• 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]

maquiscat said:
And yet history is practically nothing but anecdotal evidence.
Click to expand...

Wrong, they may be supported from actual empirical evidence. Usually archeology is involved in supporting history on it's claims.

maquiscat said:
Lincoln's assassination, Washington crossing the Delaware, Edison's words when the first telephone worked, etc. Individual events are unique and singular.
Click to expand...

Further, unlike religion, history does not claims that what happened then is still happening now. Lincoln is no longer being assassinated. Washington no longer crosses the Delaware. Edison is no longer having his first words on the telephone.

What religion does is use anecdotal evidence and claim "God intervened back then. Thereby it exists now also." Just because people say it happened the statement is no longer supported from with actual empirical evidence. There was none back then neither.

maquiscat said:
They are not repeatable, at least not in the sense that they can be duplicated scientifically. A walk in the woods by yourself and spotting a buck with a unheard of number of tines (is that the correct word?). How do you repeat that? You can never guarantee that such an event can be repeated and yet that buck's existence is reality.
Click to expand...

That the woods and walking exists can be repeated. We can have such an experience and provide actual empirical evidence of their existence. The buck's existence can also be supported by actual empirical data. People can take pictures or capture the buck and invite others to see it's existence there and then.

Wish God would do the same? But where is it? Huh? Where!? In same anecdotal evidence written some 2000 years ago and no more?

What seems to be hinted though is that life cannot be duplicated. Life is experienced phenomenologically and as the ancient philosophers said: Cannot cross the same river twice.

Now anecdotal evidence and history does not helps support the religious cause. The latest area for the religious to grab and exploit possible ways to push their purpose for charity and political benefits may be the next scientific and philosophical theory of phenomenology.

If so, I suggest to keep the non existent God concept within people's phenomenological area and stop shoving the concept to other people's throats. Furthermore if placed there then phenomenology is an individualistic matter, there would be no need for others to preach and benefit from other people's phenomenological statements that are unsupported from actual empirical data.
 
Henry David said:
In that sense, what we call atheism is but the other side of the same coin, a necessary reaction to 'theism'.
Click to expand...

Some people needed to gather a meaning and connected it in such a way for the phenomenological existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That is fine. But live and let live and do not shove it to other people's throats! Also if so, why pay for such meaning distributing services again? So as they would grow and involve themselves politically?

Other people have not gathered meaning in such a way. Thereby the area where the religious have built a sense of deity lacks/there is vacuum/nothing there/hello/echo among the atheists. So how then is atheism religious?
 
maquiscat said:
And yet history is practically nothing but anecdotal evidence. Lincoln's assassination, Washington crossing the Delaware, Edison's words when the first telephone worked, etc. Individual events are unique and singular. They are not repeatable, at least not in the sense that they can be duplicated scientifically. A walk in the woods by yourself and spotting a buck with a unheard of number of tines (is that the correct word?). How do you repeat that? You can never guarantee that such an event can be repeated and yet that buck's existence is reality.
Click to expand...

And yet every historical example you just noted had absolutely ZERO supernatural component to it. You're trying to put splitting of seas, serpents to snakes, water to wine and global floods all on the same level of normal historical events.

Every religion has made supernatural claims as part of a historical component. Should we believe them all? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as far as the bible goes, there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
That was a lot of wishful thinking but it wasnt even logical. Do you live in Washington or Colorado?

Here how it works: You claim that a god exists. I just reject that notion. rejecting your belief in a god is no different than you rejecting someone elses belief in a god.

If we use your logic then everything that we dont reject means that we built a religion around that rejection. I reject that the Earth is flat, so therefor my religion is the rejection of a flat Earth. Nope just no logic in your entire post. So I reject your claim, damn it now I am in another religion!

Not everyone believes in something, if you believe that everyone must believe in something then you need to know that is your biased point of view only.
Click to expand...



Riddle me this; will the sun set tonite? If so why? If not why not?

Then this; Is it ok in your opinion to commit genocide? If so why? If not why not?

?
 
Last edited:
DDD said:
Wrong, they may be supported from actual empirical evidence. Usually archeology is involved in supporting history on it's claims.
Click to expand...

Archeology can only fill in so many gaps on what we take on faith such as the details on what happened. I'm not going to say that we have nothing out there historically that doesn't have multiple sources of evidence as to what happened, simply that there is so much more that we conjecture on based upon skimpy evidence and even anecdotal written evidence of the time.



Further, unlike religion, history does not claims that what happened then is still happening now. Lincoln is no longer being assassinated. Washington no longer crosses the Delaware. Edison is no longer having his first words on the telephone.

What religion does is use anecdotal evidence and claim "God intervened back then. Thereby it exists now also." Just because people say it happened the statement is no longer supported from with actual empirical evidence. There was none back then neither.
Click to expand...

Much of the counter-claims against religion is that the historical events didn't happen. The whole premise of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God and died for people's sin. The main arguments against Christianity are along the lines of he didn't exist and the event attributed to him never happened if he did and so on in the same vein. Same principle can be applied in regards to Joesph Smith and Muhammad and even the events of the Torah(which is usually covered under the denial of "Christian history")


That the woods and walking exists can be repeated. We can have such an experience and provide actual empirical evidence of their existence. The buck's existence can also be supported by actual empirical data. People can take pictures or capture the buck and invite others to see it's existence there and then.
Click to expand...

Now you're just getting silly. Of course the woods and the walking can be repeated and if you at all think I was noting about them, you're a few cards shy of a full deck. But since I think you still have your jokers even, I will take the facetiousness for what it's worth. My point was not that empirical evidence could not possibly be obtain in such an event, IF you had the equipment handy, simply that real events happen that never have empirical evidence created. As for other people, how many more people would it take to reach that point of empirical evidence on the buck? Do they have to be together as a group or are several individual accounts enough?


RabidAlpaca said:
And yet every historical example you just noted had absolutely ZERO supernatural component to it. You're trying to put splitting of seas, serpents to snakes, water to wine and global floods all on the same level of normal historical events.

Every religion has made supernatural claims as part of a historical component. Should we believe them all? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and as far as the bible goes, there is no evidence for anything supernatural.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that you meant to make one of those "staves". However you are making an improper argument. The whole premise of a miracle is that it run contrary to the laws of nature. A supernatural event is one that runs contrary to the laws of nature as we know them when the event occurs. A supernatural event eventually be explained as we learn more. We might find that ghosts actually exist, albeit maybe not to the extent that the stories grew and expanded. Unicorns do exist; they were and are actually goats (cloven hooves and the little goatee), but the legends grew beyond the reality. Flying machines would have been considered supernatural at one point in history.

But most miracles do not repeat themselves, especially the major ones. The minor ones might repeat in their nature such as the sudden disappearing of cancer with no medical explanation. but how often do you see the same person get a non-curable cancer and then have it miraculously disappear several times? And since very few if any miracles, not to mention other every day life events, bother to time themselves for convenience we are left with only anecdotal evidence to related them and people take it on faith that it happened.
 
it's just me said:
About.com???????

:damn
Click to expand...


Anything more than the basics would have probably given him a stroke.

Most of the information there is to correct misconceptions about atheism.

Atheism is just disbelief of the theistic claims about gods. It is literally that simple.

And yet even this very simple definition confounds many theists.
 
Last edited:
KokomoJojo said:
Riddle me this; will the sun set tonite? If so why? If not why not?
Click to expand...
There will probably be a sunset when the time is appropriate, but one cant be sure until it actually happens. Find a book or a good astronomy site and they will explain to you about the suns position and the rotation of the Earth in relation to how the Sun looks on the horizon at a certain time. Add to that you will also find information about atmospheric conditions and their effects on colorization during sunsets.

Then this; Is it ok in your opinion to commit genocide? If so why? If not why not?

?
Click to expand...
Well of course in my opinion genocide isnt ok. Why you ask? Well because I said so and that was my opinion.

Your little riddle game isnt going to make a excuse for why a god in a story whether metaphorical or not would kill the people that it created and is above. Humans being lesser than a god are unable to make decisions on such things as immortality since it is impossible for a mortal to conceive the knowledge needed to make a eternal decision.
being mortal we can only perceive in a beginning and a end. face us with a decision that will affect us for an eternity then we are unable to grasp the gravity of that decision.
take Heaven for example, how it is described in the bible. On the surface it sounds grand, that is if you accept the tenants of it. Worshiping at the feet of a god for a infinite amount of time doesnt sound so grand though. God then turns into a grand dictator of mega proportions. No fun there.

The Noah story (and theres no way around this) portrays a god that is not only vengeful and petty, but doesnt even care the he killed innocents in mega proportions. One then in all logic must conclude that there was never a flood and that the story is full of ****. ANd that the writer was trying to convey that if you dont believe in his god then his god will kill your children and every other living thing on Earth. It is a ****ed up message to say the least.
 
maquiscat said:
Archeology can only fill in so many gaps on what we take on faith such as the details on what happened. I'm not going to say that we have nothing out there historically that doesn't have multiple sources of evidence as to what happened, simply that there is so much more that we conjecture on based upon skimpy evidence and even anecdotal written evidence of the time.
Click to expand...

At least there is actual empirical evidence to support such statements. Unlike the concept of God when there is none, and all there is is a bunch of people's anecdotal evidence some 2000 years ago.

maquiscat said:
Much of the counter-claims against religion is that the historical events didn't happen. The whole premise of Christianity is that Jesus was the Son of God and died for people's sin. The main arguments against Christianity are along the lines of he didn't exist and the event attributed to him never happened if he did and so on in the same vein. Same principle can be applied in regards to Joesph Smith and Muhammad and even the events of the Torah(which is usually covered under the denial of "Christian history")
Click to expand...

That is their take on the position of "God's existence." Mine is that those historical events may have happened, but were of political nature. It was a pacifistic act against Rome.

maquiscat said:
Now you're just getting silly. Of course the woods and the walking can be repeated and if you at all think I was noting about them, you're a few cards shy of a full deck. But since I think you still have your jokers even, I will take the facetiousness for what it's worth. My point was not that empirical evidence could not possibly be obtain in such an event, IF you had the equipment handy, simply that real events happen that never have empirical evidence created. As for other people, how many more people would it take to reach that point of empirical evidence on the buck? Do they have to be together as a group or are several individual accounts enough?
Click to expand...

Surveys are made for such purposes. Usually a significant majority would do.

maquiscat said:
I'm pretty sure that you meant to make one of those "staves". However you are making an improper argument. The whole premise of a miracle is that it run contrary to the laws of nature. A supernatural event is one that runs contrary to the laws of nature as we know them when the event occurs. A supernatural event eventually be explained as we learn more. We might find that ghosts actually exist, albeit maybe not to the extent that the stories grew and expanded. Unicorns do exist; they were and are actually goats (cloven hooves and the little goatee), but the legends grew beyond the reality. Flying machines would have been considered supernatural at one point in history.
Click to expand...

Present actual empirical evidence for Unicorn's existence. There is no actual empirical evidence of the supernatural neither.

maquiscat said:
But most miracles do not repeat themselves, especially the major ones. The minor ones might repeat in their nature such as the sudden disappearing of cancer with no medical explanation. but how often do you see the same person get a non-curable cancer and then have it miraculously disappear several times? And since very few if any miracles, not to mention other every day life events, bother to time themselves for convenience we are left with only anecdotal evidence to related them and people take it on faith that it happened.
Click to expand...

The reason why they do not repeat is because they never existed. There should be actual empirical evidence to support something existence otherwise the statement of its existence should drop.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
There will probably be a sunset when the time is appropriate, but one cant be sure until it actually happens. Find a book or a good astronomy site and they will explain to you about the suns position and the rotation of the Earth in relation to how the Sun looks on the horizon at a certain time. Add to that you will also find information about atmospheric conditions and their effects on colorization during sunsets.

Well of course in my opinion genocide isnt ok. Why you ask? Well because I said so and that was my opinion.

Your little riddle game isnt going to make a excuse for why a god in a story whether metaphorical or not would kill the people that it created and is above. Humans being lesser than a god are unable to make decisions on such things as immortality since it is impossible for a mortal to conceive the knowledge needed to make a eternal decision.
being mortal we can only perceive in a beginning and a end. face us with a decision that will affect us for an eternity then we are unable to grasp the gravity of that decision.
take Heaven for example, how it is described in the bible. On the surface it sounds grand, that is if you accept the tenants of it. Worshiping at the feet of a god for a infinite amount of time doesnt sound so grand though. God then turns into a grand dictator of mega proportions. No fun there.

The Noah story (and theres no way around this) portrays a god that is not only vengeful and petty, but doesnt even care the he killed innocents in mega proportions. One then in all logic must conclude that there was never a flood and that the story is full of ****. ANd that the writer was trying to convey that if you dont believe in his god then his god will kill your children and every other living thing on Earth. It is a ****ed up message to say the least.
Click to expand...

So it fair then to conclude you have faith the sun will set and your moral compass prevents you from committing or agreeing with genocide.
 
KokomoJojo said:
if the extent of your philosophical review ends at the dictionary then we have little to discuss.

Otherwise you might want to explain the substantial difference between;

1) I disbelieve in the existence of God.
2) I believe God does not exist.

As I said early these are nothing more than semantic word games.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Which is what you're playing.
 
shrubnose said:
Which is what you're playing.
Click to expand...

not in the least, that was an explanation to atheists who think that saying the same thing using negator is somehow different and inapplicable. ie; believe v disbelieve
 
KokomoJojo said:
not in the least, that was an explanation to atheists who think that saying the same thing using negator is somehow different and inapplicable. ie; believe v disbelieve
Click to expand...

What about without the belief?
 
KokomoJojo said:
So it fair then to conclude you have faith the sun will set and your moral compass prevents you from committing or agreeing with genocide.
Click to expand...

I do not have faith that the Sun will set. I thought that I made that clear. I used the word probably and the stated that one cant be sure that it will happen until it happens.

I also stated that it is my opinion that genocide is ****ed up. Take not of the word opinion. My opinion can be and is subjective. But genocide itself is frowned on because of a couple things. One being that we have seen it happen historically and deduced that the outcome sucked. Mainly because genocide must traverse against what we as Americans consider natural rights. Natural rights are what seem naturally right to humans. Sure some Americans assume that natural rights were given to humans by a magical god but that belief isnt relevant to me.


You asked me about something and I gave you a opinion. But I was fully aware of your canned tired point before I answered it. It isnt like I haven't seen this argument used before many times over. I cut to the chase and answered accordingly, but you were in the middle of a canned argument and despite being cut off before you even got started you ignored my answers and dogmatically went ahead anyways. That doesnt say much for your debating skills. What you needed to do was to admit that your canned argument went south or you could have just not responded. But instead you went on so here we are.

Your setup will still fail even if I had foolishly followed your lead.


You are attempting to claim that I have faith in science therefor I have a religion. But having faith that scientific principles will follow the laws of nature isnt at all the same as having faith in a god. Your huge mistake is that you are demonstrating that word faith has more than one meaning.

Lets inspect those definitions for the word Faith:

faith [feyth]
noun
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. [Having faith that the sun will set goes under this definition. We can then use the word confidence instead and say that we have confidence that the Sun will set.]


2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.
3. belief in God or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims.
4. belief in anything, as a code of ethics, standards of merit, etc.: to be of the same faith with someone concerning honesty.


5. a system of religious belief: the Christian faith; the Jewish faith. [2 and 3 are also involved in the religious use of the word faith, but for our purpose here specifically number 5 is what you are confusing things with. The Christian faith (and Jewish faith) in itself is a religion. There is no such thing as atheist faith as in the equal of Christian faith. The bible teaches this: Faith is believing in what is true. Faith has two elements: 1) being convinced of the truth, being certain of reality, having evidence of unseen things, and 2) believing, hoping in, embracing, seizing the truth. That is why Christian in general are confused by the word faith when nonbelievers point out that religion relies on faith alone and no real evidence. Its because they think that their faith is the truth. Christians seem to completely ignore definition 1 and 2. Ask a Christian for the definition of faith and definitions 1 and 2 probably wont be in their answer.]
 
KokomoJojo said:
not in the least, that was an explanation to atheists who think that saying the same thing using negator is somehow different and inapplicable. ie;
believe v disbelieve
Click to expand...
Click to expand...




Believe whatever you want to believe, I won't be joining you.

If you want to worship a flying spaghetti monster, get after it.

But don't expect me to join you, I have better things to do with my time.
 
Of course we just had a Two week debate on this topic Where it Belongs.
The Philosophy section.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-s-supreme-court-ruling-atheism-religion.html

Raising the obvious issue of Who did a better job with a Wrong/Lying Premise, a YEC Seventh Day Adventist, or a Conspiracy theorist?
Or should I say which kind of Conspiracy theorist, as YEC is as bad as they get.
But alter2ego did do a Much better job debating for that premise than KokomoJojo's empty 'reasoning'.

Beyond not meeting the definition KJ, tell us, is NOT Believing or Disbelieving in Astrology or Alchemy also a Religion?
What religion is that?

The Konspiracy marches on. Wrong on Everyth!ng.
 
Last edited:
KokomoJojo said:
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Click to expand...

I'm glad that Reason.com supports atheists gaining tax exempt status.
 
DDD said:
Some people needed to gather a meaning and connected it in such a way for the phenomenological existence of an omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. That is fine. But live and let live and do not shove it to other people's throats! Also if so, why pay for such meaning distributing services again? So as they would grow and involve themselves politically?

Other people have not gathered meaning in such a way. Thereby the area where the religious have built a sense of deity lacks/there is vacuum/nothing there/hello/echo among the atheists. So how then is atheism religious?
Click to expand...

I have not yet made up my mind as to whether religion causes a net gain to society, or a net loss to society.

Such things as religious charity are fine, but it seems that is outweighed by the wars brought in the name of religion, with religious zeal.
 
KokomoJojo said:
Here is a interesting read I found on atheism that exemplifies to some extent the root philosophy and 'substantial' meaning of the word.

Here is how it works.

People absorb the environment around them. From this environment they sort out what they 'believe' on everything.

They sort what they believe as acceptable in one bin vs what they believe as unacceptable in another bin.

What they believe is the controlling factor in what and how they 'conduct themselves' throughout life.

Hence the substantial definition of religion is a 'belief that one acts upon'.

This is centered upon how the mind works in and of itself, not the final product or outcome of the process, though the outcome proves the process.

In other words if the final product is atheism or christian makes no difference, if a person governs themselves with regard to their beliefs no matter where derived it is when the will commits to action that it becomes officially 'their' religion.

In both cases the mind went through the same fundamental process as described above.




I struggled to think of the appropriate language that could be a work around to the premise and have not come up with any other construction that made sense. Despite who or what we are it boils down to a set of personal 'beliefs'.

Everything we consciously process is a 'belief', whether those beliefs are true or false notwithstanding.

In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.
Click to expand...

Stupidest claim yet from someone trying to analyze atheists.

So one says " god does not exist " and is therefore a believer or religious person? Total and complete bull****.

Newburg is clearly a fool posing as an scholar or some other claim to being educated and has no research demonstrating what he claims to be demonstrated through research. What he has is only his own ideas.

Like it or not atheism is not a religon and that is simple fact. Just as NOT playing basketball is not a sport. Use of the negative results in the opposite and is much more than semantic.

2cf45f32866aec75cd63110181f42caa.jpg
 
Last edited:
mbig said:
Of course we just had a Two week debate on this topic Where it Belongs.
The Philosophy section.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/philo...-s-supreme-court-ruling-atheism-religion.html

Raising the obvious issue of Who did a better job with a Wrong/Lying Premise, a YEC Seventh Day Adventist, or a Conspiracy theorist?
Or should I say which kind of Conspiracy theorist, as YEC is as bad as they get.
But alter2ego did do a Much better job debating for that premise than KokomoJojo's empty 'reasoning'.

Beyond not meeting the definition KJ, tell us, is NOT Believing or Disbelieving in Astrology or Alchemy also a Religion?
What religion is that?

The Konspiracy marches on. Wrong on Everyth!ng.
Click to expand...


If this had anything to do with the direction of that thread I would have put it in there in the first place.

It does not.

you wont get very far by arguing all your strawmen.

Either that or your post demonstrates serious lack of comprehension skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom