U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Hume]

Subjective morality based on opinion has been a core tenet of atheists thinkers from Sartre to Hitchens.

False.

 

[Hume]

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

Hard to debate you. You make up stuff I never say.

 

[Hume]

Maybe that's why atheists are never more than a tiny minority of people.

Atheists have always been the intellectuals and political leaders of nations.
You're just a follower.

 

[domer76]

It is not only a difference...if is a HUGE difference.


What a person "believes" makes absolutely no difference to the reality. If a person "believes" there are no gods...and there actually is a god...then the person is wrong in what they "believe."

Conversely, if a person "believes" there is a god...and there actually are no gods...then the person is wrong in what they "believe."

If a person "believes" there is a god...but the reality is that there are no gods...the person can believe what they want, but are wrong. The person HAS NO GOD if there are no gods...no matter what they believe.

Same thing from the other perspective: If a person "believes" there are no gods...but the reality is that there is a god...the person can believe whatever it is they want, but they are wrong. The person HAS A GOD if a god actually exists no matter what they believe.

Think about it. It makes perfect sense.




Don't let up on this, Domer. It is important...and if you think you are correct, fight it out with me.

IF there is a god then EVERYONE has a god...no matter what they believe.

Nope. Not even close.

The main, and fatal weakness of your argument is that you’re unwilling to define the type of god we’re referring to. To you, a god is a god is a god is a god. That generic god is of no use in discussion.

Bob, the local god of a world a billion light years away is of no use in discussing the gods of our existence.

If I ask you to fetch a coffee cup in my cupboard, hopefully you’ll return with a coffee cup rather than a water glass. That’s because we have a common understanding of the definition of each. Your argument is that the water glass can be a coffee mug because I can put coffee in it. That’s an absurd assertion.

So, define your god and we can move forward

 

[Ross Dolan]

Nope. Not even close.

The main, and fatal weakness of your argument is that you’re unwilling to define the type of god we’re referring to. To you, a god is a god is a god is a god. That generic god is of no use in discussion.

Horse shit.

I have described exactly what I mean by a god many times...so often some posters fault me for it.

Here it is again...in full:




I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now get off the bullshit that I have not defined what I mean when I use the word "god."

Bob, the local god of a world a billion light years away is of no use in discussing the gods of our existence.

If I ask you to fetch a coffee cup in my cupboard, hopefully you’ll return with a coffee cup rather than a water glass. That’s because we have a common understanding of the definition of each. Your argument is that the water glass can be a coffee mug because I can put coffee in it. That’s an absurd assertion.

So, define your god and we can move forward

I have done so on dozens upon dozens of occasions. As I said, I have done so so often, some people give me a bunch of lip because of it.

Now...get off the define bullshit and deal with whatever point you are trying to make.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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".

I guess it all depends on what you consider evidence.

If you came to me and said an alien spaceship transported you up to it and you were anally probed, I would expect you to provide evidence not just your witness testimony. I wouldn't consider your tale to be evidence that the event actually happened.

 

[Hume]

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.

Horse shit.

I have described exactly what I mean by a god many times...so often some posters fault me for it.

Here it is again...in full:




I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now get off the bullshit that I have not defined what I mean when I use the word "god."




I have done so on dozens upon dozens of occasions. As I said, I have done so so often, some people give me a bunch of lip because of it.

Now...get off the define bullshit and deal with whatever point you are trying to make.

blind guess

 

[domer76]

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.

English seems to evade many of you. Most certainly, you.

A belief may or may not be a “belief system”. An organized belief in some sort of supreme being is CERTAINLY defined as a religion. Most reasonable people can agree on that. You can do whatever nitpicking bullshit you like, but that’s the basic consensus of what defines a religion. Doctrine. Dogma. Organization. Worship.

A person may hold a certain belief on a supreme being, but not associate with any religion. A theist with no religion.

You may wish to think otherwise, but atheist doesn’t fit either. No central doctrine, dogma, organization or worship. In fact, atheism, such as my atheism can be narrow or broad. My atheism extends to the Christian god, but not necessarily to the possibility of ANY god.

Note the difference.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Thanks for tacitly confessing that the core of atheism is there's no ultimate purpose and no ultimate justice.

Thanks for proving that atheism isn't a religion since it has no purpose or moral code of justice.

 

[Damocles]

I guess it all depends on what you consider evidence.

If you came to me and said an alien spaceship transported you up to it and you were anally probed, I would expect you to provide evidence not just your witness testimony. I wouldn't consider your tale to be evidence that the event actually happened.

Again, the nature of the thing doesn't change, only whether you think the evidence is compelling or not. The idea that there is "no evidence" is simply a repeated falsehood that some folks have heard so often they think it is true. I don't find the evidence compelling, therefore I do not believe, others do find it compelling. It just isn't "non existent", it is uncompelling evidence or it is something you believe to be true because you think it is compelling...

Basically, you don't get to redefine what evidence is. We accept eye witness testimony regularly as evidence. Sometimes, if it is a dying declaration, even hearsay evidence can be accepted.

 

[domer76]

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".

Perhaps a better choice of words for him would be “credible evidence”.

 

[Hume]

Again, the nature of the thing doesn't change, only whether you think the evidence is compelling or not. The idea that there is "no evidence" is simply a repeated falsehood that some folks have heard so often they think it is true. I don't find the evidence compelling, therefore I do not believe, others do find it compelling. It just isn't "non existent", it is uncompelling evidence or it is something you believe to be true because you think it is compelling...

Basically, you don't get to redefine what evidence is. We accept eye witness testimony regularly as evidence. Sometimes, if it is a dying declaration, even hearsay evidence can be accepted.

Philosophers refer to this as "testimony." What someone says. Distinct from evidence.
If someone says they saw a UFO, that is testimony. If they have photos, that is evidence.

 

[Cypress]

Thanks for proving that atheism isn't a religion since it has no purpose or moral code of justice.

I never said its a religion, and it certainly doesn't have a universal canonical code of beliefs and conduct.

I don't even think that, in and off itself, it is even an intellectual system of thought.

I even think it was stupid for the court to call secular humanism a 'religion'.

That's why I think Rose Dolan is correct that it's better for one to just decide one's beliefs than hang onto a label.

 

[Damocles]

Perhaps a better choice of words for him would be “credible evidence”.

Right. I'd accept that even. It is still evidence, he just doesn't think it is credible. (Nor do I for that matter, we agree on this). I just don't like folks that say there is "no evidence"... There is even current eye witness stuff that I also find uncompelling. The Catholic Church won't make a Saint without evidence of miracles associated with them... I don't find what they think is proof to be credible, but they do, and honestly that is what "faith" is all about. I have little faith. If I am to believe the Bible it is likely because God decided to "harden my heart" and rejected my soul from the outset... That doesn't sound nice... LOL

 

[Hume]

I never said its a religion, and it certainly doesn't have a universal canonical code of beliefs and conduct.

I don't even think that, in and off itself, it is even an intellectual system of thought.

I even think it was stupid for the court to call secular humanism a 'religion'.

That's why I think Rose Dolan is correct that it's better for one to just decide one's beliefs than hang onto a label.

Problem is, Christians think anyone not subscribing to their religion is an atheist. So, a Hindu is an atheist.

 

[domer76]

Horse shit.

I have described exactly what I mean by a god many times...so often some posters fault me for it.

Here it is again...in full:




I do not know if any GOD (or gods) exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist...that the existence of at least one GOD is needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on whether any gods exist or not...so I don't.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

Now get off the bullshit that I have not defined what I mean when I use the word "god."




I have done so on dozens upon dozens of occasions. As I said, I have done so so often, some people give me a bunch of lip because of it.

Now...get off the define bullshit and deal with whatever point you are trying to make.

Just a creator of the universe? That’s it? No other characteristics?

You really haven’t given the subject much thought at all, Ross. Merely word salad. The same word salad.

For no “meaningful guess” you do make a lot of salads, however!

 

[Cypress]

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".

We might as well give up on ancient history as an academic discipline, and throw in the towel, if we have to write off testimonial evidence and primary sources.

By the academic standards of ancient history, the primary sources are more than sufficient to establish that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi who was executed by the Romans under the suspicion of being a political radical. The reports of resurrection are dubious, but I also believe it's possible there is a medical and physical explanation for the reappearance of Jesus to the disciples.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Again, the nature of the thing doesn't change, only whether you think the evidence is compelling or not. The idea that there is "no evidence" is simply a repeated falsehood that some folks have heard so often they think it is true. I don't find the evidence compelling, therefore I do not believe, others do find it compelling. It just isn't "non existent", it is uncompelling evidence or it is something you believe to be true because you think it is compelling...

Basically, you don't get to redefine what evidence is. We accept eye witness testimony regularly as evidence. Sometimes, if it is a dying declaration, even hearsay evidence can be accepted.

Middle Earth and orcs might actually exist because there is evidence of it in writing.
Narnia might actually exist with talking lions because there is evidence of it in writing.
Hogwarts might actually exist because there is evidence of it in writing.

We accept eye witness testimony as evidence. We don't accept hearsay as evidence.
Moses didn't write any book of the bible.
Adam and Essau didn't write any books of the bible.
Job didn't write any books of the bible.
Most of the bible is the retelling of tales about people that had been long dead. It would not be accepted as evidence in a court of law.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I never said its a religion, and it certainly doesn't have a universal canonical code of beliefs and conduct.

I don't even think that, in and off itself, it is even an intellectual system of thought.

I even think it was stupid for the court to call secular humanism a 'religion'.

That's why I think Rose Dolan is correct that it's better for one to just decide one's beliefs than hang onto a label.

Others here have spent a fair amount of time claiming it is a religion. I was thanking you for proving to them.

 

[Ross Dolan]

Just a creator of the universe? That’s it? No other characteristics?

You really haven’t given the subject much thought at all, Ross. Merely word salad. The same word salad.

For no “meaningful guess” you do make a lot of salads, however!

WTF?

Yes, I am saying just the creator (of what we humans call) the universe.

If there is such a being...I am saying that is what I mean by god.

Are you saying that a being, if it exists, that created (or caused to be created) the thing we humans call the universe...is not a good characteristic?

Are you suggesting I describe what it might look like?

Whether of not it wants to communicate with humans on planet Earth?

What the hell is wrong with you.

"Word salad?"

Did someone help you come up with that come-back...or did you do it on your own?