U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

[Hume]

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?

blind guess

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

False analogy, another logical fallacy.

 

[Hume]

False analogy, another logical fallacy.

Dude, you have no idea what an analogy is.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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?

The first of those statements describes an Atheist. The second, describes an agnostic.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

You therefore are an agnostic. You're not sure and that's perfectly fine.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The first of those statements describes an Atheist. The second, describes an agnostic.

No it doesn't. Neither describes an agnostic.

 

[Hume]

No it doesn't. Neither describes an agnostic.

blind guess

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

Then that makes you agnostic, not atheist. Denying one god or several but still holding out the possibility of another existing puts you on the fence, not denying the possibility of a god or gods existing as an atheist would do.

 

[Ross Dolan]

You therefore are an agnostic. You're not sure and that's perfectly fine.

My position certainly is an agnostic one, TA, but I have been advocating for not using a descriptor, because of the problems involved in various definitions of the descriptors.

So...I acknowledge that my position is that of an agnostic, but I am going to stay away from just describing myself as AN agnostic.

 

[Hume]

False analogy, another logical fallacy.

That is not a bad analogy. That is a bad inference.

 

[Kafka]

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

I'm not speaking for all atheists. Honestly. I personally don't see any "ultimate justice" as that would require a God to mete it out. As an atheist I see no such thing so I have to assume there is no "ultimate justice". I cannot, therefore, see how an atheist could believe in "ultimate justice" for evil done in life.

But I want to thank YOU for agreeing that your dislike of atheism is the same kind of reasoning that you accuse some atheists of becoming atheists for...they are mad because God didn't give them what they wanted.

This isn't how most atheists function but your earlier accusation indicates that it is indeed how YOU function. In this case atheism is not your cup of tea because it doesn't provide enough punishment for evil doers, doesn't give you everything you want from it.

Honestly I get that. It's comforting, especially for someone who holds onto grudges and hatred really well, to yearn for wrongdoers to be punished in accordance with it. It's a perfectly natural human requirement.

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.

Unfortunately, your argument is exactly the one most holy rollers make and it really doesn't hold water. These people did evil for a very simple reason: they murdered innocent people. One doesn't need a metaphysical structure to understand how that might be wrong. And easily defined as such. There are perfectly rational non-objective reasons for us as a species to all agree this is "wrong".

Again, your arguments all kind of mirror those of hard-core believers. You want "ultimate justice" for evil (which requires a God), you want "meaning" which requires something beyond the physical, you want "objective morality" (again, something beyond the physical).

All of that is fine, but it really does make me wonder why you call yourself "agnostic" when every single thing you find appealing and want for yourself and clearly believe exists would indicate you are hardly without some actual belief in the supernatural.

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.

Incorrect. One can easily put them on trial even without an "objective" morality. Here's an example: humans are social animals that gain a survival advantage from a stable social safetynet. Murder of innocents is antithetical to that social safety net. Easy peasy. No supernatural or metaphysical thing necessary.

 

[Hume]

I have never seen a person who is not religious claim to be agnostic.
Only a religious person would call himself agnostic.

So, a very technical point by agnostics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That is not a bad analogy. That is a bad inference.

a·nal·o·gy
[əˈnaləjē]
noun

1. a comparison between two things, typically for the purpose of explanation or clarification:
   "an analogy between the workings of nature and those of human societies" · "he interprets logical functions by analogy with machines"
2. a thing which is comparable to something else in significant respects:
   "works of art were seen as an analogy for works of nature"
   
   
   in·fer·ence
   [ˈinf(ə)rəns]
   noun
   
   1. a conclusion reached on the basis of evidence and reasoning
      
      It was an analogy.

 

[domer76]

Then that makes you agnostic, not atheist. Denying one god or several but still holding out the possibility of another existing puts you on the fence, not denying the possibility of a god or gods existing as an atheist would do.

Nope. I am an atheist when it comes to the Christian god. It doesn’t exist. Period. Done. End of conversation.

Are you clear on that? If you are, we can move on.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

False analogy, another logical fallacy.

A belief is too different from a belief?
I think you need to reexamine your own argument instead of just making up a fallacy in order to not address my very clear analogy.

I think you didn't even attempt to refute my point because you know you can't refute.
Religion simply adopts a viewpoint that allows for anything to be claimed in order to continue to support itself.
It allows that God is all powerful. It allows for a God doesn't have the power over everything. It allows for a God that is all knowing. It allows for a God that doesn't know everything. It allows that God is all merciful. It allows that God is all cruel. There is no objective standard since religion simply uses the conclusion to adjust the facts to whatever they need to continue with their belief. In that way religion is like a belief that there is a river running through my living room. They can simply ignore all the objective observations to make up whatever subjective ones they feel they need to justify their belief. Atheists on the other hand can have an objective standard that doesn't require changes to support their belief. An atheist could simply have a standard that until they see a miracle that can't be explained by science they will believe there is no god.

 

[Cypress]

Murder of innocents is antithetical to that social safety net. Easy peasy.

I'm not speaking for all atheists. Honestly. I personally don't see any "ultimate justice" as that would require a God to mete it out. As an atheist I see no such thing so I have to assume there is no "ultimate justice". I cannot, therefore, see how an atheist could believe in "ultimate justice" for evil done in life.

But I want to thank YOU for agreeing that your dislike of atheism is the same kind of reasoning that you accuse some atheists of becoming atheists for...they are mad because God didn't give them what they wanted.

This isn't how most atheists function but your earlier accusation indicates that it is indeed how YOU function. In this case atheism is not your cup of tea because it doesn't provide enough punishment for evil doers, doesn't give you everything you want from it.

Honestly I get that. It's comforting, especially for someone who holds onto grudges and hatred really well, to yearn for wrongdoers to be punished in accordance with it. It's a perfectly natural human requirement.




Unfortunately, your argument is exactly the one most holy rollers make and it really doesn't hold water. These people did evil for a very simple reason: they murdered innocent people. One doesn't need a metaphysical structure to understand how that might be wrong. And easily defined as such. There are perfectly rational non-objective reasons for us as a species to all agree this is "wrong".

Again, your arguments all kind of mirror those of hard-core believers. You want "ultimate justice" for evil (which requires a God), you want "meaning" which requires something beyond the physical, you want "objective morality" (again, something beyond the physical).

All of that is fine, but it really does make me wonder why you call yourself "agnostic" when every single thing you find appealing and want for yourself and clearly believe exists would indicate you are hardly without some actual belief in the supernatural.




Incorrect. One can easily put them on trial even without an "objective" morality. Here's an example: humans are social animals that gain a survival advantage from a stable social safetynet. Murder of innocents is antithetical to that social safety net. Easy peasy. No supernatural or metaphysical thing necessary.

Darwinian principles of evolution are about survival and transmission of genetic information, not morality and values .

No one blinks an eye when a male lion kills the cubs of a rival.

Hitler and millions of his supporters thought culling the German nation of Jews, gypsies, disabled people was neccessary for the health and survival of the Aryan peoples. Very few Germans openly questioned this policy.

Both Hitler and Stalin thought slave labor was neccessary for the advancement of German and Soviet society.

Spartans disposed of weak babies.

Cananites and Phonecians thought ritual child sacrifice made perfect sense for their societies.

Twin babies have been killed by various societies because identical twins were thought to be a bad omen.


Your claim that humans just naturally avoid murder because of evolution or because we are dancing to the tune of deoxyribonucleic acid doesn't pass the laugh test, not even for a nanosecond.

The pricetag for being atheist is a belief in subjective morality based on opinions. There is no higher ontological morality that says what Hitler did was wrong if morality is based on opinion or popular vote. Oppression of the Jews would have passed popular vote in Germany in 1938.

We only have the moral standing to hold a Nuremberg trial if we appeal to objective ontological morality that stands apart from human opinion.

The price you pay for being an atheist is to embrace subjective morality. If you are uncomfortable with subjective morality, you better rethink why you are an atheist.

And maybe you're right, that opinion and subjective morality is all that exists. But that is an unappealing price tag to me. That is not a good selling point.

It's fine if you want to hijack the objective morality and values of religious traditions, and just strip it of religious language. But just be honest about doing it.

 

[Cypress]

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

Yes, the trolls are out in force, because claiming atheism is an established religion is dumb as as shit.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

It's fine if you want to hijack the objective morality and values of religious traditions, and just strip it of religious language. But just be honest about doing it.

The morality and values of religious traditions have hardly been some beacon of ethical and moral behavior. History is full of religions that have killed others in large numbers in the name of that faith. The Crusades, the Spanish inquisition, witch trials, manifest destiny are but a few examples of how religion has been subjective in its morality.

Darwinian principles apply to religion just as it does to every other human tribe. We support our tribe so that they can be the dominant group. If that means killing those that aren't part of our tribe then that is morally OK with or without religion.

 

[Kafka]

Darwinian principles of evolution are about survival and transmission of genetic information, not morality and values .

And animals which derive a survival advantage from a social group like humans, ants, etc. gain a survival advantage from those groups remaining stable.

No one blinks an eye when a male lion kills the cubs of a rival.

And there you have it: there is no "objective" morality in nature. Good job. It's great when you make my point for me.

Your claim that humans just naturally avoid murder

They are social animals that gain a survival advantage from a stable safe social network.

because of evolution or because we are dancing to the tune of deoxyribonucleic acid doesn't pass the laugh test, not even for a nanosecond.

There are PLENTY of cases where instincts in wild animals is clearly aligned with survival advantage.

Do you think ANTS "choose" to be social animals?

We only have the moral standing to hold a Nuremberg trial if we appeal to objective ontological morality that stands apart from human opinion.

How do you know this? You are big on making ex cathedra claims which you never back up and I am loathe to question you on yet another of them (given how you always end up losing your shit and attacking me when I do), but I'm curious how you know this is necessarily true.

And maybe you're right, that opinion and subjective morality is all that exists. But that is an unappealing price tag to me. That is not a good selling point.

Reality doesn't need a "selling point". It simply is what it is.

I understand your distaste for that. It is unpleasant to think that maybe those you wish to be punished don't get some "ultimate justice", but then I often sincerely wish for a nice cool breeze while I walk around town, doesn't mean it is going to give it to me.

You're not an atheist because you don't get your wish. Fine. Not a well reasoned position but certainly understandable.

It's fine if you want to hijack the objective morality and values of religious traditions, and just strip it of religious language. But just be honest about doing it.

I haven't hijacked anything. I have recontextualized the "imperative" to not commit murder and put it in terms of things which are real and tangible and can be shown to exist.

No woo-woo supernatural/metaphysical/blahblahblah needed.

 

[Mason 22]

Nope. I am an atheist when it comes to the Christian god. It doesn’t exist. Period. Done. End of conversation.

Are you clear on that? If you are, we can move on.

That's an assumption!