U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

Cypress said:
There might be no ultimate purpose to life, and morality might just be a matter of opinion, with no objective moral standard. I am not the final arbiter on it.

That is fine for atheists to believe, but it is an aspect of atheism I do not find particularly appealing.
Click to expand...

And that's fine. There are lots of things we all find unappealing.


Cypress said:
A belief that there is no ultimate justice means Joseph Stalin died peacefully in his Dacha, and got away scott free for a lifetime of mass murder, cruelty, and diabolical inhumanity.

A belief that that morality is a matter of opinion, and that there is no objective ontological standard of morality we can appeal to means Hitler and the millions of Germans who supported him could justify their belief that the murder of Jews, gypsies, and the disabled was perfectly justifiable in the interests of the Aryan peoples.
Click to expand...

So you don't like the philosophy because it doesn't feel like enough punishment is available for true evil. Is that right?

That kind of sounds like how you characterize atheists as being angry at god for not getting a bicycle when they asked for it. Sounds like you don't like atheism because it isn't brutal enough on the baddies.

Guess that's fair enough.
 
Hume said:
you are a moron
Click to expand...
i-know-youare-what-am-i.gif
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Refusing to believe something when there is no evidence of its existence is not the same thing as believing something when there is no evidence of its existence.
Click to expand...

Remember: by this reasoning they only have a BELIEF that Santa isn't real. They only have a BELIEF that the Easter Bunny isn't real.

Actually if that is how they really and truly live I'm fine with it. I highly DOUBT that they actually have that system of belief, but since they demand it from others it would only be fair if they lived by their own dictates.
 
Obtenebrator said:
LOL. It's hilarious that you are so upset over your lack of ability to understand pretty straightforward point, but it's kinda sad that this is all you can muster in defense of your own point.

I guess I should try to find educated people to discuss these things with rather than you. :)
Click to expand...
Go fuck yourself.
 
Cypress said:
I agree with most of that, except your statement that the bible was written out of self serving motivations.

There are many stories in the bible that cast an unfavorable light on Israelite kings, Hebrew tribes, the disciples of Jesus.

In critical literary analysis, it is understood by convention that anyone writing propaganda is not going to include embarrassing, humiliating, or degrading stories. That's why to some extent, the bible is considered something of a primary written source for the study of certain aspects of antiquity.
Click to expand...
I accept that you disagree with that part.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Refusing to believe something when there is no evidence of its existence is not the same thing as believing something when there is no evidence of its existence.
Click to expand...
Correct.

BUT...most people who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor do so for reasons more involved than simply refusing to believe there is a god. The DO believe there are no gods...or believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If you can name an atheist who does not believe one of those things...we can discuss it. But I GUESS that EVERY person who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor DOES BELIEVE ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

I cannot see how anyone using such a descriptor would do so if that is not the case.

Can you?
 
Ross Dolan said:
Correct.

BUT...most people who use "atheist" as a self-descriptor do so for reasons more involved than simply refusing to believe there is a god. The DO believe there are no gods...or believe it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.Mo

If you can name an atheist who does not believe one of those things...we can discuss it. But I GUESS that EVERY person who uses "atheist" as a self-descriptor DOES BELIEVE ONE OF THOSE THINGS.

I cannot see how anyone using such a descriptor would do so if that is not the case.

Can you?
Click to expand...
More blind guesses.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
not that I think the government is doing anything that qualifies, none of those require the government to DEFINE religion.....one other hand, they are banned from IMPOSING a religion.........I think it may be necessary to define religion in order to make sure they aren't imposing one.....
Click to expand...
If they pass no laws affecting religion that is guaranteeing they are not establishing any. That issue has been dealth with in the past through Supreme Court interpretation for issues like school prayer, Bible reading, etc.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
:eyeroll:
Click to expand...
Let's explore this further since you can't seem to keep your head on your shoulders.

I believe that there is not a river running through my living room.
1. I don't see one there. 2. I don't hear water running. 3. I don't get wet when I walk through my living room. 4. I have never seen or caught a fish in my living room.
My belief is based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.

You argue that my belief is exactly the same as someone that believes there is a river running through my living room with no evidence to support that belief. The person arguing that the river exists could just claim. 1. The river is invisible. 2. The river makes no sound. 3. The river is completely dry and you don't get wet when you are in it. 4. It doesn't have fish.

The person who believes that there is a river in my living room simply changes his standards of what a river is to always allow for that river to exist.
All I do is create an objective standard and test against that standard.

You are free to argue that atheists have set an unrealistic standard but that is based on a standard that is created by people that believe in a god that they can simply change to always make exist.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Let's explore this further since you can't seem to keep your head on your shoulders.

I believe that there is not a river running through my living room.
1. I don't see one there. 2. I don't hear water running. 3. I don't get wet when I walk through my living room. 4. I have never seen or caught a fish in my living room.
My belief is based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.

You argue that my belief is exactly the same as someone that believes there is a river running through my living room with no evidence to support that belief. The person arguing that the river exists could just claim. 1. The river is invisible. 2. The river makes no sound. 3. The river is completely dry and you don't get wet when you are in it. 4. It doesn't have fish.

The person who believes that there is a river in my living room simply changes his standards of what a river is to always allow for that river to exist.
All I do is create an objective standard and test against that standard.

You are free to argue that atheists have set an unrealistic standard but that is based on a standard that is created by people that believe in a god that they can simply change to always make exist.
Click to expand...
Freshman intro to logic. Amazing how many people don't know simple logic.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
Refusing to believe something when there is no evidence of its existence is not the same thing as believing something when there is no evidence of its existence.
Click to expand...
While eye witness testimony is not the best evidence it is certainly evidence. You can choose to say that it isn't, but it is. I think it falls short of proof, but saying there is "zero evidence" is not a "Truth". Folks who believe in the Bible think the witnesses testimony is compelling, you and I likely do not, it does not change its nature and make it "not evidence".
 
Damocles said:
While eye witness testimony is not the best evidence it is certainly evidence. You can choose to say that it isn't, but it is. I think it falls short of proof, but saying there is "zero evidence" is not a "Truth". Folks who believe in the Bible think the witnesses testimony is compelling, you and I likely do not, it does not change its nature and make it "not evidence".
Click to expand...
Yes. It counts as evidence. Very poor evidence.
 
Anyone here who uses the word "atheist" as a self-descriptor or part of a self-descriptor...

...who does not believe one of these two:

There are no gods...

It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?
Damocles said:
You can choose to say that it isn't, but it is.
Click to expand...
 
Obtenebrator said:
And that's fine. There are lots of things we all find unappealing.





So you don't like the philosophy because it doesn't feel like enough punishment is available for true evil. Is that right?

That kind of sounds like how you characterize atheists as being angry at god for not getting a bicycle when they asked for it. Sounds like you don't like atheism because it isn't brutal enough on the baddies.

Guess that's fair enough.
Click to expand...
Thanks for tacitly confessing that the core of atheism is there's no ultimate purpose and no ultimate justice.

That may be true, but it's not very appealing to many people.

So you have no retort to the concept of subjective morality just being a matter of opinion. Hitler and Stalin had a subjective morality based on opinion, and they had millions of supporters.

The only reason we could put the Nazis on trial at Nuremberg, is because most of humanity believes there is an objective, ontological morality beyond human opinion that we can appeal to.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Atheism is a belief system, however someone defines it for themselves. Atheism requires a belief there is no god just as Theism requires a belief that there is a God. Everything else that surrounds that in terms of some religion is window dressing, so-to-speak.

What I don't get is why Atheists are so upset when someone points out that their beliefs amount to a religious system. Atheists don't actually know that a god doesn't exist anymore than Theists know that one does. But both believe what they believe about the existence of god.

Now, if you don't give a shit about whether there is a god or not, then just call yourself a "secularist" because that is accurate. Religion is irrelevant to you and the debate is over. The worst is an Atheist, that pisses and moans about their belief there is no god being called a religion. They are lying to themselves for some idiot reason.
Click to expand...
T. A. Gardner:

You are stating your personal opinion. Evidence for the existence of a supernatural Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah God is seen in our fine-tuned universe and everything around us, unless you want to claim they came into existence by themselves.

Romans 1:20​

For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.
 
Hume said:
You believe that. Not a tenet of atheism.
Click to expand...
Subjective morality based on opinion has been a core tenet of atheist thinkers from Sartre to Hitchens.

Your insinuation that atheists are passionate believers in an objective ontological morality doesn't pass the laugh test.

According to atheism, what ultimate justice did Joseph Stalin receive? Or did he just get away scot free with a lifetime of diabolical cruelty?


If you are suddenly finding yourself uncomfortable with the pricetag atheistic belief ultimately comes with, welcome to my world. I think atheists could be right, but the pricetag required for atheist belief is still unappealing.

Maybe that's why atheists are never more than a tiny minority of people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top