• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

joG said:
Of course it is a religion. Only Atheists hate the idea.
Click to expand...

I seem to remember a story from a while ago where the Pastafarians tried to get together and write the central tenets of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the whole ordeal ended in fights and an eventual schism in the church.

I got a nice chuckle out of that.
 
New born infants are atheists. At 65 years of age I have not changed my position. It wasn't a religion then and it's not a religion now.
 
jmotivator said:
I seem to remember a story from a while ago where the Pastafarians tried to get together and write the central tenets of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the whole ordeal ended in fights and an eventual schism in the church.

I got a nice chuckle out of that.
Click to expand...

You do realize that Pastafarianism does not equal atheism, right? They are not the same thing. Not all atheists are Pastafarians (in fact, most aren't). Pastafarianism may very well become a real, believed in religion in the not too distant future (even possibly a couple).
 
roguenuke said:
You do realize that Pastafarianism does not equal atheism, right? They are not the same thing. Not all atheists are Pastafarians (in fact, most aren't). Pastafarianism may very well become a real, believed in religion in the not too distant future (even possibly a couple).
Click to expand...

:roll: Pastafarians are atheists who made up a supreme being to be funny. Don't pretend otherwise.
 
jmotivator said:
:roll: Pastafarians are atheists who made up a supreme being to be funny. Don't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

But all imagined supreme beings are made up. The spaghetti monster is just one more. The Christian god is no less funny.
 
Russell797 said:
But all imagined supreme beings are made up. The spaghetti monster is just one more. The Christian god is no less funny.
Click to expand...

:roll: I shouldn't need to explain the difference between the actual belief in a God and the phony pretend belief in a God even to an atheist...
 
jmotivator said:
:roll: I shouldn't need to explain the difference between the actual belief in a God and the phony pretend belief in a God even to an atheist...
Click to expand...

You mean no one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What's in a name though? The metaphor represents the same type of entity. There really is no difference. All these gods by whatever name are referring to something undefined, supernatural, capable of what to us are super powers in defiance of natural law. God, ghosts, souls, spirits and now the spaghetti monster.
 
Russell797 said:
You mean no one actually believes in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? What's in a name though? The metaphor represents the same type of entity. There really is no difference. All these gods by whatever name are referring to something undefined, supernatural, capable of what to us are super powers in defiance of natural law. God, ghosts, souls, spirits and now the spaghetti monster.
Click to expand...

Yes, there is a very real difference. Actually believing and pretending to believe are two very different things.
 
Russell797 said:
But all imagined supreme beings are made up. The spaghetti monster is just one more. The Christian god is no less funny.
Click to expand...

I would argue that the spaghetti monster is more funny, but roughly equal in ridiculousness.
 
jmotivator said:
:roll: Pastafarians are atheists who made up a supreme being to be funny. Don't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

Wrong.
Pastafarianism is a religion that evolved after a made up deity went viral. That deity was used to prove a point about what should be taught as science..

I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; one third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.
— Bobby Henderson
Click to expand...
in a letter to the Kansas state board of edumacation.

This became pastafarianism after he made his letter public.

In May 2005, having received no reply from the Kansas State Board of Education, Henderson posted the letter on his website, gaining significant public interest.[3][14] Shortly thereafter, Pastafarianism became an Internet phenomenon.[18][9] Henderson published the responses he then received from board members.[20] Three board members, all of whom opposed the curriculum amendments, responded positively; a fourth board member responded with the comment "It is a serious offense to mock God".[21] Henderson has also published the significant amount of hate mail, including death threats, that he has received.[22][23] Within one year of sending the open letter, Henderson received thousands of emails on the Flying Spaghetti Monster, eventually totaling over 60,000,[24] of which he has said that "about 95 percent have been supportive, while the other five percent have said I am going to hell".[9] During that time, his site garnered tens of millions of hits.
Click to expand...

Pastafaranism is not limited to atheists. It is for anyone wishing to demonstrate the foolishness of not separating church and state. Much like the Satanists in Oklahoma.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Wrong.
Pastafarianism is a religion that evolved after a made up deity went viral. That deity was used to prove a point about what should be taught as science..

in a letter to the Kansas state board of edumacation.

This became pastafarianism after he made his letter public.

Pastafaranism is not limited to atheists. It is for anyone wishing to demonstrate the foolishness of not separating church and state. Much like the Satanists in Oklahoma.
Click to expand...

You aren't really saying anything I didn't say, but I also disagree with you about Pastafarians not being atheists, they are.
 
jmotivator said:
Yes, there is a very real difference. Actually believing and pretending to believe are two very different things.
Click to expand...

I am an atheist and I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No atheist actually believes in the FSM. They are not pretending to believe in the FSM either. They are merely demonstrating the irrationality of all such imagined gods. What is the difference between the FSM and the Christian God? Why does the logic which makes sense for rejecting the FSM not hold for the Christian God?
 
Russell797 said:
I am an atheist and I do not believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. No atheist actually believes in the FSM. They are not pretending to believe in the FSM either. They are merely demonstrating the irrationality of all such imagined gods. What is the difference between the FSM and the Christian God? Why does the logic which makes sense for rejecting the FSM not hold for the Christian God?
Click to expand...

You are making my argument. Pretending to believe in something and actually believing are two different things. Pretending to believe in no way casts a new light on actually believing any more than putting on black face brings you in tune with black cultural beliefs.
 
RogueWarrior said:
They certainly can be but not exclusively so.
Click to expand...

If you can find me a Christian, Muslim or Jewish theist who is also a Pastafarian let me know.
 
jmotivator said:
You are making my argument. Pretending to believe in something and actually believing are two different things. Pretending to believe in no way casts a new light on actually believing any more than putting on black face brings you in tune with black cultural beliefs.
Click to expand...

Sure, anyone can believe anything they want. The issue involves people trying to rationalize their belief when there is no valid rationalization to be had. We can not arrive at a belief in god through reason. The concept is irrational. Yet that doesn't stop people from trying to 'legitimize' their belief.
 
Russell797 said:
Sure, anyone can believe anything they want.
Click to expand...

Wow, thanks! :roll:

The issue involves people trying to rationalize their belief when there is no valid rationalization to be had.
Click to expand...

No, that isn't the issue here.

We can not arrive at a belief in god through reason. The concept is irrational.
Click to expand...

The concept isn't irrational, the belief may be arrived at through various irrational contexts, but the concept wouldn't be irrational.

Philosophy is still considering these questions on one side or the other all the time.

A belief that something definitely doesn't exist because you haven't seen it is irrational, by the way.

Believing in God because of personal experience is also not rational, but few believers care, and certainly aren't as self delusional as atheists that believe their certitude was achieved through rational conclusions. The only true rational position would be pure agnosticism that takes no position.

Yet that doesn't stop people from trying to 'legitimize' their belief.
Click to expand...

How are you using the word "legitimize" in this context?
 
jmotivator said:
Wow, thanks! :roll:
Click to expand...



No, that isn't the issue here.



The concept isn't irrational, the belief may be arrived at through various irrational contexts, but the concept wouldn't be irrational.
Click to expand...

It's no more or less rational than the spaghetti monster. Both are imagined without supporting evidence.

Philosophy is still considering these questions on one side or the other all the time.
Click to expand...

And they will never arrive at a conclusion by merely thinking about it.

A belief that something definitely doesn't exist because you haven't seen it is irrational, by the way.
Click to expand...

Which is not what I do in the case of god. I simply lack evidence which suggests I could entertain believing so I don't. I don't believe my plane will crash because by far most planes don't crash. That's an informed belief. I have no information about the imagined god.
Believing in God because of personal experience is also not rational, but few believers care, and certainly aren't as self delusional as atheists that believe their certitude was achieved through rational conclusions. The only true rational position would be pure agnosticism that takes no position.
Click to expand...

I am an agnostic atheist.

How are you using the word "legitimize" in this context?
Click to expand...

To make sense out of the senseless in a logically valid way. It can't be done.
 
Russell797 said:
No, that isn't the issue here.
Click to expand...

I'm commenting on your ham handed proclamation.

It's no more or less rational than the spaghetti monster. Both are imagined without supporting evidence.
Click to expand...

But nobody actually believes in the FSM. Trying to equate belief with pretend is not rational.

And they will never arrive at a conclusion by merely thinking about it.
Click to expand...

This is demonstrably not true. All conclusions are drawn from thinking about it.

Which is not what I do in the case of god. I simply lack evidence which suggests I could entertain believing so I don't. I don't believe my plane will crash because by far most planes don't crash. That's an informed belief. I have no information about the imagined god.
Click to expand...

So you are not certain in your belief in the non-existence of God?

I am an agnostic atheist.
Click to expand...

You sure don't come off as agnostic. An agnostic tends not pass judgement on the beliefs of others as you so readily do because agnosticism requires that you hold no position on the existence of God. You clearly hold a position.

To make sense out of the senseless in a logically valid way. It can't be done.
Click to expand...

That isn't any definition of "legitimize" I have seen. When you are agnostic and you hold no belief in the existence of God. Both sides are equally legitimate stances as either could be correct.
 
jmotivator said:
I'm commenting on your ham handed proclamation.



But nobody actually believes in the FSM. Trying to equate belief with pretend is not rational.



This is demonstrably not true. All conclusions are drawn from thinking about it.



So you are not certain in your belief in the non-existence of God?



You sure don't come off as agnostic. An agnostic tends not pass judgement on the beliefs of others as you so readily do because agnosticism requires that you hold no position on the existence of God. You clearly hold a position.



That isn't any definition of "legitimize" I have seen. When you are agnostic and you hold no belief in the existence of God. Both sides are equally legitimate stances as either could be correct.
Click to expand...

I don't know and can't know if god exists or not. Agnostic.
I don't believe in god. Atheist.

I don't pass judgement on the beliefs of others until they argue that their belief makes some kind of logical sense. To believe in something for which there is no evidence is irrational.

All conclusions must be drawn from thinking about evidence. If there is no evidence then thinking alone can not lead to a logical conclusion.

I don't have a belief in the non-existence of gods any more than I have a belief in them. What are the options for defining this god? Are gods a possibility. What makes something possible? For me something is possible if it conforms to a set of rules. I don't think it is possible that a bunch of monkeys could come flying out of my butt. I don't think the Sun will go supernova since it is not massive enough to do so. What rules can I apply to the possibility of god, and where did the rules come from before there was a god. But wait, didn't god create the rules? It's a nightmare in irrational thinking. I can't make sense of these questions because there is no evidence upon which to draw a conclusion.
 
I know people that do not believe in God. To them, it is a simple question and a simple answer. If pestered they will discuss it more fully. But in general it is not a huge part of their life. Most atheists I know in real life fall into this category.

The people I have met that are more "vocal" about their atheism are few and far between. They look for ways to bring atheism into the conversation in the same way that I have been proselytized by some Christians. Both have the same feel to me.

But like I said, most atheists I know will only be more vocal about their lack of belief I God when pushed . And to me, that is understandable and is not disrespectful - it is a 2 way conversation (even though the person push religion wants a captive audience;) )
 
jmotivator said:
:roll: Pastafarians are atheists who made up a supreme being to be funny. Don't pretend otherwise.
Click to expand...

As opposed to most religions who really did see monkey gods, hawk gods, invisible spirits, and men walk on water. Oh boy. This situation is the gift that keeps on giving.


Sent from a flower watered by the tears of Trump supporters and crazy newb liberals.
 
year2late said:
I know people that do not believe in God. To them, it is a simple question and a simple answer. If pestered they will discuss it more fully. But in general it is not a huge part of their life. Most atheists I know in real life fall into this category.

The people I have met that are more "vocal" about their atheism are few and far between. They look for ways to bring atheism into the conversation in the same way that I have been proselytized by some Christians. Both have the same feel to me.

But like I said, most atheists I know will only be more vocal about their lack of belief I God when pushed . And to me, that is understandable and is not disrespectful - it is a 2 way conversation (even though the person push religion wants a captive audience;) )
Click to expand...

Exactly. A religion is something people practice. They engage in it. I, as an atheist only think about the issue when prompted to give an opinion such as on a website like this or at the water cooler. Otherwise there is nothing about non-belief which can be put into practice with the exception of people and the government shoving the issue in my face on money, documents and places like court rooms and schools which demand statements be made in the name of god.
 
Russell797 said:
Exactly. A religion is something people practice. They engage in it. I, as an atheist only think about the issue when prompted to give an opinion such as on a website like this or at the water cooler. Otherwise there is nothing about non-belief which can be put into practice with the exception of people and the government shoving the issue in my face on money, documents and places like court rooms and schools which demand statements be made in the name of god.
Click to expand...

realistically speaking, sometimes the people speaking (proselytizing) to another is not looking for your opinion - they seem to cry foul when you make it a 2 way conversation - it is seen as antagonistic.

I just with either party if they want to speak to me about their views on God or lack there of....at the very least respect my lack of desire to engage in the conversation, but at the very least...if I walk away, don't follow me and re-engage.;)

But yeah, I have seen a few atheists treat their lack of belief in a religion like way. But the vast majority - not in the least.
 
The proof that this is nonsense is in the words being used. The word 'Believe'. An Atheist simply does not 'Believe' Full Stop. It is that simple. We do not believe that there is not a god but we know that there is not a god. And we do not therefore 'Believe' in something else instead. We follow science, the world we can see and feel, a world that makes more sense to us.


Joey
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom