U.S. Supreme Court Ruling: ATHEISM IS RELIGION

Alter2Ego said:
Cypress:

I wrote a response to PostmodernProphet at post 391 over 24 hours ago, informing him that literal hellfire torment is not supported by scripture. He ignored my message because he chooses to believe false religions dogma.
Click to expand...
don't worry about it child........I'll be ignoring you forever........if you want to get a message to me just ask God to pass it on.....it will be faster.......
 
Ross Dolan said:
Over a decade?

You are a newcomer to the debate.

Atheism is not a religion. It is a position about the REALITY of existence based on a blind guess...just as most "religions" are also positions taken about the REALITY of existence based on blind guesses.

The strong defenses offered for the blind guesses of both atheism and theism are laughable...with their only virtue being that one of them, accidentally, is correct.

We MAY NEVER know if the essential guess of theism is correct...that there is a GOD of some kind. We WILL NEVER know if the essential guess of atheism is correct...that there are no gods.

The logical and reasonable default for the essential question is: I do not know.

I suspect the world would be a much better place if that were (closer to universally) acknowledged.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe I will win the lottery. Why? Because I understand probability. I don’t believe in God. Why? There is neither evidence of or a need for God. Those positions are both logical. The opposite position is not logical. I would suggest that your position that both are equally possible is incorrect.
 
Concart said:
I don’t believe I will win the lottery. Why? Because I understand probability. I don’t believe in God. Why? There is neither evidence of or a need for God. Those positions are both logical. The opposite position is not logical. I would suggest that your position that both are equally possible is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Let me ask you this then:

We do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. There is neither evidence of nor a need for any sentient beings on any of those planets.

Which of the following would you say is THE MOST LOGICAL thing to say about that:

1) I believe (or do not believe) there are no sentient beings on any of those planets.
2) I believe (or do not believe) there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets.
3) I believe (or do not believe) it is more likely that there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets than that there are none on any.
4) I believe (or do not believe) it is more likely that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets than that there is at least one on one of them.
5) We have no idea if there are or are not any sentient beings on any of those planets...and I have no logical, rational basis for making a guess in either direction on the issue.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Let me ask you this then:

We do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. There is neither evidence of nor a need for any sentient beings on any of those planets.

Which of the following would you say is THE MOST LOGICAL thing to say about that:

1) I believe (or do not believe) there are no sentient beings on any of those planets.
2) I believe (or do not believe) there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets.
3) I believe (or do not believe) it is more likely that there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets than that there are none on any.
4) I believe (or do not believe) it is more likely that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets than that there is at least one on one of them.
5) We have no idea if there are or are not any sentient beings on any of those planets...and I have no logical, rational basis for making a guess in either direction on the issue.
Click to expand...
God cannot be on a planet, or a star system or a universe. If a sentinent being exists in the physical world then that being is not ‘God’. Might that being be thought of as God? Yes, but that isn’t what we’re discussing. We are discussing a supernatural entity that does not operate in the natural world but created it. You are changing the definition of God. Stating a belief is NOT stating that something is a fact.

In your example we look to science. We know what conditions existed on Earth, we know that there are other planets with those conditions so a belief that other planets have sentiment beings because that is a logical conclusion. We have NOTHING to suggest that God exists, and we never can.
 
Last edited:
Ross Dolan said:
Let me ask you this then:

We do not know if there are any sentient beings on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. There is neither evidence of nor a need for any sentient beings on any of those planets.

Which of the following would you say is THE MOST LOGICAL thing to say about that:

1) I believe (or do not believe) there are no sentient beings on any of those planets.
2) I believe (or do not believe) there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets.
3) I believe (or do not believe) it is more likely that there are sentient beings on at least one of those planets than that there are none on any.
4) I believe (or do not believe) it is more likely that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets than that there is at least one on one of them.
5) We have no idea if there are or are not any sentient beings on any of those planets...and I have no logical, rational basis for making a guess in either direction on the issue.
Click to expand...
You have to provide more info on those planets to make that judgement. But you won’t. Just like the god you refer to.
 
Concart said:
God cannot be on a planet, or a star system or a universe. If a sentinent being exists in the physical world then that being is not ‘God’. Might that being be thought of as God? Yes, but that isn’t what we’re discussing. We are discussing a supernatural entity that does not operate in the natural world but created it. You are changing the definition of God. Stating a belief is NOT stating that something is a fact.

In your example we look to science. We know what conditions existed on Earth, we know that there are other planets with those conditions so a belief that other planets have sentiment beings because that is a logical conclusion. We have NOTHING to suggest that God exists, and we never can.
Click to expand...
The correct answer was #5.

Any logical, reasonable, honest person would have chosen that.
 
domer76 said:
You have to provide more info on those planets to make that judgement. But you won’t. Just like the god you refer to.
Click to expand...
Don't have to.

WE DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT ANY OF THOSE PLANETS TO MAKE A REASONABLE GUESS.

You know that. But...deal with your refusal to acknowledge it.
 
Alter2Ego said:
Obtenebrator:

The key phrase is "something of overwhelming importance to a person." The term "football is his religion" used by the dictionary is merely an example.
Click to expand...

But it is trivial. Just because something is important does not mean it is a religion. This is used as a kind of "common parlance" to denote a rather more hyperbolic thing. In other words when someone says "Stamp collecting is his religion" it does NOT mean the same thing as "His religion is Catholicism". Not even marginally close.

If you want to seriously discuss belief then you have to allow that there is a space where belief is not there. That does not amount to a belief.

The ABSENCE of a belief is NOT a belief. That is basic logic.

Alter2Ego said:
In the case of atheists, the example that Collins Dictionary would have used instead of "football is his religion" would be "Atheism is his religion." You follow?
Click to expand...

Not even close.
 
Ross Dolan said:
Don't have to.

WE DO NOT KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT ANY OF THOSE PLANETS TO MAKE A REASONABLE GUESS.

You know that. But...deal with your refusal to acknowledge it.
Click to expand...
Except we DO know enough about gods because people have defined their characteristics. Everybody but you.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
which one is different?........perhaps you've read them wrong again........
Click to expand...
You don’t know your own holy book well enough to know the Jesus birth stories? Holy shit! That’s a sad fucking statement, but it does prove your ignorance about your own religion and theology.
 
domer76 said:
Except we DO know enough about gods because people have defined their characteristics. Everybody but you.
Click to expand...
I have defined what I mean by "gods". Because you cannot continue your bullshit considering that definition does not mean anything to me.

You asked me to define what I mean by a god. I gave you a thorough answer.

Deal with it...or STFU.
 
Ross Dolan said:
I have defined what I mean by "gods". Because you cannot continue your bullshit considering that definition does not mean anything to me.

You asked me to define what I mean by a god. I gave you a thorough answer.

Deal with it...or STFU.
Click to expand...
I know. The “creator of the universe”. That’s it.

Here’s news. The “creator of the universe” died. There is no god. BAM!
 
domer76 said:
You don’t know your own holy book well enough to know the Jesus birth stories? Holy shit! That’s a sad fucking statement, but it does prove your ignorance about your own religion and theology.
Click to expand...
dude......have been waiting all year for you to RIGHT about something relating to my religion........so far nothing........I doubt you can even find a Jesus birth story let alone talk about it properly.......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
dude......have been waiting all year for you to RIGHT about something relating to my religion........so far nothing........I doubt you can even find a Jesus birth story let alone talk about it properly.......
Click to expand...
^A lawyer who can’t define perjury and a cunt-calling “Christian” that doesn’t know the stories of his own god’s birth and death.

How fucking pathetic is THAT?
 
Concart said:
I don’t believe I will win the lottery. Why? Because I understand probability. I don’t believe in God. Why? There is neither evidence of or a need for God. Those positions are both logical. The opposite position is not logical. I would suggest that your position that both are equally possible is incorrect.
Click to expand...
Who invented the gall bladder?
 
domer76 said:
I know. The “creator of the universe”. That’s it.

Here’s news. The “creator of the universe” died. There is no god. BAM!
Click to expand...
I did not say "The creator of the universe."

Perhaps you ought to learn to read with compression. If you can, of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top