they believe there is no god.....there fore, they are a faith. the basis of faith is belief without proof. there is no proof of the non-existence of god, there fore they believe something does not exist without proof. you probably think im an idiot though.

but thats just hat i think

Misconception.

you're confusing strong atheism with atheism.

sorry, but the burden of proof rests on the believer, not the skeptic. we don't have to prove that nothing doesn't exist.

let's remove some of those confusing negatives, shall we?

"...there is no proof of the existence of god, therefore they believe something exists without proof..."

i could say that i believe that the universe was spawned from the earwax of a giant turtle, and by your logic, you are taking it on faith if you think that i am wrong. see what i mean? i have to provide some evidence of this gigantic earwax-spewing turtle-god for you to believe it, just like every other religion.

on the other hand, atheism could be constructed in a religious framework, if desired. but that's a whole new can of turtle-earwax...

Atheism doesn't exist as a standalone concept. Atheism was invented as a concept of thinking of not existence of gods as opposite of any religion. Without the existence of the religions there would be no concept of atheism.

Atheists are just normal people who don't care about religion simply becouse it is a proven fact that all religions were invented by people without any evidence of god's existence.

Atheistm is a label for all normal people who don't spend their free time thinking about something their ancestors invented becouse of ignorance.

here is an excerpt from wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism) that may explain it better:

quote:

The claim that atheism requires as much faith or as many unmerited assumptions as theism does is a common theist argument leveled against atheists of all stripes. It is also sometimes used as an argument against strong atheism by weak atheists and agnostics.

At times, this argument consists of laying the burden of proof on atheism, or on both atheism and theism. However, laying the burden of proof on atheism may be unrealistic, as, while it might be theoretically possible to one day find reasonably persuasive evidence of the existence of a deity (though strong agnostics disagree), it seems unlikely that atheism could ever find evidence of a "not-god" anywhere. As such, arguments for atheism consist primarily of arguments against theism, which is in keeping with claims that atheism is only the lack of a belief rather than a belief itself. Some atheists argue that, since they see the burden of proof as being upon theism, they are under no obligation to offer arguments that seek to actively disprove theism. Instead, atheism is the default position that they feel ought to be held unless and until that burden of proof is shouldered.

One atheistic response is to emphasize that atheism is a rejection or lack of belief, not a belief in itself. This argument is often summarized by reference to Don Hirschberg's famous saying, "calling Atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color." [38] A related argument is to point out that adherents of any one particular faith are also atheists with regard to all other religions. Thus, a reductio ad absurdum attaches—believers of one faith are also "atheist believers" of every other religion in existence.

Another atheistic response to this argument is to state that the word "faith" in this context, as asserted with respect to theist "belief" verses atheist "belief," means something very different in the two contexts. Faith can mean 'complete confidence in a person or plan, etc.' Faith can also mean 'a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.' When a theist speaks of his faith, it is argued, he refers to the second definition. When he wishes to assert that "atheists have faith, too", the only definition that fits is the first, but his argument implies the second definition, nonetheless. Just because the English language uses the same word to denote both meanings is not license to use those meanings interchangeably.





[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 02-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by AsylumSeaker:

Misconception.

I'm not even Atheistic and I think this is bullshit.

[This message has been edited by King_Cotton (edited 02-04-2006).]

Without religion, how can there be atheism?

That's like saying you hate nooberculosous, when there's no such disease.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

you're confusing strong atheism with atheism.

Your confusing atheism with agnosticism

Exactly, cool.

Atheism: 1A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1B. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I think it's pretty clear.

Atheism is a belief based on NOTHING other than personal preference, and is devoutly adhered to by it's followers.

Yup, it's a religion.

Atheism requires some degree of belief, yes, but only insomuch that it requires to reject the idea that the Earth is surrounded by perfect, invisible, undetectable flying toasters.

If the Bilbe did not exist, I would agree with your logic entirely.

Since you haven't studied the Bible, I think it isn't logical for you to say that God does not exist, based on the lack of proof.

If you read the Bible, you see the things to look for in our universe that further prove that God exists.

If god made adam out of dirt,

what did he make dirt out of?

*sighs*

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Atheism is a belief based on NOTHING other than personal preference, and is devoutly adhered to by it's followers.

Yup, it's a religion.

1. Wrong. It requires absolutely no faith to say that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god.

2. That is very elementary definition of religion. Arbitrary and vague. Anything could be considered a religion by that definition, even the lack of religion (something which is illogical). That alone is reason to abandon that definition, as unintelligent and unreasonable.

3. If you use that terrible definition, I don't think any atheist would complain. There is nothing wrong in pursuing a principle with devotion. So knock yourself out, say that atheism is a religion by that shitty definition.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-04-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Atheism: 1A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1B. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I think it's pretty clear.

Atheism is a belief based on NOTHING other than personal preference, and is devoutly adhered to by it's followers.

Yup, it's a religion.

dumbshit, you can't use one defintion of faith for athiesm and another for xianity. religion meets definitions of faith 1,2,3,4,5, and 6, while athiesm is only faith within the bounds of definitions 1 and 3. i already addressed this in a previous post.

edit: and how the hell does the bible, written by people, prove god? if i wrote a book about a giant turtle-earwax god, would you take that as proof of it? besides, the bible is abound with earmarks of fiction, like a first-person account of an event that nobody could have seen.

if you believe some signs are fulfilled, than what about edgar cacye, the torah, or the upanishads? there is still no reason to believe in one particular god (other than having been raised into it, or converted at a time of emotional distress)

[This message has been edited by kenwih (edited 02-04-2006).]

a less stupid definition,

Atheism

Etymology

a- + theism

[edit]

Noun

atheism

1. the absence of belief in deities. (weak atheism)

2. the claim that no God or gods exist. (strong atheism)

3. the antonym of theism (belief in a god or gods).

faith

1. Mental acceptance of and confidence in a claim as truth without proof supporting the claim.

I have faith in the goodness of my fellow man.

2. (Christian theology) Belief and trust in God's promises revealed through Christ and the Scriptures.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (Hebrews 11:1)

3. A feeling or belief, that something is true, real, or will happen.

Have faith that the criminal justice system will avenge the murder.

4. A trust in the intentions or abilities of a person or object.

I have faith in a just and loving God.

5. (countable) A system of religious belief.

The Christian faith has been spread by proselytizing.

6. An obligation of loyalty or fidelity.

7. The observance of such an obligation.

He acted in good faith to restore broken diplomatic ties after defeating the incumbent.

8. Hopeful ignorance.

Religion

1. A system of beliefs that involves the existence or nonexistence of at least one of: a human soul or spirit, a deity or higher being, or self after the death of one's body.

* He couldn't abide by any religion that didn't allow for wrongdoers to be punished after death.

2. (uncommon): Any system of beliefs.

Note: this usage is uncommon, see Usage note, below.

* Science is a religion, because it relies on certain fundamentally unprovable ideas, such as the existence of logic.

3. (uncommon): A system of belief predicated on the existence of one or more deities.

Note: this usage is uncommon, see Usage note, below.

* It's not really a religion if there's no god to pray to.

4. A way of living that corresponds to such beliefs.

* You can practice any religion you like, as long as it doesn't require you to violate our laws.

5. A number of customs and rituals associated with such beliefs.

* When it comes to religion, she doesn't believe, but she loves to attend the ceremonies.

6. Anything that involves the association of people in a manner resembling a cult.

* At this point, Star Trek has really become a religion.

7. Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevence in relation to something greater than oneself.

www.wiktionary.org (http://www.wiktionary.org)

Digital, Somehow I'm doubting the integrity of a dictionary that says atheism is immorality

If a dictionary has "immorality" as the definition of athiesm, then the definition was written by a christian.

You DO NOT have to be religious to be moral. People don't kill other people, steal, or lie, because it is in humanities best interest.

If everyone was killing, stealing, lying to everyone else...then there would be no reason for anyone in society to communicate, interact, or even help each other. Society would crumble.

This is simply common sense, it has NOTHING to do with religion.

In fact, you can easily argue religious folk are immoral. Slavery, religious crusades, murder, etc. They might as well write this in with the definition of religion if they are going to do it for aethiesm. Then we can jsut disregard that dictionary all together.

But to say that athiesm = immorality, shows the lack of intelligence of the person. (Same thing applies to religion = morality)

[This message has been edited by Aeon (edited 02-11-2006).]

I am sorry, but there is no other way to read, "A conscientious devotion to a cause, principle, or activity that is pursued."

Atheism is a conscientious devotion to the DISBELIEF or DENIAL OF EXISTENCE of God. A belief that is pursued by the people I see on this very site, since they spend all their time trying to disprove Christianity.

It is a religion, by definition, because everything ELSE that is a conscientious devotion is considered as such.

Christianity is a conscientious devotion to the belief that there is a God.

Islam is a conscientious devotion to the belief that there is a God (Allah).

Buddhism is a conscientious belief in the teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth.

And so on...

Lack of religion is a conscientious devotion to a lack of religion. Therefore the absence of religion is a religion. Your definition has netted you a contradiction, thus we can safely discard the definition as illogical, not valid and useless.

It's simple linguistics. The prefix "a" signifies "a lack of". Therefore, the best definition of atheism is: a lack of belief in a diety. It does not mean that the atheist fervent believes that there is no god. He/she might simply be apathetic ( like me ). It requires absolutely no faith of any kind to be an athiest.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Since you haven't studied the Bible, I think it isn't logical for you to say that God does not exist, based on the lack of proof.

I did study the Bible, and I still thought it was bullshit.

Just to be an asshole...

quote:God made mud, God made dirt, God made boys so girls can flirt.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If the Bilbe did not exist, I would agree with your logic entirely.

Since you haven't studied the Bible, I think it isn't logical for you to say that God does not exist, based on the lack of proof.

If you read the Bible, you see the things to look for in our universe that further prove that God exists.

How many times does the bible contradict it self?

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am sorry, but there is no other way to read, "A conscientious devotion to a cause, principle, or activity that is pursued."

Atheism is a conscientious devotion to the DISBELIEF or DENIAL OF EXISTENCE of God. A belief that is pursued by the people I see on this very site, since they spend all their time trying to disprove Christianity.

It is a religion, by definition, because everything ELSE that is a conscientious devotion is considered as such.

Christianity is a conscientious devotion to the belief that there is a God.

Islam is a conscientious devotion to the belief that there is a God (Allah).

Buddhism is a conscientious belief in the teaching of Buddha that life is permeated with suffering caused by desire, that suffering ceases when desire ceases, and that enlightenment obtained through right conduct and wisdom and meditation releases one from desire and suffering and rebirth.

And so on...

Notice the tag (UN-FUCKING-COMMON) next to your definition

Who cares?

Let people think what they want. Chances are that semantics arnt going to affect their beliefs or lack thereof.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Atheism: 1A. Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods. 1B. The doctrine that there is no God or gods. 2. Godlessness; immorality.

Faith: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

I think it's pretty clear.

Atheism is a belief based on NOTHING other than personal preference, and is devoutly adhered to by it's followers.

Yup, it's a religion.

Asshole. There are FOUR MORE definitions in dictionary.com:

re·li·gion

1.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

4/ A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.



You are a liar, Digital Saviour. You cover up the truth with your own "half-truth". Quit religion, seriously. I think Rust explained how a "lack of a religion is a religion" is a fallacy.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

Yup, it's a religion.

Bald is a hair color and Elvis never did no drugs (http://tinyurl.com/c3f96).

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:



Religion: A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

Yup, it's a religion.

Thats a non-sequitor.

For atheism to be a religion atheists would have to pursue it with zeal or conscientious devotion. Atheists don't have zeal.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

I am sorry, but there is no other way to read, "A conscientious devotion to a cause, principle, or activity that is pursued."

Atheism is a conscientious devotion to the DISBELIEF or DENIAL OF EXISTENCE of God. A belief that is pursued by the people I see on this very site, since they spend all their time trying to disprove Christianity.

It is a religion, by definition, because everything ELSE that is a conscientious devotion is considered as such.

Christianity is a conscientious devotion to the belief that there is a God...

Atheism is NOT a conscientious devotion to the DISBELIEF or DENIAL OF EXISTENCE of God.

Devotion is the word that makes this statement wrong. I am not (I am sure many others too) are not "devoted" to our disbelief. We simply haven't had significant proof to convince us that we should be "devoted".

So for example, if one day it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt that God existed, than I would believe he exists. But I do not spend my time to 'disprove' God, because I feel that the lack of proof speaks for itself.

As for as I am concerned, I, nor anyone else, truly knows anything about God's existence. People feel that they do, but nobody really does. So for now, I don't feel he exists. But that doesn't mean it can't change one day.

Also to use the words "DENIAL OF EXISTENCE OF GOD", I also feel is faulty to describe atheism. Because this assumes that he does, for a fact exist, and that we are in denial of that. But that is where the problem comes in, we don't believe God exists in the first place, because there is no good/logical reason to.

So really, it is more like, the religious followers, deny the possibility that their God doesn't exist.

Notice I say "possibility", because proof that he does exist, or the fact he doesn't isn't really possible.

So I live on the side of the skeptic, where I feel the burden of proof is on those who want to show God exists. Where as, the rest of us non-believers don't really care to prove he doesn't exist. (except for those extreme atheist's who are a different breed)

So basically, I do not think atheism is a religon. The only reason "non-believers" have a name is, because there are those who choose to believe in a deity. By default, when people are born, they are not born religious. They are usually raised to be, or choose to be once they have become mature enough to make that decision.

The natural state of the born human being is atheism. So if it were not for those who choose to believe in deities, then there would be no way to describe an atheist. Basically, atheism wouldn't exist if religions didn't exist. Again, atheism is not a religion, but the lack of one.

But really there is no point in arguing about the interpretation of the definition of religion. If you feel that atheism is really a religion, then you have a different interpretation than the rest of us who clearly think the opposite.

Either way, we don't believe in a deity or maintain religious atheist-articles of faith

quote:Originally posted by masteroftheobvious:

they believe there is no god.....there fore, they are a faith. the basis of faith is belief without proof. there is no proof of the non-existence of god, there fore they believe something does not exist without proof. you probably think im an idiot though.

but thats just hat i think



Sorry nooblet, but belief is not faith. Faith is belief without evidence (objective evidence). There is no (objective) evidence for god, thus belief in god is faith.

EDIT: Forgot to mention that god is non-falsifiable. There can never be proof god doesn't exist (although there could be proof that god does exist, if god exists).

Now, many non-religious people do have faith based beliefs. Superstitions and pseudoscience are a obvious examples. As the point has been made already, atheism is the anti-belief in god. It's more of a label than anything else. It requires that OTHERS believe in god. Labels like atheism and secularism are not useful, we would be better of fnot using them at all.

But if one were to take a rational look at the evidence they would conclude (1) that God is nonfalsifiable thus there can NEVER be proof god doesnt exist, (2) no evidence exists for god, and (3) given (1) and (2), postulating the existence of god solves nothing (on the rational level).

Now if you want to take an emotional (internal/subjective) approach, then belief in god can solve a great deal.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 02-16-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

If you read the Bible, you see the things to look for in our universe that further prove that God exists.

Now you do know that the bible was written over a few hundred years, in many parts, by humans, right? The only thing God would have written of it were the ten commandments if we take it literally.

Hell, we should all be worshiping to the Greek gods. At least their stories had fucking in the same way that we have it, now.

~~~

Atheism is a lack of belief in religion. Without what a person would consider enough proof or faith (and most Atheism lack faith in faith, itself), there is nothing to believe in.

Don't see why this is an issue at all. If you want to believe in God, go for it. If you don't, then don't. But no one can truly know either way (if you want to prove me wrong, go right ahead) so it really doesn't matter.

So let's all just try and make this life the best we can, and worry about the next one when it happens. ;P

quote:Originally posted by masteroftheobvious:

they believe there is no god.....there fore, they are a faith. the basis of faith is belief without proof. there is no proof of the non-existence of god, there fore they believe something does not exist without proof. you probably think im an idiot though.

but thats just hat i think

I don't believe in God.

Nobody's convinced me God exists.

Therefore I remain not believing in God.

Is this a belief?

quote:Originally posted by TheDeadOne:

I don't believe in God.

Nobody's convinced me God exists.

Therefore I remain not believing in God.

Is this a belief?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Wrong. It requires absolutely no faith to say that there is no evidence supporting the existence of a god.

1. Faith is required to believe that our existence was not spawned by a creator.

2. There is plenty of evidence supporting the existence of God. If you have ignored it, that's your problem.

quote:2. That is very elementary definition of religion. Arbitrary and vague. Anything could be considered a religion by that definition, even the lack of religion (something which is illogical). That alone is reason to abandon that definition, as unintelligent and unreasonable.

The definition does not support your beliefs, so now it's too elementary to accept ? *LOL*

The definition is the definition. If you're going to play semantics with the Dictionary, then you'd better just stop speaking altogether, because every word and every phrase should be subject to the same scrutiny and doubt.

A complete lack of religion, as far as spirituality is concerned, can be witnessed in small children. Therefore, it exists. it is not illogical.

And yes, anything could be considered a religion, which is in exact accordance with what God says: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", and then later telling us that ANYTHING can become our god; television, food, sex...whatever we obsess ourselves with become our gods.

Your only reason for abandoning this definition is that it doesn't support your assertions.

How convenient !

quote:3. If you use that terrible definition, I don't think any atheist would complain. There is nothing wrong in pursuing a principle with devotion. So knock yourself out, say that atheism is a religion by that shitty definition.

A pursuance that finds you in an eternal Hell is wrongful.

I have, and will continue to, say that atheism is a devotion to the idea that THERE IS NO GOD, and is therefore a religion.

I don't need your permission or affirmation.

Thanks, though !

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-17-2006).]

Hahahaha...someone just made this for me.



My Tombstone (http://tinyurl.com/asvh9)

Just a little comic relief. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

[This message has been edited by Digital_Savior (edited 02-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Osiris89:

Asshole. There are FOUR MORE definitions in dictionary.com:

re·li·gion

1.

1. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.

2. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.

3. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.

4/ A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.

You are a liar, Digital Saviour. You cover up the truth with your own "half-truth". Quit religion, seriously. I think Rust explained how a "lack of a religion is a religion" is a fallacy.

The rest of the definitions remain valid, but have nothing to do with this conversation, so I didn't see the need to post them.

That doesn't make me a liar, nor does it change the portion of the definition that deals with the conscientious devotion to the BELIEF that God does not exist.

Also, I am a bitch, not an asshole. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by TheLaUghiNgHeretic:

Who cares?

Let people think what they want. Chances are that semantics arnt going to affect their beliefs or lack thereof.

I care that people go to Hell for eternity.

I guess that makes me a terrible person or something.

Ah, the irony !

quote:Originally posted by Alveric:

How many times does the bible contradict it self?



Never.

quote:Originally posted by READKNOWDO:

I did study the Bible, and I still thought it was bullshit.

Just to be an asshole...

God made mud, God made dirt, God made boys so girls can flirt.

What, pray tell, did your "studies" consist of ?

Duration, resources, linguistic ability, translation, historical references...all of this would be pertinent, so if you can specify, that'd be appreciated.

quote:Originally posted by BattleTested:

It's simple linguistics. The prefix "a" signifies "a lack of". Therefore, the best definition of atheism is: a lack of belief in a diety. It does not mean that the atheist fervent believes that there is no god. He/she might simply be apathetic ( like me ). It requires absolutely no faith of any kind to be an athiest.

That's more agnosticism, than anything else.

Anything you believe requires faith, since nothing can truly be proven, spiritually speaking.

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

1. Faith is required to believe that our existence was not spawned by a creator.

2. There is plenty of evidence supporting the existence of God. If you have ignored it, that's your problem.

1. That is not what atheism entails hence that is moot. Not that it would matter since an atheist can have "faith".

2. There is no evidence of the existence of god. If you have ignorantly believed that there is evidence, that is your problem.

quote:The definition does not support your beliefs, so now it's too elementary to accept ? *LOL*

The definition is the definition. If you're going to play semantics with the Dictionary, then you'd better just stop speaking altogether, because every word and every phrase should be subject to the same scrutiny and doubt.

A complete lack of religion, as far as spirituality is concerned, can be witnessed in small children. Therefore, it exists. it is not illogical.

And yes, anything could be considered a religion, which is in exact accordance with what God says: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me.", and then later telling us that ANYTHING can become our god; television, food, sex...whatever we obsess ourselves with become our gods.

Your only reason for abandoning this definition is that it doesn't support your assertions.

How convenient !

Stop putting words in my mouth.

1. I never once said that because it did not support my beliefs it was too elementary, that is a lie on your part. I said that the very fact that it is illogical, broad, and fringe means that it is not a valid definition.

2. I never once said that a lack of religion could not be observed. I said that a lack of religion would be religion under your atrocious definition, which is undeniably illogical, and thus a completely erroneous thing to say.

quote:A pursuance that finds you in an eternal Hell is wrongful.

I have, and will continue to, say that atheism is a devotion to the idea that THERE IS NO GOD, and is therefore a religion.

I don't need your permission or affirmation.

Thanks, though !

And I will continue to show how that definition of religion is fundamentally illogical, unreasonable, broad, and unused in society, as I already have done, and as you have conviniently ignored.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 02-17-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Notice the tag (UN-FUCKING-COMMON) next to your definition

What relevance is there to how common a definition is ? A definition is a definition, for one thing...for another, it is uncommon because atheists have rejected it based on the obvious implications of it.

Kinda like how pro-abortionists call themselves pro-choice. They like it better, because it doesn't make them sound like cold-hearted murderers.

The terminology used does not change the definition of what an abortionist is. They still support the murder of innocent babies, and are therefore PRO-ABORTION !

quote:Originally posted by Digital_Savior:

What relevance is there to how common a definition is ? A definition is a definition, for one thing...for another, it is uncommon because atheists have rejected it based on the obvious implications of it.

Kinda like how pro-abortionists call themselves pro-choice. They like it better, because it doesn't make them sound like cold-hearted murderers.

The terminology used does not change the definition of what an abortionist is. They still support the murder of innocent babies, and are therefore PRO-ABORTION !

I agree with you how atheisism is a "religion", but come on not abortion again. Anti-choice and pro-abortionists. Right to choose, ds. Right to choose!

quote:Originally posted by Dark_Magneto:

Bald is a hair color and Elvis never did no drugs (http://tinyurl.com/c3f96).



I have gone through this video, written down all of the fallacies, and will compile a post refuting the assertions that Penn, Teller, and their "Skeptic" have presented.

Stand by.

(by the way, I own this DVD, and thought about doing a piece on this episode, but lacked the motivation. Now I've got it, so thank you.)

quote:Originally posted by coolwestman:

I agree with you how atheisism is a "religion", but come on not abortion again. Anti-choice and pro-abortionists. Right to choose, ds. Right to choose!

Anti-choice is the way abortionists have manipulated the terminology to make it seem like WE are the bad guys.

PRO-LIFE is what we are called. Because we support life. In all forms. All the time, no matter what the circumstances are. The life of the mother is equally important as the life of the child. We SUPPORT LIFE.

PRO-ABORTION is what they are called. Because they support abortion. ALl the time, no matter what the circumstances are. The life of the mother is MORE important than the life of the child. They SUPPORT ABORTION.

There is no need to play word games with this subject.

That's my point.

WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IF ATHEISM IS A RELIGION OR NOT?

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH IF ATHEISM IS A RELIGION OR NOT?



Nothing, but I suppose even DS can get tired of repeating the same, tired arguements just to have them immediately shot down. Even someone who doesn't know a thing about logic or reason has to understand a few of the refutations offered against her. So things tend to get tangential.

I think that athiesm is a belief, but in a difference sense. It is about what we believe perception and understanding we are truly capable of. Athiests do not believe in the concept of 'soul' because they cannot observe it. Theists believe in 'souls' because they feel it's 'essence' (of sorts) and deem that feeling enough to prove the soul's existance.

Atheists believe in their ability to percieve the world for what it is. Their faith is in themselves. "I cannot see, feel, or hear a soul within me, therefore I believe it doesn't exist."

Whereas a theist says, "I cannot see or feel my soul, but I know that it is because of my own inability to observe it, not that it doesn't exist.

Athiesm isn't "I must see to believe. When I have seen, I believe."

It is "I believe that I am capable of seeing everything that is believable. If I cannot see it, it isn't believable."

Your belief lies not in what you see, but that you are capable of seeing everything that is to be seen. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

change hear, see, feel to measure and that would be somewhat acceptable

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

change hear, see, feel to measure and that would be somewhat acceptable

Yeah, you understand where I'm coming from though.

Basically, what DS is saying is that water is made up of Mercury, Hydrogen, and Oxygen.

2 Hydrogen atoms, 1 Oxygen atom, and 0 Mercury atoms.

When in reality, the number of Mercury atoms would be null.

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

I think that athiesm is a belief, but in a difference sense. It is about what we believe perception and understanding we are truly capable of. Athiests do not believe in the concept of 'soul' because they cannot observe it. Theists believe in 'souls' because they feel it's 'essence' (of sorts) and deem that feeling enough to prove the soul's existance.

Atheists believe in their ability to percieve the world for what it is. Their faith is in themselves. "I cannot see, feel, or hear a soul within me, therefore I believe it doesn't exist."

Whereas a theist says, "I cannot see or feel my soul, but I know that it is because of my own inability to observe it, not that it doesn't exist.

Athiesm isn't "I must see to believe. When I have seen, I believe."

It is "I believe that I am capable of seeing everything that is believable. If I cannot see it, it isn't believable."

Your belief lies not in what you see, but that you are capable of seeing everything that is to be seen. http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/smile.gif)

1. Atheism is not materialism. An atheist does not, necessarily, believe that no soul exists. An atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. He can still believe in spirits, spirituality, soul, "essences", or any other supernatural phenomenon.

Your interpretation, therefore, fails. What you say would apply to a materialist, not an atheist.

2. Defaulting to the position that something does not exist until proven otherwise cannot be honestly compared to saying that something exists when there is absolutely nothing proving that assertion.

Evidence of non-existence is impossible to achieve, and thus to put a burden on someone to prove non-existence would be ridiculous. This is completely different when one states that something exists when one lacks any form of evidence to prove that existence.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. Atheism is not materialism. An atheist does not, necessarily, believe that no soul exists. An atheist simply lacks a belief in a god. He can still believe in spirits, spirituality, soul, "essences", or any other supernatural phenomenon.

Your interpretation, therefore, fails. What you say would apply to a materialist, not an atheist.

So atheists can rule out the possibility of a God by making materialist arguments, yet be spiritual by contradicting the arguments made against God's existance? Either you are a person capable of placing blind faith in an ideal or you aren't.

If an atheist is 'spiritual', they are not an athiest. Atheists don't believe in life after death. To believe in an eternal soul or the existance of 'spirits' is to do so. It may not be any mainstream religion, or one that has even been officially founded, but it is a belief contradictory to standard atheism.

quote:2. Defaulting to the position that something does not exist until proven otherwise cannot be honestly compared to saying that something exists when there is absolutely nothing proving that assertion.

Evidence of non-existence is impossible to achieve, and thus to put a burden on someone to prove non-existence would be ridiculous. This is completely different when one states that something exists when one lacks any form of evidence to prove that existence.

But I was not putting the burden of proof on athiest to prove that a God doesn't exist. I was asking if it is possible for them to:

1) Truly observe everything, and percieve it as it really is. You know philosophy, Rust (probably better than I do). What proof does an athiest have to say "There is no reason for me to believe in a God"? What is it that justifies this reasoning, and how does one know that their justifications are even correct?

2) Building on the questions above, realizing that there isn't even a way to truly 'know' everything that they think they know, are they not placing 'blind faith' in their own ability to properly reason and justify the nonexistance of a God? Atheists disbelieve in God because of science. By doing so, they are placing their belief in the ability of man to percieve and understand something when they aren't even certain if man has the ability to observe it in the first place.

Again, I'm not asking for evidence of non-existance. I'm asking for evidence that humans are truly capable of reasoning the existence or nonexistance of God by any standards (scientific, emotion, personal experience, inexplanable anomolies). Or is it all about blind faith: either in God, or in fellow man and yourself?

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 02-19-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:



So atheists can rule out the possibility of a God by making materialist arguments, yet be spiritual by contradicting the arguments made against God's existance? Either you are a person capable of placing blind faith in an ideal or you aren't.

If an atheist is 'spiritual', they are not an athiest. Atheists don't believe in life after death. To believe in an eternal soul or the existance of 'spirits' is to do so. It may not be any mainstream religion, or one that has even been officially founded, but it is a belief contradictory to standard atheism.

Again, you're incorrect.

1. The definition of atheism does not cover the existence of spirits, or souls. One can be an atheist while at the same time believing in the existence of spirits. Of course, that is not to say that many atheists believe in spirits, souls and the like, but the two are not requirements of atheism. An atheist can believe in life after death, and spirits.

2. An atheist lacks a belief in a god, he does not "rule out the possibility of a God". You're mistaken in this regard as well.

quote:

But I was not putting the burden of proof on athiest to prove that a God doesn't exist. I was asking if it is possible for them to:

1) Truly observe everything, and percieve it as it really is. You know philosophy, Rust (probably better than I do). What proof does an athiest have to say "There is no reason for me to believe in a God"? What is it that justifies this reasoning, and how does one know that their justifications are even correct?

2) Building on the questions above, realizing that there isn't even a way to truly 'know' everything that they think they know, are they not placing 'blind faith' in their own ability to properly reason and justify the nonexistance of a God? Atheists disbelieve in God because of science. By doing so, they are placing their belief in the ability of man to percieve and understand something when they aren't even certain if man has the ability to observe it in the first place.



Your questions are based on an erroneous understanding of atheism, thus they are meaningless. Again, atheism is a lack of belief in a god, not a positive claim or belief that he does not exist. As such, it does not require them to "understand the word correctly" or "observe the universe at it truly is".

quote:

Again, I'm not asking for evidence of non-existance. I'm asking for evidence that humans are truly capable of reasoning the existence or nonexistance of God by any standards (scientific, emotion, personal experience, inexplanable anomolies). Or is it all about blind faith: either in God, or in fellow man and yourself?



I didn't say you were asking for evidence of non-existence, I said you were comparing the two. To compare 'defaulting to the position that something does not exist until proven otherwise' and, 'to believing something does exist with absolutely no evidence', is ridiculous.

So, to be blunt, an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a God, but admits they don't really know whether one exists or not? Then why do so many athiests view theists as inferior (when theists have the same lack of knowledge)?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

So, to be blunt, an atheist is a person who doesn't believe in a God, but admits they don't really know whether one exists or not?

A"weak"-atheist is someone who lacks a belief in god, yes. A strong atheist simply denies that one or more gods exist exist; though that is a less common position among atheists I would say.

Now, the reasons for why they lack a belief (or deny the possibility of a god existing) may vary. Many atheists take the agnostic approach, and lack a belief because they do not know; yet they could lack a belief for other reasons.



quote:

Then why do so many athiests view theists as inferior (when theists have the same lack of knowledge)?

http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

1. Not all atheists view theists as inferior.

2. Not all atheists lack a belief in god(s) because they lack of knowledge.

3. One could see theists as "inferior" when it comes to a specific aspect ("inferior" being your word).

For example, theists are notorious for using logical fallacies. One could be of the belief that they are "inferior" because they posses illogical positions.

No. Atheism is simply the lack of belief a god or gods. Being an atheist does not even require that one has even heard of the concept of gods. It is only within the narrower branch of "strong atheism" in which one actually denies the existance of a god.

Agnostism is the belief that knowledge of gods is unknown or unknowable. Athough they do not believe that gods do not exist they also do not belief that they do exist-they lack belief in gods. Agnostics are an example of "weak atheists". It should be noted that everyone is either a theist or an atheist and that agnostism only appears to be a third and seperate position when atheism is narrowly and incorrectly defines as the belief that there are no gods (strong atheism)

Elephantitis, you're sort of leaning towards solipsism. Do you know why I said measure elephantitis? Because there exist some things that man cannot percieve such as electricity.

However being able to measure something is different, we can use intrsuments to percieve for us and translate it into something we can understand. Consider this in your next posts.

Good job clearing up the sematics Rust. Thanks.

But I would like to point out that even a strong denial of the existence of god is not a "faith" or "religion." There is no faith if the belief is based on evidence. For example, if one looks at the evidence and concludes that the probability of god is infinitesimal this is not a leap of faith. It's a logical reasoning based on evidence.

Now, if one believes in things that are not falsifiable or believes in things with no evidentiary support, then that is faith.



[This message has been edited by Real.PUA (edited 02-20-2006).]