• 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!

Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

Does water have a taste?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 68.0%

  • No

    Votes: 8 32.0%
  • Total voters
    25
I find this debate kind of silly and perhaps pointless. Maybe it has a point on a political level, but on a personal level it doesn't really matter.

It looks just like a battle of the minds. People who believe in God are used to having a belief (let's call it mindset #1) and atheists are used to not caring, being skeptical, or not believing in God (mindset #2). These are two totally different ways of viewing reality so naturally they will try to ascribe their respective realities to one another.

Theists are trying to ascribe an affirmative belief to atheists because that's what their world revolves around. Their minds are accustomed to a theist reality and so they will naturally try to superimpose that onto others when trying to consider their realities. That's where this whole "atheism is a belief" aspect comes in. It's a failure to rise above one's own system. Not that it's their fault, everyone is human and everyone has a mind. But it's important to note that it's an attempt to judge a different framework from within the trapping of one's own framework. It's the same fallacy that is employed when religion tries to become scientific as in the case of creationism.

The tool of atheists tends to be science and so based on the probability analysis of science, God in all likelihood does not exist. The absence of facts and data leads to the absence of belief. It is a neutral position as opposed to a negative one. Those who claim that God does absolutely exist, or absolutely doesn't exist, are living in a fantasy land for sure. Atheists who aren't militant or extremist take the neutral road.
 
Last edited:
Orion said:
I find this debate kind of silly and perhaps pointless. Maybe it has a point on a political level, but on a personal level it doesn't really matter.

It looks just like a battle of the minds. People who believe in God are used to having a belief (let's call it mindset #1) and atheists are used to not caring, being skeptical, or not believing in God (mindset #2). These are two totally different ways of viewing reality so naturally they will try to ascribe their respective realities to one another.

Theists are trying to ascribe an affirmative belief to atheists because that's what their world revolves around. Their minds are accustomed to a theist reality and so they will naturally try to superimpose that onto others when trying to consider their realities. That's where this whole "atheism is a belief" aspect comes in. It's a failure to rise above one's own system. Not that it's their fault, everyone is human and everyone has a mind. But it's important to note that it's an attempt to judge a different framework from within the trapping of one's own framework. It's the same fallacy that is employed when religion tries to become scientific as in the case of creationism.

The tool of atheists tends to be science and so based on the probability analysis of science, God in all likelihood does not exist. The absence of facts and data leads to the absence of belief. It is a neutral position as opposed to a negative one. Those who claim that God does absolutely exist, or absolutely doesn't exist, are living in a fantasy land for sure. Atheists who aren't militant or extremist take the neutral road.
Click to expand...

I was on the verge of a reply along these lines of one way of seeing things not connecting or able to cross the gulf into anothers way of seeing things, but you beat me to it, and put it well, so quoted for truth.
 
Would you not equally say then that Athiests who continually belittle or insult or question with logic people who are thiests for not listening to science or logic and relying on something as "silly" as belief or faith are equally operating from their own system where things MUST be provable, MUST concrete, MUST be tangable for it to exist or be worthy of having trust placed in it?
 
rivrrat said:
*bangs head on keyboard*

The word NOT is there for a reason.
Click to expand...

Not believing is not the absence of belief. It is simply a negative belief.
 
Zyphlin said:
Would you not equally say then that Athiests who continually belittle or insult or question with logic people who are thiests for not listening to science or logic and relying on something as "silly" as belief or faith are equally operating from their own system where things MUST be provable, MUST concrete, MUST be tangable for it to exist or be worthy of having trust placed in it?
Click to expand...

I think there can be a lot of questionable behavior within subsets of the atheist community. Particularly within the anti-theist branch. There are those who condemn religion in total or attack religion in general due to their personal beliefs about religious institutions. Religion can, and often does, have positive effects for people's lives. And if one wishes to believe in a god, they are more than free to do so. There is plenty of worth within religious institutions and people can draw experience and community from them which positively affects their lives. This is a measured fact. Religion can also be abused and twisted; as seen in almost every theocracy which has ever existed on this planet. The use and application of religion is a personal choice and can work out either way. You can have a lot of personal growth and acceptance, or you can have the Westburo (sp?) Baptist folk who suck balls. The same is true on the atheist side. You can have people who have their negative belief structure (if you choose to call it such) and those who are anti-theist and go out to attack religion at every opportunity. However, atheism in general doesn't carry with it the community as there is not reall a community structure set up within atheism.
 
Zyphlin said:
I understand why they do it. I understand to a point why athiests do it. I don't begrudge either side.

What I'm saying though is when your sides are so self conciously, primarily due to what your own side has done with the words and view points and the demonizing of them, of a particular label but that label applies to you based on the fact you fail to actually make yourself clear or honestly present your point to not be upset or surprised or condenscending when people react to what you're actually saying rather than assuming what you actually mean.

I think what many athiests have done to the notion of faith and turning it into a "bad word" that they're afraid of having applied to them because it gives more "fodder" for people to throw agains them is very similar to the self-consiously and insecure notion of religious people being unable to "question" the belief of the divine as something that isn't infallably correct and unquestionably true.
Click to expand...

This is a two way street, atheism viewed as a bad word to many as well. tis not a popular stance, and not one that many go around advertising. there is no "mandate to spread the word of atheism"

the outspoken minority tends to overpower the quiet majority. When one has conviction in their position they are much more likely to assert this position and usually do so loudly, thus the devout theists who make absolute proclamations usually are the ones butting heads with staunch atheists (or more often and/or accurately the staunch anti theists) who make absolute proclamations the other way (or absolutely rejects the opposing absolute proclamation).
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
I think there can be a lot of questionable behavior within subsets of the atheist community. Particularly within the anti-theist branch. There are those who condemn religion in total or attack religion in general due to their personal beliefs about religious institutions. Religion can, and often does, have positive effects for people's lives. And if one wishes to believe in a god, they are more than free to do so. There is plenty of worth within religious institutions and people can draw experience and community from them which positively affects their lives. This is a measured fact. Religion can also be abused and twisted; as seen in almost every theocracy which has ever existed on this planet. The use and application of religion is a personal choice and can work out either way. You can have a lot of personal growth and acceptance, or you can have the Westburo (sp?) Baptist folk who suck balls. The same is true on the atheist side. You can have people who have their negative belief structure (if you choose to call it such) and those who are anti-theist and go out to attack religion at every opportunity. However, atheism in general doesn't carry with it the community as there is not reall a community structure set up within atheism.
Click to expand...

why do you keep saying essentially the same thing as I and posting it as I am writing my post. We both bring in the anti-theist concept at the same time :p
 
reefedjib said:
Not believing is not the absence of belief. It is simply a negative belief.
Click to expand...

No. It's not. It is the rejection of belief. Be it possitive or negative. When somebody asks me 'Do you have a religious belief?' I say 'No. I do not'. I don't then turn around and say 'I believe in science'. Belief comes without evidence and thus not subject to observation by others. I do not believe that leaves are green because some unexplainable factor is making them green. I know they are green because clorophyll and pigments is what gives them their distinctive color. However I must thank Zyphlin for turning this conversation into the usual whining about how bad atheists are and the placebo effect it has on people.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
No. It's not. It is the rejection of belief. Be it possitive or negative. When somebody asks me 'Do you have a religious belief?' I say 'No. I do not'. I don't then turn around and say 'I believe in science'. Belief comes without evidence and thus not subject to observation by others. I do not believe that leaves are green because some unexplainable factor is making them green. I know they are green because clorophyll and pigments is what gives them their distinctive color. However I must thank Zyphlin for turning this conversation into the usual whining about how bad atheists are and the placebo effect it has on people.
Click to expand...

You have the belief that pure unadulterated, articulated rationality is the correct way to view the world.
 
rivrrat said:
I don't believe there is one "correct" way to view the world. Whatever works for you is correct for you.
Click to expand...

I guess that's what most religious people simply don't get when they call atheism a religion. In what "religion" is it possible to say that you accept and change core "beliefs" which change as human knowledge expands? And if these "beliefs" can be changed are they still "core beliefs"? The religious are essentially claiming that anything can be a religion and a belief making the whole point of religion and belief moot.
 
rivrrat said:
I don't believe there is one "correct" way to view the world. Whatever works for you is correct for you.
Click to expand...

Ok, so do you feel that valid knowledge can come from non-rational sources?
 
Hatuey said:
I guess that's what most religious people simply don't get when they call atheism a religion.
Click to expand...

Well, I never said that I was religious, so I would prefer if you used the following words:

Spiritual people do get that atheism is a belief.
Click to expand...

In what "religion" is it possible to say that you accept and change core "beliefs" which change as human knowledge expands?
Click to expand...

It is called relflexive. You can re-evaluate the details and foundation of your beliefs. I think it is only proper to change your assumptions as your knowledge changes.

And if these "beliefs" can be changed are they still "core beliefs"?
Click to expand...

That's a great question. I think so, as some knowledge is such that it completely changes your vision of how the world and man acts.

The religious are essentially claiming that anything can be a religion and a belief making the whole point of religion and belief moot.
Click to expand...

I don't understand what you mean.
 
reefedjib said:
Well, I never said that I was religious, so I would prefer if you used the following words:
Click to expand...

I never said you were religious so my comment stands.

It is called relflexive. You can re-evaluate the details and foundation of your beliefs. I think it is only proper to change your assumptions as your knowledge changes.
Click to expand...

You still haven't answered my question. Reflexive is simply a word meaning directing back to itself, relating to a reflex or relating to a reflex. Religion can't by definition be reflexive.

That's a great question. I think so, as some knowledge is such that it completely changes your vision of how the world and man acts.
Click to expand...

The mental acrobatics in this are insane and yet you still don't answer my question. If a core belief can be changed is it still a core belief?

I don't understand what you mean.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way: If I have a car and you don't. I say that having a car is the same thing as not having a car. Why do I have a car at all?
 
Hatuey said:
I never said you were religious so my comment stands.



You still haven't answered my question. Reflexive is simply a word meaning directing back to itself, relating to a reflex or relating to a reflex. Religion can't by definition be reflexive.



The mental acrobatics in this are insane and yet you still don't answer my question. If a core belief can be changed is it still a core belief?



Think of it this way: If I have a car and you don't. I say that having a car is the same thing as not having a car. Why do I have a car at all?
Click to expand...

You are being all combative and I ain't in the mood. Good day.
 
reefedjib said:
Asshole

.​
Click to expand...

Euthyphro - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Yet after claiming to be able to tell even more amazing such stories, Euthyphro spends little time or effort defending the conventional view of the gods. Instead, he is led straight to the real task at hand, as Socrates forces him to confront his ignorance, ever pressing him for a definition of 'piety'. Yet with every definition Euthyphro proposes, Socrates very quickly finds a fatal flaw (6d ff.).
Click to expand...
 
Water does have a taste. Atheism isn't a religion, but it is a faith.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom