Is God real post your thoughts!

[Flyingjj]

Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion? Atheism is simply lack of belief in a God/s. It's possibly the easiest thing to understand ever. No Gods, no scripture, no prayer, no sacrifice, none of that. Our position is so ridiculously easy to understand yet you continue to portray at as something which it isn't.

 

That's precisely it. It's a position on spirituality. You've taken a side on the issue of spirituality, therefore, it's a religion. I would not, for example, call agnosticism a religion.

 

 

 

edit- [bleep], I've been dragged back into this thread. Anyone want to take up my position so I can stop arguing it?

[Bloodkay]

Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion? Atheism is simply lack of belief in a God/s. It's possibly the easiest thing to understand ever. No Gods, no scripture, no prayer, no sacrifice, none of that. Our position is so ridiculously easy to understand yet you continue to portray at as something which it isn't.

 

That's precisely it. It's a position on spirituality. You've taken a side on the issue of spirituality, therefore, it's a religion. I would not, for example, call agnosticism a religion.

 

 

 

Except there's no spirituality. It's all you people who believe in whatever that see it as "taking a side" or something to the like. We simply don't believe. Period. There's no God, there's no spirituality, there's nothing but science (to me, anyways). Do NOT group me in with religions. Atheism is NOT a religion. It's a LACK of belief.

[user1991]

Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion? Atheism is simply lack of belief in a God/s. It's possibly the easiest thing to understand ever. No Gods, no scripture, no prayer, no sacrifice, none of that. Our position is so ridiculously easy to understand yet you continue to portray at as something which it isn't.

 

That's precisely it. It's a position on spirituality. You've taken a side on the issue of spirituality, therefore, it's a religion. I would not, for example, call agnosticism a religion.

 

 

 

edit- [bleep], I've been dragged back into this thread. Anyone want to take up my position so I can stop arguing it?

 

 

 

I edited my previous post as you were making a reply to tackle your other points.

 

 

 

Atheism, is the lack of theism. It is the lack of belief in a God. "A position on spirituality" (which it isn't anyway) isn't the same as "a religion".

 

 

 

Religion, as defined by Merriam-Webster online dictionary;

 

 

 

1 a: the state of a religious b (1): the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2): commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance2: a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices3archaic : scrupulous conformity : conscientiousness4: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

 

 

 

Which of these criteria does atheism meet?

[Flyingjj]

Please demonstrate how atheism is a religion? Atheism is simply lack of belief in a God/s. It's possibly the easiest thing to understand ever. No Gods, no scripture, no prayer, no sacrifice, none of that. Our position is so ridiculously easy to understand yet you continue to portray at as something which it isn't.

 

That's precisely it. It's a position on spirituality. You've taken a side on the issue of spirituality, therefore, it's a religion. I would not, for example, call agnosticism a religion.

 

 

 

Except there's no spirituality. It's all you people who believe in whatever that see it as "taking a side" or something to the like. We simply don't believe. Period. There's no God, there's no spirituality, there's nothing but science (to me, anyways). Do NOT group me in with religions. Atheism is NOT a religion. It's a LACK of belief.

 

 

 

It all depends on whether you consider not believing something a belief in itself. Personally, I do.

 

 

 

At TheTrueNoob, I can throw up my own definitions as to what religion and atheism mean, and we'll just have a difference in opinion on the definition of religion. In fact:

 

 

 

re?li?gion

 

 

 

noun

 

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

 

 

a?the?ism

 

 

 

noun

 

1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.

 

2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

 

 

 

(Courtesy of Dictionary.com) Both based on the Random House Dictionary.

 

 

 

Definitions, my friend, are key. I define religion differently than you.

 

 

 

As to our side discussion, as I said, there is a subtle difference between potential and chance. Chance occurs through natural events and occurences. You have no control on the outcome. Potential, however, must be acted upon. Hence, the rapist is acting, and I have no reservations about acting to stop him from acting. And I do not consider whether something will be a person or not irrelevant. That's a dangerous path to follow if you do. If a someone will be a person in the future but isn't currently, it opens the door to what defines personhood. I could argue, for example, that since anyone under five cannot make a logical argument, they are not a person and I could therefore kill them without penalty because they have no right. I could branch off into the philosophy of human rights, but I'll contain myself.

[Wisp]

Atheism is not a religion, look at the word. Theism means belief in a god, or omnipotent being, beings, or some higher power or powers. In other words, religion (I'm sure there are exceptions to this in religion, but i general).

 

A means no, or not

 

The word itself is basically saying it's not a religion.

 

I'm sure someone is going to tear this post up with specific definitions of theism, or whatever, but debating whether or not atheism is a religion is a really stupid argument.

 

If you feel like calling my lack of belief in any religion, a religion, then fine. That doesn't change what I believe.

[user1991]

 

 

 

re?li?gion

 

 

 

noun

 

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

 

 

 

 

 

(Courtesy of Dictionary.com) Both based on the Random House Dictionary.

 

 

 

Definitions, my friend, are key. I define religion differently than you.

 

 

 

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, moral code etc."

 

 

 

You're the ones making the positive assertions. Atheism is only a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, purpose of the universe" to the extent that we deny what you are saying. It is not the same thing. The fact that you cannot see this blows my mind.

 

 

 

"Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." - Nope

 

 

 

"Usually involving devotional and ritual observances" - Nope

 

 

 

"Often containing a moral code" - Nope

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Flyingjj]

 

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, moral code etc."

 

 

 

You're the ones making the positive assertions. Atheism is only a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, purpose of the universe" to the extent that we deny what you are saying. It is not the same thing. The fact that you cannot see this blows my mind.

 

 

 

"Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." - Nope

 

 

 

"Usually involving devotional and ritual observances" - Nope

 

 

 

"Often containing a moral code" - Nope

 

 

The fact that anyone still allows this thread to live blows mine...

 

 

 

I certainly could see it if I chose to believe it. I define atheism as a religion mainly because there exists agnosticism, which makes no claims on either side. You have a belief on one side of an issue, I have a belief on the other. As to the last three, they contain qualifiers for a reason.

 

 

 

Okay, how about this: atheism is a religion because it has varying levels of beliefs (or disbeliefs, not that it makes a difference) or devotion.

 

 

 

I can't believe we're even arguing this again. It's completely irrelevant whether or not you call atheism a religion.

[user1991]

 

"A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, moral code etc."

 

 

 

You're the ones making the positive assertions. Atheism is only a "set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, purpose of the universe" to the extent that we deny what you are saying. It is not the same thing. The fact that you cannot see this blows my mind.

 

 

 

"Especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies." - Nope

 

 

 

"Usually involving devotional and ritual observances" - Nope

 

 

 

"Often containing a moral code" - Nope

 

 

The fact that anyone still allows this thread to live blows mine...

 

 

 

I certainly could see it if I chose to believe it. I define atheism as a religion mainly because there exists agnosticism, which makes no claims on either side. You have a belief on one side of an issue, I have a belief on the other. As to the last three, they contain qualifiers for a reason.

 

 

 

Okay, how about this: atheism is a religion because it has varying levels of beliefs (or disbeliefs, not that it makes a difference) or devotion.

 

 

 

I can't believe we're even arguing this again. It's completely irrelevant whether or not you call atheism a religion.

 

 

 

Agnosticism is the idea that you cannot know whether a God/s exists or not.

 

 

 

Plus, you're arguing as if atheism is the assertion that "there is definitely no God", which it isn't. Atheism is simply lack of belief. It isn't a case of Theism - Agnosticism - Atheism as you assume, with the outer two both being positive assertions.

 

 

 

Can you not understand the difference between the assertion that there are "definitely no gods" and "I do not believe in God"?

 

 

 

Even if 100% of atheists said "there is definitely no God", it still wouldn't be a religion because it doesn't meet ANY OF THE CRITERIA NECESSARY.

[Wisp]

 

Okay, how about this: atheism is a religion because it has varying levels of beliefs (or disbeliefs, not that it makes a difference) or devotion.

 

 

 

I can't believe we're even arguing this again. It's completely irrelevant whether or not you call atheism a religion.

 

People have varying levels of belief in the boogeyman. Is it a religion? People have varying levels of belief in the theory of evolution. Does that make it a religion.

 

But I agree that it is irrelevant

[i_love_burritos]

As Simba would say, its got a -theism in it.

 

 

 

Oh, Oh. I've got the best joke. What faith does silver nitrate practice ?

 

 

 

None, he's agnostic.

 

 

 

[hide=If you didn't get that]Silver Nitrate is AgNO3[/hide]

[mmmcannibalism]

even if atheism isnt a religion per se, it is still effectively a religion in many aspects. If most of the world was non religious the functional religious status of it would go away because atheists would stop opposing religious organizations(metaphorically) and it would be just a simple personal belief.

[lobsta]

even if atheism isnt a religion per se, it is still effectively a religion in many aspects. If most of the world was non religious the functional religious status of it would go away because atheists would stop opposing religious organizations(metaphorically) and it would be just a simple personal belief.

 

Not true. The majority of atheists do not oppose religious organisations - they just don't care. Atheism certainly is not a religion. It is not structured or organised like religion.

 

Here be some highly amusing discourse between Dawkins and a religious lady.

 

I'm positive she does not reflect the intellectual capacity of the bulk of the American religious however.

[Lenticular_J]

People have varying levels of belief in the boogeyman. Is it a religion? People have varying levels of belief in the theory of evolution. Does that make it a religion.

 

But I agree that it is irrelevant

 

It would be if people went as rabid about the boogeyman as some do about atheism.

[lobsta]

People have varying levels of belief in the boogeyman. Is it a religion? People have varying levels of belief in the theory of evolution. Does that make it a religion.

 

But I agree that it is irrelevant

 

It would be if people went as rabid about the boogeyman as some do about atheism.

 

 

 

No it wouldn't, you're talking absolute rubbish. I have beliefs that communism is not a good thing, for example. I would tell my communist apologists that I think they're talking rubbish - but that does not mean I have become a Religion. This topic is really drifting off course...The Religious really should not bulk Atheists in with them. Even if it were a religion, it would be the right one. All atheists would definitely go to heaven.

[Lenticular_J]

I don't know where you're pulling all this crap into a simple sentence. You treat atheism as a religion, and act as if others are less for not being the same as you? Well, for one thing, you're an idiot, you shouldn't really think that for anything. But if you treat atheism as such, you're treating it religiously, so get off your high horse and realize nobody gives a [bleep] if you rant and whine about religion - until another crazy comes along and you can crazy fight.

 

 

 

This wasn't really directed at anybody in particular. I don't want to get in trouble.

[lobsta]

I don't know where you're pulling all this crap into a simple sentence. You treat atheism as a religion, and act as if others are less for not being the same as you? Well, for one thing, you're an idiot, you shouldn't really think that for anything. But if you treat atheism as such, you're treating it religiously, so get off your high horse and realize nobody gives a [bleep] if you rant and whine about religion - until another crazy comes along and you can crazy fight.

 

 

 

This wasn't really directed at anybody in particular. I don't want to get in trouble.

 

 

 

You took me literally lol

[user1991]

Are you referring to secular humanism instead of atheism?

 

 

 

There are a lot of secular humanists who are just as bad as the religious when it comes to the whole "faith" thing, so if that's your argument, I can see what you're saying.

 

 

 

Atheism however, isn't a religion. It just isn't. It is lack of belief, nothing more.

[brunokiller]

It is a sign of weakness to need to accept supernatural forces as a cause of something you just don't understand (yet).

 

 

 

Nuff' said

[EdgedThesis]

It is a sign of weakness to need to accept supernatural forces as a cause of something you just don't understand (yet).

 

 

 

Nuff' said

 

 

 

And it is a sign of arrogance to completely discount an idea as beneath you.

 

 

 

When something is unknown, there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain the thing's nature. None of them can be disregarded, and all must be acknowledged as equally wrong until evidence is presented.

 

 

 

Don't discount anything until the moment of truth--the moment when you die.

[brunokiller]

It is a sign of weakness to need to accept supernatural forces as a cause of something you just don't understand (yet).

 

 

 

Nuff' said

 

 

 

And it is a sign of arrogance to completely discount an idea as beneath you.

 

 

 

When something is unknown, there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain the thing's nature. None of them can be disregarded, and all must be acknowledged as equally wrong until evidence is presented.

 

 

 

Don't discount anything until the moment of truth--the moment when you die.

 

 

 

But some possibilities have more proof or credit than others, and there is absolutely NO proof supernatural forces exist.

 

To explain a certainly thing's nature, you need science. Supernatural forces are not possible to be proven or disproven by science(=logic). Natural forces can be proven or disproven.

 

 

 

Therefore per definition supernatural forces are the weakest solution.

[Rebdragon]

It is a sign of weakness to need to accept supernatural forces as a cause of something you just don't understand (yet).

 

 

 

Nuff' said

 

 

 

And it is a sign of arrogance to completely discount an idea as beneath you.

 

 

 

When something is unknown, there is an infinite number of possibilities to explain the thing's nature. None of them can be disregarded, and all must be acknowledged as equally wrong until evidence is presented.

 

 

 

Don't discount anything until the moment of truth--the moment when you die.

 

Mathematically speaking, an infinite numer of possibilities results in a probability of 0% for all of them.

 

 

 

And Occam's Razor.

 

 

 

Not that I like the little atheist's attitude (grow up munchkin).

[Rebdragon]

But some possibilities have more proof or credit than others, and there is absolutely NO proof supernatural forces exist.

 

To explain a certainly thing's nature, you need science. Supernatural forces are not possible to be proven or disproven by science(=logic). Natural forces can be proven or disproven.

 

 

 

Therefore per definition supernatural forces are the weakest solution.

 

Never talk about religion with anyone (irl). Matters will not end well. You have an opinion that, sadly, I must admit I once held, but it's a juvenile one, and I hope you grow out of it. Somewhat. Sometimes people are religious for the wrong reasons, but that's no reason to make a prejudiced, unjust statement like the one you're makin' right now.

[mmmcannibalism]

even if atheism isnt a religion per se, it is still effectively a religion in many aspects. If most of the world was non religious the functional religious status of it would go away because atheists would stop opposing religious organizations(metaphorically) and it would be just a simple personal belief.

 

Not true. The majority of atheists do not oppose religious organisations - they just don't care. Atheism certainly is not a religion. It is not structured or organised like religion.

 

Here be some highly amusing discourse between Dawkins and a religious lady.

 

I'm positive she does not reflect the intellectual capacity of the bulk of the American religious however.

 

 

 

let me rephrase that for clarity

 

 

 

atheism functions as a religion(even though it technically isnt) because as long as most of the world is religious being atheist puts you in (metaphorical) opposition to the church. Its not a religion in the sense being implied but in many ways it does function as one

[user1991]

even if atheism isnt a religion per se, it is still effectively a religion in many aspects. If most of the world was non religious the functional religious status of it would go away because atheists would stop opposing religious organizations(metaphorically) and it would be just a simple personal belief.

 

Not true. The majority of atheists do not oppose religious organisations - they just don't care. Atheism certainly is not a religion. It is not structured or organised like religion.

 

Here be some highly amusing discourse between Dawkins and a religious lady.

 

I'm positive she does not reflect the intellectual capacity of the bulk of the American religious however.

 

 

 

let me rephrase that for clarity

 

 

 

atheism functions as a religion(even though it technically isnt) because as long as most of the world is religious being atheist puts you in (metaphorical) opposition to the church. Its not a religion in the sense being implied but in many ways it does function as one

 

 

 

Atheism is not a set of beliefs, it has no ritual or devotional observances or practices of religious beliefs, no superhuman agency/ies, no moral mode - the only thing it is, is a lack of belief in the idea of God. Again, the English language is confusing in the sense that one can easily make the mistake of assuming that because "lack of belief in God" and "I believe God doesn't exist" are similar statements and both are atheistic in nature, that the latter is somehow a positive assertion (which it isn't)

 

 

 

Atheism is not a religion, in any way, shape or form.

[brunokiller]

But some possibilities have more proof or credit than others, and there is absolutely NO proof supernatural forces exist.

 

To explain a certainly thing's nature, you need science. Supernatural forces are not possible to be proven or disproven by science(=logic). Natural forces can be proven or disproven.

 

 

 

Therefore per definition supernatural forces are the weakest solution.

 

Never talk about religion with anyone (irl). Matters will not end well. You have an opinion that, sadly, I must admit I once held, but it's a juvenile one, and I hope you grow out of it. Somewhat. Sometimes people are religious for the wrong reasons, but that's no reason to make a prejudiced, unjust statement like the one you're makin' right now.

 

 

 

Supernatural forces. =/= Religion.

 

 

 

It's close but not the same.