certain god whether it is Allah, Zeus or the FSM. Is there supporting evidence that counters these beliefs? Of course there is but it still cannot be proven. Someone could claim their god created the universe and earth 400 years ago. The evidence to refute that claim is geology, biology, history, chemistry and thousands of other disciplines. But does it prove the non-existence of that god, the possibility of it? No. But it does disprove the probability of it.

Proving that some claims made by those that believe in God does not prove the non-existence of their God. It merely proves that they do not completely understand how God works. They explain the existence and origin of things in terms they can understand. Most modern day Jews, Christians and some Muslims will agree that the earth is millions of years old.

You are simply full of yourself.

and of course like many fundies, you will claim some special insight into how the gawds work. Such a burden you must bear. But, how really special you must be that the gawds have bestowed this special understanding to you. The Pat Robertson madrassah is looking for folks just like you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are too hard on yourself. No need to call yourself the village idiot.

I am not trying to redefine anything. In fact, unlike you, I have been perfectly willing to admit that the word atheist has more than one meaning. I'm also able to understand that when a definition involves an either/or, one cannot simply choose one option and declare it the only definition.

The definition of atheist you comment on was, "Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.". You then posted definitions of disbelief and used that to make your point, despite the fact that it says disbelief or lack of belief. So, yes, you skipped over that phrase. No, there is no reason you would have to read the definition backwards to skip it and I have no idea why you would imagine that to be the case. Tuatara's source clearly stated a lack of belief as an option when defining atheist.

So again, atheism is a word with multiple meanings, both in general use and in dictionary definitions.

Still trying to outsmart the village idiot.

And failing.

If we accept the premise that the internet gets to redefine words willy nilly, what, exactly, does lack of belief mean? To be deficient or missing belief? Deficient doesn't seem to make sense, so it is simply missing, which is absurd on the face of it because atheist argue that there is no god, not that they don't believe. Maybe there is another definition that works better. To be short of or have need of. Does that mean that atheists need to believe? I can accept that interpretation, but I doubt that you will.

Now, feel free to provide a definition of lack of belief that doesn't make people who claim that is an acceptable definition of atheist look silly.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues.

have him stop by, I'll be happy to.....

 

[asaratis]

dude, almost everyone is smarter than Dawkins.......

Dude, you're certainly not. You don't even have the personal integrity to actually challenge Dawkin's writings on specific issues. All you have done is fall in with "herd mentality" of your co-religionists who have their personal biases to defend.

(Envision loud laughter!!!!!)....and you Atheist sheep are not parroting one another with herd mentality in defense of your biases?

What biases? It's been you fundies who have consistently made attempts to equate rejection of your multi-gods as a religion. You have been thoroughly refuted yet you insist on screeching that "atheism is religion" when it has been explained to you that atheism has none of the attributes of religion. In fact, all of atheism is nothing more than a conclusion that your religious claims to magic and supernaturalism are absent affirmative evidence.

It hasn't gone unnoticed that you and others have hoped to avoid supporting your specious claims to gods, jinn, a Flat Earth and other absurdities of your religious belief with sidestepping and obfuscation.

That you do not recognize that belief that God does not exist is a bias, driven by your belief that the Atheists with whom you agree are correct, is quite understandable. We have established that the existence of God cannot be cogently proved or disproved. That makes those on either side of the "belief fence" biased.

Fundies have only one God.

I have not been refuted.

It has been explained to you that Atheism has many attributes of religion. You just continue to deny the truth.

Your conclusion that gods do not exist also lacks affirmative evidence. It is simply a belief that you hold.

And...if you still believe Dawkins is a genius, read what Thomas Nagel (another Atheist, but a true philosopher) thinks about the less-than-sophomoric Dawkins....that is if you can refrain from slobbering on your keyboard long enough to actually read a book or two.

Concluding that your three gods do not exist requires no bias. The lack of evidence for your gods is precisely the same lack of evidence that plagues all the human conceptions of gods, angels, jinn, etc. That you are unable to present a cogent argument for your gods places you in the same position as all the other pedestrian and baseless claims for gods. While I think it's important to have mythology in literature; it's good to have stories of heroes and heroines for us to emulate. This doesn't mean we should suddenly worship these characters and claim that they are real.

Invariably, those extremists who hurl the darkest invectives tend to be the most the most chaotic thinkers. There is definitely a strong link between people who believe fervently in their religions (to the point of wishing harm to any and all who disagree) and an appalling lack of even the most rudimentary levels of education. Having read the Bible cover to cover, I'm not surprised at this interlocking phenomenon-- the Bible advocates ignorance, and religions based on the Bible historically have stood in the way of education and literacy. What better way to convince the populace, if not to keep them illiterate?

Secondly, your screeching about atheism having many attributes of religion has derailed many times before. I note with amusement that you still sidestep addressing how little atheism and religion have in common. Once again, you cannot address the practices, rituals, customs, traditions and belief system that defines religion and which are absent in the rational conclusion that your polytheistic beliefs are absent substantiation. Atheism has no customs, beliefs or “ideologies”. There is no atheist asserted philosophy. All of atheism tends to be a critique of theistic/religious assertions. Atheism is simply the rejection of the theistic model as undemonstrated, unsupported and bereft substantiation.


What is truly remarkable is your fascination with Dawkins. I understand that for fundamentalists, he does represent an outspoken voice of contention with belief in the supernatural. And it’s obvious that you feel threatened. You should, BTW, since Reason and Rationality as an epistemological path does not account for the existence of gods, fairies, leprechauns, or the supernatural

Therefore, the supernaturalist/religionist is immediately placed into a dilemma from which there is no escape by using faith as a method or tool to gain knowledge. Simply put, faith and reason cannot exist side by side; they are mutually exclusive to one another. If something is believed to be true, and there is evidence for its reality, there is no need for faith; it is rationally a reality. But if something requires faith in order for it to be believed, then it is no longer rational, and if it is not rational, then what supports its reliability? Thus the theist is trapped into an impossible dilemma-- he cannot make an appeal to knowledge, since knowledge depends on reason for its existence.

The first thing we must understand is that faith, in and of itself, is not a pathway to access knowledge. Since the criteria of evidence and proof is not necessary under the constructs of faith (i.e., things are to be believed in spite of proof or evidence), there are no ways to apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance, from the gods of modern society. Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

As I expected, you stupidly insist that Jews, Christians and Muslims believe in separate gods. There is one God.

Secondly, if you're going to quote the words of someone else, you should not stoop to plagiarism.

"...apply a standard to the claim asserted. Under the guidelines of faith, there is nothing to separate the belief in the gods of ancient Rome or Greece, for instance,...."

comes from:
http://bb.islamww.com/index.php?showtopic=3910

I can imagine that most of your post is nothing but plagiarism. When you use the work of others, give us a link.

You are a disingenuous, pathetic little girl.

BTW, I am not at all fascinated by Dawkins. I simply find him to be of mediocre intellect and dependent on flawed logic and childish analogies....much like the dummy, Bill Maher.



Check out Anthony Flew, the world's most notorious (former) Atheist.
Antony Flew Abandons Atheism - Former Atheist Believes in God on Basis of Argument to Design

 

[PostmodernProph]

So atheism would not mean, 'without theism'?

more literally, the "ism" of "a" "theos".......the belief there is no god......

Because belief has no requirement for religious customs, traditions, practices, etc., you have confirmed the failure of the religionist argument that atheism is a religion.

Thanks.

you can become an atheists' bishop if you file a law suit to stop a high school football team from praying before a game.....a cardinal if the case makes it to the USSC.....