Is Atheism a religion?
- Thread starter BRUTALITOPS
- Start date
only if you are a retarded simpleton. Yes we could say not believing in something is the belief of not believing. We could also say that most religions is a non-belief of not believing in the believing of something.
Don't you see how fucking stupid that is? Rent a brain.
Don't you see how fucking stupid that is? Rent a brain.
Faith is the confident belief or trust in the truth or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.[1][2] The word "faith" can refer to a religion itself or to religion in general. As with "trust", faith involves a concept of future events or outcomes, and is used conversely for a belief "not resting on logical proof or material evidence."[3][4
One doesn't have to believe in something to be using faith. It is the certainty factor. To pretend that you are certain of something, so certain that you HAVE to convince others of the "rightness" of your belief, and that something cannot be proven or disproven then you are a faith practitioner.εxoendo;571867 said:
Logic tells us one can doubt, even cynically and heavily, the existence of God logically from evidence or the lack thereof, but one cannot be certain without taking that leap of faith.
Thankfully I already own a high-functioning brain. Only the mentally poor need to rent. You can tell they are renting because they speak mostly in quotes...
Anyway, Atheism only becomes a religion when people start to "merge" and then become evangelists for their new faith. They begin to start threads and work terribly hard at convincing other people how "right" they are. Once they start acting like a religion, then they are religiously Atheist... it actually doesn't happen all that often, but it is my opinion that Atheism can be, and sometimes is, a religion.
"A faith" (I am not going to let you weasel out of using the article 'a') is the belief in something that does not depend on logical proof or material evidence. THIS IS NOT what atheism is. Atheism is the rejection of religious theist dogma AND NOTHING MORE.
Often people will wish to discuss the many tenants and beliefs that atheists share (such as evolution) because often those beliefs go hand in hand. But that distracts from the debate. There is no system to atheism. There is no list of "The top 5 things all atheists must believe" One could be an atheist and believe we are in the matrix. Such a belief wouldn't change the fact they dont believe in god.
I think we have to remind ourselves, when discussing atheism, the only thing atheism concerns itself with is the REJECTION OF theist supernatural gods. And THAT is not faith.
Often people will wish to discuss the many tenants and beliefs that atheists share (such as evolution) because often those beliefs go hand in hand. But that distracts from the debate. There is no system to atheism. There is no list of "The top 5 things all atheists must believe" One could be an atheist and believe we are in the matrix. Such a belief wouldn't change the fact they dont believe in god.
I think we have to remind ourselves, when discussing atheism, the only thing atheism concerns itself with is the REJECTION OF theist supernatural gods. And THAT is not faith.
It isn't the same thing to all people.εxoendo;571879 said:
Again. In order to be so certain that you think it is so relevant that you have to convince me of it makes it something you don't want it to be. Agnostics reject dogma, they are not "atheist". One can make even agnosticism a religion, they can certainly make atheism a religion. If Theravada Buddhism (no deity at all) can be considered a religion, so can this, when it acts like it.
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck... it's probably a duck.
Your eagerness to convince me itself becomes an urge for evangelism that is the first danger sign of making this into a religion. You may want to use that rented brain for a bit.
I am now going to address your asinine assertion that not believing in god "to a 100% certainty" is a leap of faith. In any practical stretch of the imagination, it is not.
Technically, in the real sense of the word, atheists are agnostic, almost all would admit this if you unnecessarily backed them into a corner and wasted their time with such a stupid question. I am an agnostic, watermark even, is an agnostic.
The problem is, we can be agnostic about an infinite number of possibilities concerning the universe. We technically have to be an agnostic for ANY non-falsifiable claim.
You can't PROVE that there isn't invisible teacups orbiting our moon.
You can't PROVE there isn't a giant unicorn in the center of the galaxy that reads your thoughts.
You can't disprove EITHER of those things to a 100% certainty. Do you go around calling yourself a teacup agnostic? A unicorn agnostic?
No. Because the question is SO RIDICULOUS on it's face. Are you taking a leap of faith each time you reject the infinite amount of non-falsifiable possibilities in the universe?
In terms of real world application it's an irrelevant question to even consider.
The debate itself is worthless.
Teacups. Unicorn. God. All of the same cloth.
Leap of faith? Hardly. More like a tiny step of faith that traverses millionths of nanometers to the point of it being statistically insignificant.
Technically, in the real sense of the word, atheists are agnostic, almost all would admit this if you unnecessarily backed them into a corner and wasted their time with such a stupid question. I am an agnostic, watermark even, is an agnostic.
The problem is, we can be agnostic about an infinite number of possibilities concerning the universe. We technically have to be an agnostic for ANY non-falsifiable claim.
You can't PROVE that there isn't invisible teacups orbiting our moon.
You can't PROVE there isn't a giant unicorn in the center of the galaxy that reads your thoughts.
You can't disprove EITHER of those things to a 100% certainty. Do you go around calling yourself a teacup agnostic? A unicorn agnostic?
No. Because the question is SO RIDICULOUS on it's face. Are you taking a leap of faith each time you reject the infinite amount of non-falsifiable possibilities in the universe?
In terms of real world application it's an irrelevant question to even consider.
The debate itself is worthless.
Teacups. Unicorn. God. All of the same cloth.
Leap of faith? Hardly. More like a tiny step of faith that traverses millionths of nanometers to the point of it being statistically insignificant.
I am not trying to convince you of anything. This is a debate site, constructed for debate. I don't care which side of the coin you fall on. There has been misinformation circulating on this site and I am clearing some of that up.
Mainly, it is dealing with peoples misunderstanding of what agnosticism is, what atheism is, what "a faith" is. They are bad, often logically fallacious arguments, and whether it was religion or chocolate chip cookies, I want to clear up bad arguments.
You most certainly are trying to convince me that your illogical, "believing in this to a certainty without the evidence to back it up, is different than believing that to a certainty without the evidence to back it up," is somehow the right way to view things.εxoendo;571890 said:
If you are an agnostic then you should call yourself an agnostic.
Which neither changes or makes your insistence that certainty isn't faith when you do not have the evidence to back it up either right or logical.
Can you prove that no shoes can be built larger? Can you prove that any other place may not have that exact scenario?
Personally I seriously doubt that there is a woman who lives in a shoe, but cannot with certainty say that it is not a possibility however remote. So, yes. If I took that leap to certainty then I'd be into the area of faith.
Now, at that point I'd be in the realm of faith, but not religion. But if I thought it was so important to make you believe in no shoe-dwelling women and started to proselytize my belief onto others, then I'd be getting into that realm of religion.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
let's see....."There is no god" is a belief held in the absence of any evidence...
there is an "apostle's creed"....
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
there is "scripture", though it exists in a million cut and pastes, it can be accessed at your favorite AtheistsRUs website.....
it even has it's rabbais.........
http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-Against-Christianity
there is an "apostle's creed"....
http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I
there is "scripture", though it exists in a million cut and pastes, it can be accessed at your favorite AtheistsRUs website.....
it even has it's rabbais.........
http://www.wikihow.com/Argue-Against-Christianity
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
thanks....I love it when people prove themselves wrong....
this is why you should not be an atheist.....it is wrong to conclude "NOT" from an absence of evidence......
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
εxoendo;571888 said:
bullshit....atheists are atheists and agnostics are agnostics.....you might just as well say that "technically" all Muslims and Christians are Jews.....
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
εxoendo;571867 said:
Actually, it IS most certainly a FAITH. For people who do not care one way or another... they are agnostic.
For people who insist that God(s) exists or does not exist, they are all taking that on FAITH. None of them can prove it one way or another.
So the question I have for atheists is this.....
Why do you fucking care if someone believes in God or not? or puts up signs with the commandments on them or not? As long as they are not forcing you to believe in their religion or God.... then why the fuck do you care?
Topspin
Verified User
cause all your republican morons want to impose it through the Goverment. You fucking fundamentalist Christian terrorist.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
if that were true, you'd be Pope......