Is atheism a religion?

[Snorri1234]

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

What is confusing about that statement? Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.

There are countless mythological creatures that I don't believe in whose existences don't have proof for or against. You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

Explain to me why you aren't agnostic about hydras and I'll explain why I'm not agnostic about gods.

I am agnostic about hydras. We have no proof that hydras do not exist.

Of course, I think we're pretty certain they don't exist on Earth simply because we've taken over most of it and haven't found them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all, or that they never have.

And you consider this a reasonable stance?

[anonymus]

i do not believe so

[targetman377]

anarchy is not government.
atheism is not religion.

anarchy is a form of government is it not?

[jonesthecurl]

Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.




I am agnostic about hydras. We have no proof that hydras do not exist.

Of course, I think we're pretty certain they don't exist on Earth simply because we've taken over most of it and haven't found them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all, or that they never have.

And you consider this a reasonable stance?

I think it's perfectly reasonable to say the the existence of Hydras, the teapot, god, and the family of burbleburbles are equally likely. He may not have won himself many friends amongst the goddists tho.

[PLAYER57832]

The only rational stance is to recognize that all beliefs in the existence or non-existence of God are equally irrational.

Riiiiiiiggghhht... keep telling yourself that.

Well, you keep throwing your hands up, and I'm going to keep not believing in whatever random deity every random dude I meet believes in.

What is confusing about that statement? Find me exactly one logical reason to believe that exactly zero supernatural beings exist, and I'll concede the point. But if you can't, and you continue to blindly assert your atheism, then you're just as bad as the religious folk.

There are countless mythological creatures that I don't believe in whose existences don't have proof for or against. You can't prove the non-existence of anything.

Explain to me why you aren't agnostic about hydras and I'll explain why I'm not agnostic about gods.

I am agnostic about hydras. We have no proof that hydras do not exist.

Of course, I think we're pretty certain they don't exist on Earth simply because we've taken over most of it and haven't found them, but that doesn't mean they don't exist at all, or that they never have.

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

[Snorri1234]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

You know, you always say this but rarely explain why this is. Please explain where the difference is between "not finding evidence for invisible unicorns or the great blurbleblurble" and "not finding God".

[GabonX]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

You know, you always say this but rarely explain why this is. Please explain where the difference is between "not finding evidence for invisible unicorns or the great blurbleblurble" and "not finding God".

I'd be interested to see the explanation of that too..

Does this logic apply to the old polytheistic Gods or just YOUR God?

[PLAYER57832]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

You know, you always say this but rarely explain why this is. Please explain where the difference is between "not finding evidence for invisible unicorns or the great blurbleblurble" and "not finding God".

Because Hydras are, by definition, physical entities who would need to have certain impacts.. food use, etc. that, given the current awareness we have of even remote "corners" of the earth, would be hard to miss (not impossible, perhaps, but very, very unlikely).

To contrast, God has no such requirement. Further, any evidence, even physical evidence like authenticated miracles (miracles authenticated by the Roman Catholic church, for example) are just out right dismissed in ways that just about no other form of evidence would be.

At any rate, again, you confuse proof, or evidence that would convince you, with evidence. To give you an example. My seeing snow is proof enough for me that snow exists. But would it be enough for a child on the equator who doesn't know me? I doubt it. Even a picture or video might not be sufficient to convince an adult who might just see such a picture as no different than cartoons of Winnie the Pooh or some kind of "special effects".

[Snorri1234]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

You know, you always say this but rarely explain why this is. Please explain where the difference is between "not finding evidence for invisible unicorns or the great blurbleblurble" and "not finding God".

Because Hydras are, by definition, physical entities who would need to have certain impacts.. food use, etc. that, given the current awareness we have of even remote "corners" of the earth, would be hard to miss (not impossible, perhaps, but very, very unlikely).

Not my version of hydras (or invisible unicorns if you will). They can not be seen except when they want to, and feed of of our emotions and feelings in a way that we can't measure.

Further, any evidence, even physical evidence like authenticated miracles (miracles authenticated by the Roman Catholic church, for example) are just out right dismissed in ways that just about no other form of evidence would be.

Authenticated miracles are dismissed like any other "evidence" of supernatural things. They are researched and a good scientific explanation is found.

In fact, bringing up miracles actually makes it sound even more like bigfoot and unicorns and all that. There are people who swear the saw bigfoot, who have pictures and movies of it, why are they called crazy and religious folk not?

[PLAYER57832]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

You know, you always say this but rarely explain why this is. Please explain where the difference is between "not finding evidence for invisible unicorns or the great blurbleblurble" and "not finding God".

Because Hydras are, by definition, physical entities who would need to have certain impacts.. food use, etc. that, given the current awareness we have of even remote "corners" of the earth, would be hard to miss (not impossible, perhaps, but very, very unlikely).

Not my version of hydras (or invisible unicorns if you will). They can not be seen except when they want to, and feed of of our emotions and feelings in a way that we can't measure.

Then it would be hard to prove them nonexistant, perhaps impossible.

Further, any evidence, even physical evidence like authenticated miracles (miracles authenticated by the Roman Catholic church, for example) are just out right dismissed in ways that just about no other form of evidence would be.

Authenticated miracles are dismissed like any other "evidence" of supernatural things. They are researched and a good scientific explanation is found.

Not in all cases, but I actually don't hold a lot of stock in the miracles, anyway. So it was probably hypocritical of me to bring up that point.

However, the thing is there are a few that can best be explained by science as "unknown cause". You (and I, to be honest) may well believe that scientific explanations will be found, but that does not mean they have.

Also, in my case, the fact that there is a scientific explanation does not mean its no miracle. Some events are possible, but so improbable that saying "miracle" is as good an explanation as any.

In fact, bringing up miracles actually makes it sound even more like bigfoot and unicorns and all that. There are people who swear the saw bigfoot, who have pictures and movies of it, why are they called crazy and religious folk not?

Not all are called crazy. Some are, but often the worst charge is just that they are mistaken. However, to get back to my above explanation, it was easy to believe in BigFoot for a long time. However, the more we move into formerly unexplored and unoccupied areas (even by native American tribes, in some cases), the likelihood of such a large animal existing without detection becomes more and more remote.

The same is not true of God.

[BigBallinStalin]

.

[Snorri1234]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

You know, you always say this but rarely explain why this is. Please explain where the difference is between "not finding evidence for invisible unicorns or the great blurbleblurble" and "not finding God".

Because Hydras are, by definition, physical entities who would need to have certain impacts.. food use, etc. that, given the current awareness we have of even remote "corners" of the earth, would be hard to miss (not impossible, perhaps, but very, very unlikely).

Not my version of hydras (or invisible unicorns if you will). They can not be seen except when they want to, and feed of of our emotions and feelings in a way that we can't measure.

Then it would be hard to prove them nonexistant, perhaps impossible.

But I just made them up. Which is sort of the point. The fact that you can't prove they don't exist doesn't mean the entire thing isn't silly. Russel's Teapot and all other arguments which are related to it are meant to show that atheism isn't irrational, it is very rational and you do it all the time.

Also, in my case, the fact that there is a scientific explanation does not mean its no miracle. Some events are possible, but so improbable that saying "miracle" is as good an explanation as any.

Except that saying "miracle" invokes God.

In fact, bringing up miracles actually makes it sound even more like bigfoot and unicorns and all that. There are people who swear the saw bigfoot, who have pictures and movies of it, why are they called crazy and religious folk not?

Not all are called crazy. Some are, but often the worst charge is just that they are mistaken. However, to get back to my above explanation, it was easy to believe in BigFoot for a long time. However, the more we move into formerly unexplored and unoccupied areas (even by native American tribes, in some cases), the likelihood of such a large animal existing without detection becomes more and more remote.

The same is not true of God.

Why not?

[john9blue]

God is defined as the creator of the Universe. THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not proof, but at least evidence. The flying teapot is different because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It's not a hard concept.

[Snorri1234]

God is defined as the creator of the Universe. THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not proof, but at least evidence. The flying teapot is different because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It's not a hard concept.

THAT IS A DUMB DEFINITION!


Essentially, what you just said is that God is the big bang. nothing more.

[Metsfanmax]

Attempting to imply that "not finding evidence of hydras" (which , by-the-way, do technically exist, just not the mythilogical hydras) .. or not finding big foot, not finding unicorns, etc, etc. with "not finding God" is patently idiotic and just shows how little basis or understanding your arguments show.

The fact that there's a grammatical mistake somewhere in this sentence notwithstanding, your criticism of my conflation of the two holds no water. The fact that God is qualitatively different from a hydra in the way you describe has no effect on the fact that this is an argument about whether humans should take a stance on phenomena that they have not observed. In other words, the fact that god (at least, in the supernatural sense I was discussing earlier) inherently cannot be observed doesn't much matter, because the discussion is about whether it's logically legitimate for people to believe that hydras/gods/invisible pink unicorns don't exist simply because they haven't been observed. I maintain that it is not, but some have disagreed.

[silvanricky]

God is defined as the creator of the Universe. THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not proof, but at least evidence. The flying teapot is different because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It's not a hard concept.

THAT IS A DUMB DEFINITION!


Essentially, what you just said is that God is the big bang. nothing more.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying God is the creative cause of the big bang or however else you want to describe the first act. He's not saying God is the big bang itself.

[jonesthecurl]

Are we really back to the watchmaker again?

[PLAYER57832]

Then it would be hard to prove them nonexistant, perhaps impossible.

But I just made them up. Which is sort of the point. The fact that you can't prove they don't exist doesn't mean the entire thing isn't silly. Russel's Teapot and all other arguments which are related to it are meant to show that atheism isn't irrational, it is very rational and you do it all the time.

I don't believe I ever said that atheism was irrational. I have said it is not more rational than belief in God, and that the assertion that atheists are somehow smarter than those who are not is, itself, a sign of poor (too narrow) thinking (I don't think it was you making that assertion, but it was made).

As for the point, I got it, but it just isn't a valid one, no matter how many times you repeat it. That there is no God is, apparently something you believe. It is , apparently, something you believe very deeply. However, that does not make it true. Nor does my believing their is God make it true, not matter how deeply I believe or how firm the evidence seems to me. If I cannot convince you, or vice-versa, then we are at an impass. This is what makes this belief, religion and not science.

Also, in my case, the fact that there is a scientific explanation does not mean its no miracle. Some events are possible, but so improbable that saying "miracle" is as good an explanation as any.

Except that saying "miracle" invokes God.[/quote]
True, but God does not exclude science or natural processes. In fact, I believe God created those processes.

In fact, bringing up miracles actually makes it sound even more like bigfoot and unicorns and all that. There are people who swear the saw bigfoot, who have pictures and movies of it, why are they called crazy and religious folk not?

Not all are called crazy. Some are, but often the worst charge is just that they are mistaken. However, to get back to my above explanation, it was easy to believe in BigFoot for a long time. However, the more we move into formerly unexplored and unoccupied areas (even by native American tribes, in some cases), the likelihood of such a large animal existing without detection becomes more and more remote.

The same is not true of God.

Why not?[/quote]
Because, God neither eats, poops, procreates in ways we can detect here on earth.

[Snorri1234]

God is defined as the creator of the Universe. THE UNIVERSE ITSELF IS EVIDENCE FOR GOD. Not proof, but at least evidence. The flying teapot is different because there is NO EVIDENCE FOR IT. It's not a hard concept.

THAT IS A DUMB DEFINITION!


Essentially, what you just said is that God is the big bang. nothing more.

That's not what he's saying. He's saying God is the creative cause of the big bang or however else you want to describe the first act. He's not saying God is the big bang itself.

Sure thang, and that basically makes him the big bang. Being the cause of the big bang and nothing else makes you indistinguishable from the big bang itself.

[Snorri1234]

I don't believe I ever said that atheism was irrational. I have said it is not more rational than belief in God, and that the assertion that atheists are somehow smarter than those who are not is, itself, a sign of poor (too narrow) thinking (I don't think it was you making that assertion, but it was made).

It is infinitely more rational. You dismiss thousands upon thousands of gods and I simply dismiss one more. Unless you believe that not worshipping the greek pantheon is irrational you are simply being inconsistent.

(also, the point is really that atheism is more rational than agnosticism.)

As for the point, I got it, but it just isn't a valid one, no matter how many times you repeat it. That there is no God is, apparently something you believe. It is , apparently, something you believe very deeply. However, that does not make it true. Nor does my believing their is God make it true, not matter how deeply I believe or how firm the evidence seems to me. If I cannot convince you, or vice-versa, then we are at an impass. This is what makes this belief, religion and not science.

See, this is what makes me think you didn't get the point. My personal feelings have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The fact that I believe there is no God is unimportant, what is important is that you don't believe there is a family of burplewurples or greek pantheon or invisible unicorns or whatever the f*ck someone might come up with. You offer not explanation as to why you don't believe in them.

Also, in my case, the fact that there is a scientific explanation does not mean its no miracle. Some events are possible, but so improbable that saying "miracle" is as good an explanation as any.

Except that saying "miracle" invokes God.

True, but God does not exclude science or natural processes. In fact, I believe God created those processes.[/quote]
yeah.....the idea is that you're then adding god.

In fact, bringing up miracles actually makes it sound even more like bigfoot and unicorns and all that. There are people who swear the saw bigfoot, who have pictures and movies of it, why are they called crazy and religious folk not?

Not all are called crazy. Some are, but often the worst charge is just that they are mistaken. However, to get back to my above explanation, it was easy to believe in BigFoot for a long time. However, the more we move into formerly unexplored and unoccupied areas (even by native American tribes, in some cases), the likelihood of such a large animal existing without detection becomes more and more remote.

The same is not true of God.

Why not?

Because, God neither eats, poops, procreates in ways we can detect here on earth.[/quote]

yet he does things. We are at this point reasonably satisfied with our discovery of earth and very much on our way to discover everything about space and the universe that there is to know.

the thing is that we still haven't found God.

[Metsfanmax]

It is infinitely more rational. You dismiss thousands upon thousands of gods and I simply dismiss one more. Unless you believe that not worshipping the greek pantheon is irrational you are simply being inconsistent.

(also, the point is really that atheism is more rational than agnosticism.)

Even if your logic were correct, this isn't really the best use of "infinite" as a descriptor. It seems your assertion is that atheism is better than religion because it rejects one more god than any religious person. That doesn't seem to give it much credit. And there is no way that atheism is more rational than agnosticism, because there is no basis for the belief that no gods exist.

[PLAYER57832]

I don't believe I ever said that atheism was irrational. I have said it is not more rational than belief in God, and that the assertion that atheists are somehow smarter than those who are not is, itself, a sign of poor (too narrow) thinking (I don't think it was you making that assertion, but it was made).

It is infinitely more rational. You dismiss thousands upon thousands of gods and I simply dismiss one more. Unless you believe that not worshipping the greek pantheon is irrational you are simply being inconsistent.

(also, the point is really that atheism is more rational than agnosticism.)

Oh please. Are you seriously claiming that dismissing a hundred Gods is more logical than believing one? You are smarter than that.

As for the point, I got it, but it just isn't a valid one, no matter how many times you repeat it. That there is no God is, apparently something you believe. It is , apparently, something you believe very deeply. However, that does not make it true. Nor does my believing their is God make it true, not matter how deeply I believe or how firm the evidence seems to me. If I cannot convince you, or vice-versa, then we are at an impass. This is what makes this belief, religion and not science.

See, this is what makes me think you didn't get the point. My personal feelings have absolutely nothing to do with it.

The fact that I believe there is no God is unimportant, what is important is that you don't believe there is a family of burplewurples or greek pantheon or invisible unicorns or whatever the f*ck someone might come up with. You offer not explanation as to why you don't believe in them.

And I don't have to. Just as you don't have to provide a reason why you disbelieve in God. And, as has been said many, many times, you cannot prove there is no God. It only becomes an issue when atheists claim they are smarter, or better thinkers than those of us who believe in God.

Also, in my case, the fact that there is a scientific explanation does not mean its no miracle. Some events are possible, but so improbable that saying "miracle" is as good an explanation as any.

Except that saying "miracle" invokes God.

True, but God does not exclude science or natural processes. In fact, I believe God created those processes.[/quote]
yeah.....the idea is that you're then adding god.[/quote]
Or you are attempting to remove God, which I would say is really more accurate. God was a part of most science from the beginning. This idea of no God is a fairly recent invention.

In fact, bringing up miracles actually makes it sound even more like bigfoot and unicorns and all that. There are people who swear the saw bigfoot, who have pictures and movies of it, why are they called crazy and religious folk not?

Not all are called crazy. Some are, but often the worst charge is just that they are mistaken. However, to get back to my above explanation, it was easy to believe in BigFoot for a long time. However, the more we move into formerly unexplored and unoccupied areas (even by native American tribes, in some cases), the likelihood of such a large animal existing without detection becomes more and more remote.

The same is not true of God.

Why not?

Because, God neither eats, poops, procreates in ways we can detect here on earth.[/quote]

yet he does things.[/quote]
Christians believe he does, but mostly subtle things. And, well, he did set up all the systems you see around you and explain via science. Most of us accept that, we just say.. and God began it all.

We are at this point reasonably satisfied with our discovery of earth and very much on our way to discover everything about space and the universe that there is to know.

the thing is that we still haven't found God.

We haven't found out much about the universe, yet. Shoot-- we have barely found devices to leave the solar system. We have not, ourselves, left it.

Thinking that we might, some day.. is dreaming, the stuff from which science arises. Thinking that we are close, already..is arrogance.

[Snorri1234]

It is infinitely more rational. You dismiss thousands upon thousands of gods and I simply dismiss one more. Unless you believe that not worshipping the greek pantheon is irrational you are simply being inconsistent.

(also, the point is really that atheism is more rational than agnosticism.)

Even if your logic were correct, this isn't really the best use of "infinite" as a descriptor. It seems your assertion is that atheism is better than religion because it rejects one more god than any religious person. That doesn't seem to give it much credit. And there is no way that atheism is more rational than agnosticism, because there is no basis for the belief that no gods exist.

No my assertion is that atheism is better because it doesn't lend some god special status.

And there is a solid basis for the belief that no gods exist. It's just that there is no proof that no gods exist. What you're perceiving is basically the trap of agnosticism; the inherent problem of being unable to be 100% sure is not a hurdle to come to a decision to believe one way or the other. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between two positions, it is a position on a problem that is seperate. It is the problem of absolute knowledge. And you will always be hardpressed to find anyone who really seriously thinks that absolute knowledge is possible. (Jay said he thought it was doable, but whatever)

Not a single atheist I know claims to know for certain, without a doubt, 100% sure, absolutely that there is no god(s). But the recognize it for the different philosophical problem that it is. I don't know that the apple is going to fall when I throw it out of the window, but I'm not so silly to suggest that it is all up for grabs whether it falls or not.

[PLAYER57832]

It is infinitely more rational. You dismiss thousands upon thousands of gods and I simply dismiss one more. Unless you believe that not worshipping the greek pantheon is irrational you are simply being inconsistent.

(also, the point is really that atheism is more rational than agnosticism.)

Even if your logic were correct, this isn't really the best use of "infinite" as a descriptor. It seems your assertion is that atheism is better than religion because it rejects one more god than any religious person. That doesn't seem to give it much credit. And there is no way that atheism is more rational than agnosticism, because there is no basis for the belief that no gods exist.

No my assertion is that atheism is better because it doesn't lend some god special status.

And there is a solid basis for the belief that no gods exist. It's just that there is no proof that no gods exist. What you're perceiving is basically the trap of agnosticism; the inherent problem of being unable to be 100% sure is not a hurdle to come to a decision to believe one way or the other. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between two positions, it is a position on a problem that is seperate. It is the problem of absolute knowledge. And you will always be hardpressed to find anyone who really seriously thinks that absolute knowledge is possible. (Jay said he thought it was doable, but whatever)

Not a single atheist I know claims to know for certain, without a doubt, 100% sure, absolutely that there is no god(s). But the recognize it for the different philosophical problem that it is. I don't know that the apple is going to fall when I throw it out of the window, but I'm not so silly to suggest that it is all up for grabs whether it falls or not.

And yet, you still consider your position superior? Lacking proof?

See, theists see proof. We acknowledge is it not proof that can necessarily be readily shared, particularly on the internet, (close and personal friends though you all be ..lol), but it IS proof. Agnostics acknowledge doubt. That is reasonable, just not our position. Atheists.. atheists like to claim that their position is the fully logical one, proven by science, etc. Now you are saying you admit you lack that proof, but still believe?

See, told you it was religion.

[Metsfanmax]

And there is a solid basis for the belief that no gods exist.

And just what exactly is that basis?

It's just that there is no proof that no gods exist. What you're perceiving is basically the trap of agnosticism; the inherent problem of being unable to be 100% sure is not a hurdle to come to a decision to believe one way or the other. Agnosticism is not the middle ground between two positions, it is a position on a problem that is seperate. It is the problem of absolute knowledge. And you will always be hardpressed to find anyone who really seriously thinks that absolute knowledge is possible. (Jay said he thought it was doable, but whatever)

Not a single atheist I know claims to know for certain, without a doubt, 100% sure, absolutely that there is no god(s). But the recognize it for the different philosophical problem that it is. I don't know that the apple is going to fall when I throw it out of the window, but I'm not so silly to suggest that it is all up for grabs whether it falls or not.

The flaw in this position is that you're assuming a decision has to be made, and therefore atheism is the logical choice. However, I see no reason why this must be true. For practical matters such as the case you cited, of whether gravity actually exists, it makes pragmatic sense to have a belief system because it allows us to function normally. In the case of religion though, that argument fails, because there is no pragmatic reason why choosing to positively deny the existence of Gods, as opposed to taking no stance, is beneficial. If there is no call to make such a choice, then it is not logical to make one. Furthermore, I would go so far as to say that if anything, there is reason not to take the stance, on the off chance that God exists, and he really hates atheism but doesn't mind agnosticism too much.