Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[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.

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'.

.

Well if any of these claims are not observable then how could anyone make claims about the validity of them in the first place. Unless they were told as a child that this was how it is and don't let anyone else tell you different. Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.

People can claim anything they wish to claim. Science and religion are two separate epistemologies which are internally consistent. None of this bothers me one bit. I certainly do not, as a scientist, feel a need to accept every single supernatural phenomenon ever described. Nor do I feel a need to deny every single supernatural phenomenon ever described.

Also, I did not come up with the definitions. The definitions predate me.

.

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny? As for two seperate epistemologies, you are now creeping into a philosophical discussion which no longer encompasses fact from fiction.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Certainly among the fundie crowd, he's seen as a vocal critic of claims to supernaturalism, also spelled gawds. It's interesting how it it the fundamentalist component of the board who are the ones feeling most threatened by Dawkins.

I am actually talking about what atheists who are not idiots think about him.

Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True

You are actually talking about those evilutionist atheists and their blasphemous ideas of heliocentrism, an ancient universe and that gawd-awful Ark which you cannot produce.

actually we aren't talking about evilutionist atheists, we're talking about the ignorant ones.....

 

[Tuatara]

Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.

I called you a fucking coward who is afraid to say he believes anything.

Reread what I said. You are missing one word or you are the biggest idiot that ever was.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Also by your own definition you would have to accept every single supernatural phenomenom ever described.

why?......are you incapable of making choices about what you believe?......

Interesting comment in terms of religious belief. It is almost exclusively a function of geography and familial circumstances. You christian fundies, had you been born in the Islamist Middle East, would be the suicide bombers and head choppers of ISIS. There is a certain personality type that is susceptible to mind control techniques that religions employ.

/shrugs.....and if you have been born in the ME you would already be dead.....be that as it may, we have examples in the form of frequent posters who have made choices, either for or against, the religion of their family......this merely proves that what you post is not true......we have to take it for granted that the things you post that we can't disprove are likewise untrue......

/shrugs.... how lucky I am that in the Infidel West, I'm protected from people like you.

This merely proves that you are a danger to yourselves and others. Society as a whole is protected by keeping you lovely cultists on a short choke collar.

lol.....people like me are the ones protecting you in the infidel west......

 

[PostmodernProph]

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.

Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.

Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.

I'm still waiting to read your answer.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

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

Dawkins is widely viewed as a running joke. The fact that you are unaware of that shows why you are unqualified to judge his intelligence against that of anyone else.

Only by those who believe in talking snakes, a 6000 year old earth and a worldwide flood.

There's actual evidence for a worldwide flood

But if it's flood tales you want, everybody has one.

Flood Stories from Around the World

makes sense.....everybody is descended from the same survivors......

 

[Tuatara]

John Lennon's God reworded by some silly people here.


I believe in no magic
I believe in no I-ching
I believe in no Bible
I believe in no Tarot
I believe in no Hitler
I believe in no Jesus
I believe in no Kennedy
I believe in no Buddha
I believe in no Mantra
I believe in no Gita
I believe in no Yoga
I believe in no Kings
I believe in no Elvis
I believe in no Zimmerman
I believe in no Beatles

 

[Tuatara]

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.

Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.

Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.

I'm still waiting to read your answer.....

Your comprehension skills are not working either.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.

If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.

By the way, since I have made no claims myself, I am under no obligation to defend any claim you try to shove down my throat.

Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.

why do you mistake criticism for panic?......

 

[PostmodernProph]

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?

its called choice.....many people know how to do it......

 

[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.

A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief. What else could it be?

My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Try this. When you state you believe in something do not use the words no, non or not.

Example, instead of saying I believe pigs do not fly, say I do not believe pigs can fly.

Why the fuck would I say that? I know for a fact that pigs do not fly, there is no reason for me to pretend that I need room on that issue.

Maybe you should try not being afraid.

Did everyone read that? Please everyone read what he just wrote to my response.

I'm still waiting to read your answer.....

Your comprehension skills are not working either.

then spit it out.....why would he say it?.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

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.

A non sequitur, but yes - if your position is based upon nothing but your assertion it be so then it is a belief. What else could it be?

My position is based on whether or not there are facts or evidence to support it. That is not an assertion.

do you have evidence or facts to support that these things do NOT exist?....if so, you should choose to believe they do not exist......

the question is whether you have chosen not to believe certain things where you do NOT have evidence or facts to support your choice.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

I'll point out that you seem to be unable to understand the difference between saying that if theism is a doctrine, atheism would be without that doctrine, and saying atheism is without all doctrine. In other words, I said that atheism is being without the doctrine of theism.

Want to point out how something I did not say is stupid again?

the only doctrine which all theisms would have in common is the existence of a deity......atheism is not simply "without" that doctrine.....agnosticism would be.....atheism would have a competing doctrine.....that there is NO deity.....

 

[Tuatara]

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?

its called choice.....many people know how to do it......

Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked how?

 

[PostmodernProph]

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"

Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.

I disagree.....I don't think it would be a challenge to identify the group of atheists who post in this forum, for example.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

Not at all. His basic premise is that claims to supernaturalism are absent verification. For you fundies, It’s a matter of disliking the individual because he is an outspoken and vocal critic of religious belief. What you fundies object to is being held to a consistent standard. Within the natural, rational world, there is no reason to acknowledge the existence of gods as supernatural agents. It's actually comical to see you fundies vilify science and its processes of discovery. You will want to hold science to a standard of demonstration while at the same time, requiring "belief" alone is the only standard for your claims to magic. From the fundie side, we're left with claims of the supernatural - for which there are none – as qualifying for consideration in the natural, rational world. What you’re hoping to accomplish is to avoid actually supporting your claims. Please identify for us why your religious beliefs are held to a standard that is different from the one placed on science.

If all he did was defend his basic claim, as you call it, no one would pay any attention to him.

not to mention, his book would have been a lot shorter.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

How do you establish which supernatural phenomenoms you accept or deny?

its called choice.....many people know how to do it......

Accepting or denying is a choice. You are rewording my question but you are not answering it. Did you miss where I asked how?

inherent in the statement....by choosing to accept or reject what you consider to be evidence......I have accepted things which I have experienced or that people I have confidence in have experienced which you would never consider to be valid evidence......that, however, does not make me wrong and you right.....it merely means we have made different choices.....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sorry, but you fundies spend inordinate amounts of time scurrying around like lab rats in response to anything Dawkins says. Just look through thIs thread to see how many times he causes a panic among you fundies.

Funny how you think you mentioning Dawkins somehow means I am obsessed with him.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Reread what I said. You are missing one word or you are the biggest idiot that ever was.

I am not missing anything, I am refusing to use weasel words in order to make it easier for you to pretend that you have a point.