Is Atheism a religion?

WinterBorn said:
I didn't realize that Texas prohibited atheists from holding office as well, Thorn. The North Carolina thing has been discussed here before. Also, there was an atheist elected to the city council in Asheville NC this year, and was affirmed into office just a week or so ago.

Apparently the state realized what a can of worms it would be opening if it challenged it.
Click to expand...

I don't know......since by definition an atheist is someone acting in faith who thinks he is being rational, I expect a strong argument could be made that they are incapable of holding an elected office simply on the basis of incompetence.....
 
Damocles said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...

I have plenty of evidence to back my worldview up, from cosmic radiation to the fossil record. By beliefs derive from the evidence I see and observe, and my conclusions follow said evidence logically.

Theists on the otherhand, do not support their beliefs by evidence. The holy bible is NOT evidence because it is not falsifiable. No matter what contrary evidence is presented to a theist, their beliefs will remain in tact, because their beliefs DO NOT derive from evidence, but rather, the lack of it. If god came down from the clouds tomorrow, my worldview would be changed. When more and more science comes out that explains our universe more and more fully, theists will still cling to the notion of an invisible man in the sky.

That is the difference.

I call myself an atheist because for all intents and purposes, that is what I am. I understand the logic that I can not 100% disprove of a non-falsifiable claim and an invisible god. But I consider calling myself an agnostic simply not practical anymore that it would be for me to call myself an invisible unicorn agnostic.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist.
 
Watermark said:
But I do not believe there is not woman in a shoe, I just don't happen to believe in it. If presented with a woman in a large shoe, I would see her and be like "Gollly gee, how strange!" and be on my way. If a Christian were presented with Allah, they would not act similarly.

And if someone starts to preach to everyone that there IS a woman in a large shoe, that would be fine to, it would just be very silly and I would hope they'd keep it to themselves. If they, like religion, demanded everyone else listen to their arguments in favor or their belief, demanded the government erect monuments in favor of their shoe-belief, demanded that everyone show the utmost respect for their belief in a the woman in the shoe, then they wold be a very silly person, worthy of mocking and derision. We would all question their sanity, and if they ever ran for higher office, I'd point out there stupid belief and silly demands to everyone and ask "do you think this sort of person can really represent you rationally?"

But when you label that kind of thinking "religion"...
Click to expand...
Then you are agnostic and just incapable of understanding the actual meaning of words. An atheist is certain of the existence of the "womanless shoe"...

Vote as you will, but the attempt to make everybody that serves in government believe solely as you do is as abhorrent as any Christian attempting to do the same.
 
εxoendo;572143 said:
I have plenty of evidence to back my worldview up, from cosmic radiation to the fossil record. By beliefs derive from the evidence I see and observe, and my conclusions follow said evidence logically.

Theists on the otherhand, do not support their beliefs by evidence. The holy bible is NOT evidence because it is not falsifiable. No matter what contrary evidence is presented to a theist, their beliefs will remain in tact, because their beliefs DO NOT derive from evidence, but rather, the lack of it. If god came down from the clouds tomorrow, my worldview would be changed. When more and more science comes out that explains our universe more and more fully, theists will still cling to the notion of an invisible man in the sky.

That is the difference.

I call myself an atheist because for all intents and purposes, that is what I am. I understand the logic that I can not 100% disprove of a non-falsifiable claim and an invisible god. But I consider calling myself an agnostic simply not practical anymore that it would be for me to call myself an invisible unicorn agnostic.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist.
Click to expand...
None of those things are evidence that there is no Deity. In fact, none of those things are evidence against a Deity. And eyewitness testimony is evidence, even if it isn't falsifiable.

I notice you didn't mention that many parts of the Bible are falsifiable. One can simply go look for the towns mentioned in the Bible to see if an archaeologist can uncover it...
 
εxoendo;572143 said:
I have plenty of evidence to back my worldview up, from cosmic radiation to the fossil record. By beliefs derive from the evidence I see and observe, and my conclusions follow said evidence logically.

Theists on the otherhand, do not support their beliefs by evidence. The holy bible is NOT evidence because it is not falsifiable. No matter what contrary evidence is presented to a theist, their beliefs will remain in tact, because their beliefs DO NOT derive from evidence, but rather, the lack of it. If god came down from the clouds tomorrow, my worldview would be changed. When more and more science comes out that explains our universe more and more fully, theists will still cling to the notion of an invisible man in the sky.

That is the difference.

I call myself an atheist because for all intents and purposes, that is what I am. I understand the logic that I can not 100% disprove of a non-falsifiable claim and an invisible god. But I consider calling myself an agnostic simply not practical anymore that it would be for me to call myself an invisible unicorn agnostic.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist.
Click to expand...

the bible is in fact evidence. this has been shown to you numerous times and just because you repeat it isn't, doesn't make it true....

you don't have any logical proof or material evidence for atheism.....this it is nothing more than faith.....

further, nothing above shows god doesn't exist
 
the burden of proof is on those that make a claim. This is how all logical debate takes place. I do not believe in that which I do not have evidence for.

Watermark has already outlined the spectrum of believers. We have admitted that we ourselves are level 6, as are most atheists if you were to push them in a corner. The existence of god is so small that it is simply improbable and not worth considering. We are de facto atheists. It is simply a waste of time to call ourselves agnostics just as it would be a waste of time for you to call yourself a unicorn agnostic.
 
εxoendo;572160 said:
the burden of proof is on those that make a claim. This is how all logical debate takes place. I do not believe in that which I do not have evidence for.

Watermark has already outlined the spectrum of believers. We have admitted that we ourselves are level 6, as are most atheists if you were to push them in a corner. The existence of god is so small that it is simply improbable and not worth considering. We are de facto atheists. It is simply a waste of time to call ourselves agnostics just as it would be a waste of time for you to call yourself a unicorn agnostic.
Click to expand...
Translation: Instead of accuracy, we want to "feel cool" so we are going to reject the actual meaning of things and promote a faith we merely find very minutely probable...

Yup. That all makes sense.
 
Yurt said:
the bible is in fact evidence. this has been shown to you numerous times and just because you repeat it isn't, doesn't make it true....
Click to expand...

I have a redbull can on my desk. I am going to claim it as evidence of a giant galactic unicorn.

Just because I claim something as evidence, does not make it so. At least NOT IN A PRACTICAL sense. Evidence (at least evidence worth considering) has to point in a certain direction.

The bible is not evidence of god because many of the claims of divinity are non falsifiable. Non falsifiable evidence is essentially a redundant phrase
 
Damocles said:
Translation: Instead of accuracy, we want to "feel cool" so we are going to reject the actual meaning of things and promote a faith we merely find very minutely probable...

Yup. That all makes sense.
Click to expand...

Agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.

"As such, the term agnostic does not necessarily signal a particular view about religion or a deity, as some agnostics also identify as theists or atheists."

There are also many types of agnosticism:

"
Strong agnosticism (also called "hard," "closed," "strict," or "permanent agnosticism")the view that the question of the existence or nonexistence of a deity or deities and the nature of ultimate reality is unknowable by reason of our natural inability to verify any experience with anything but another subjective experience. A strong agnostic would say, "I cannot know whether a deity exists or not, and neither can you."

Agnostic atheismthe view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but do not believe in any.[14]

Agnostic theism (also called "spiritual agnosticism")the view of those who do not claim to know of the existence of any deity, but still believe in such an existence."


Watermark and I are agnostic atheists. Your mockery of us insinuating that we are trying to "be cool" and rejecting "the meaning of things" is either you being deliberately obtuse or you speaking from ignorance
 
εxoendo;572143 said:
I
I call myself an atheist because for all intents and purposes, that is what I am. I understand the logic that I can not 100% disprove of a non-falsifiable claim and an invisible god. But I consider calling myself an agnostic simply not practical anymore that it would be for me to call myself an invisible unicorn agnostic.

For all intents and purposes, I am an atheist.
Click to expand...

improper nomenclature.....if you denied the existence of a god you are an a-theist.....if you deny the existence of unicorns you would be an a-unicornist....
 
εxoendo;572162 said:
I have a redbull can on my desk. I am going to claim it as evidence of a giant galactic unicorn.

Just because I claim something as evidence, does not make it so. At least NOT IN A PRACTICAL sense. Evidence (at least evidence worth considering) has to point in a certain direction.

The bible is not evidence of god because many of the claims of divinity are non falsifiable. Non falsifiable evidence is essentially a redundant phrase
Click to expand...

it is testimonial evidence....you may discount that evidence or not believe it, but it is still evidence....

sorry, but that is the way it is....
 
Watermark said:
Ridiculous. I do not have to present evidence against God to say "I do not believe in God". All I have to do is point out the lack of evidence IN THE OTHER DIRECTION.

This is nothing more than an annoying philosophical error. If you aren't even going to listen to what I'm saying and are just going to repeat this point that's already been debunked quite thoroughly over and over and over again I see no reason to even argue with you. I'll just let it settle in that you're wrong.
Click to expand...

There is NO EVIDENCE that God does not exist. In fact there does exist evidence to an order to our universe as opposed to a disorder. Those who believe in a Supreme Creator believed before science ever "proved" an orderered universe which in the very least allows for the possibility of a creative force. Christians have a personalized relationship with this creative force. You merely refuse to subscribe to the idea that the created order has a creator....You instead choose to "believe" in no god and practice the religion of atheism.
 
My atheism is that I believe in something only when there is evidence for it. There is no evidence for God, therefore, I don't believe in him. Any attempt skew atheism any other way makes it not my atheism, and you're not fighting against me anymore, so the debate is pointless.
 
Last edited:
Watermark said:
My atheism is that I believe in things only when there are evidence for them. There is no evidence for God, therefore, I don't believe in him. Any attempt skew atheism any other way makes it not my atheism, and you're not fighting against me anymore, so they debate is pointless.
Click to expand...

:palm:

there is evidence...just because you don't accept or believe the evidence doesn't mean it is not evidence....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top