• 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]

Frank Apisa said:
Think outside the box, Gonzo.

If there is a god...it is a part of nature. If there is a god...it is a part of WHAT IS.

And if there is a god...(one of the two alternatives)...THERE IS A GOD...despite your attempts to define it away.

And there MIGHT be a god...or several. Them's the breaks!

Stop trying to define just to protect your beliefs.

It is impossible for anything to exist...and not be part of what IS.





Assert means to assert.

You may assert a thing...or assert a belief in a thing. You may, in fact, assert a guess about a thing.

I can assert that I guess the NY Giants will win the Super Bowl this coming season. That is a valid (if far-fetched) assertion of a guess.

If you assert a belief in a thing...you are, in effect, asserting a guess about a thing.





If you slip into near insults...you soon will be doing full-blown insults. That is the stock-in-trade of cowards on the Internet.

Don't do it. Be above it.

Yes, English is my first language. And I have enough command of it so that I have managed a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine...and a op ed sized piece in the New York Times...and op ed pieces in dozens of newspapers around the country and over in England.

I can handle English rather adeptly, Gonzo.

No need to insult me...and especially no need to insult me in that area.



I have no trouble with "simple definitions."

I am offering reasonable alternatives that make sense...and in fact, can be found in some dictionaries.

Break away. If society can't keep up...let 'em catch up.
Click to expand...

Congratulations! We are in awe. Now go play some golf.
 
Frank Apisa said:
...If you slip into near insults...you soon will be doing full-blown insults. That is the stock-in-trade of cowards on the Internet.

Don't do it. Be above it...
Click to expand...

Take your own advice Frankie boy...

Frank Apisa said:
Think outside the box, Gonzo...Stop trying to define just to protect your beliefs...Break away. If society can't keep up...let 'em catch up.
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
...Break away from the crowd, Gonzo. You will find it delightfully refreshing...Never hurts to think outside the box. You get to enjoy it...and it provides lots of opportunity for interesting discussions...
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
...or all you atheists would not be reacting to it the way you are...
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
...You should be able to see it yourself. Open your mind...
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
I really hate to break this to you right here in public, Gonzo...with everyone watching...You just do not get it...You seem more intelligent than that...Open your mind...
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
If you consider that logic...I can understand why we are having a problem...
Click to expand...

Frank Apisa said:
...Feels great to be part of the group!
Click to expand...

Just scratched the surface here sonny and it appears pretty conclusive about the nature of your posts. Noticeably, the more that you are contradicted, the more you sink back into this pattern.
 
RogueWarrior said:
Congratulations! We are in awe. Now go play some golf.
Click to expand...

If you believe that Golf is a game then you are just guessing and anyone that says different is part of teh stoopid, idiotic atheistic sciencey groupthink.
 
Frank Apisa said:
No, Freedom...it does not mute my argument. If anything, it magnifies it.

It is resonating...or all you atheists would not be reacting to it the way you are.

So...we continue.

I respect your choices...I respect that you have chosen to identify as atheists.

I question the motivation.

If you "believe" (guess) there are no gods...or that the likelihood that there are no gods is greater than the likelihood that there are gods...that might influence your decision.

I do not believe (guess) gods exist...and I do not believe (guess) there are no gods.

I simply accept I do not know.

I choose agnostic as a descriptor...when I use a descriptor...although I have also used non-theist.

I think (guess) many of you are choosing "atheist" for reasons other than JUST because you lack a belief in a god.

Interesting discussion so far.
Click to expand...

This is getting really sad, Frank. It's obvious that you believe essentially the same things we do, but you're hell bent on changing the definitions of words so that you don't have to call yourself an atheist. You describe yourself as a "agnostic non-theist". That's a ****ing agnostic atheist, Frank. Non-theist is atheist! They are synonyms. The a- prefix means non, or opposite. If you don't believe in a god, whether by positive declaration there isn't one, or simply by not having one, you are an atheist/non-theist.

Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're going through to remake atheism into something it's not so you can avoid it altogether is getting rather silly. If you stopped pretending that it's a political movement and started recognizing that it's a word in the English language you'd probably get it a lot quicker.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
Do you believe that it is possible that Mickey Mouse is a real entity instead of a character made up by humans? If so why? If not why?
Click to expand...

I do not do believing, Freedom.

I know that there is a character named Mickey Mouse that was created by Walt Disney and the Disney team.

I know many kids delighted in the antics of Mickey when I was a kid.

I know what the character looks like...and way, way back I remember a lesson from a art teacher who taught us how to draw the character. (It was a very easy character to draw, although I doubt I could do it now.)
 
William Rea said:
Take your own advice Frankie boy...















Just scratched the surface here sonny and it appears pretty conclusive about the nature of your posts. Noticeably, the more that you are contradicted, the more you sink back into this pattern.
Click to expand...

IF you or anyone else thinks any of these comments were meant to be insulting...I apologize. The apology is sincere. I will try to tighten up the way I say what I have to say.
 
William Rea said:
If you believe that Golf is a game then you are just guessing and anyone that says different is part of teh stoopid, idiotic atheistic sciencey groupthink.
Click to expand...

I just do not understand what you were trying to say or do here, William.

Sorry.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
This is getting really sad, Frank.
Click to expand...

It is not sad for me, Rabid. I am enjoying the give and take.

It's obvious that you believe essentially the same things we do, but you're hell bent on changing the definitions of words so that you don't have to call yourself an atheist.
Click to expand...
I don't do "believing", but my take on the existence of gods in REALITY is that I do not know and there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...so I don't.

If you and the others actually feel the same way...great.

But no need to change the meaning of any words for me to say I am not an atheist...I simply am NOT an atheist.

You describe yourself as a "agnostic non-theist". That's a ****ing agnostic atheist, Frank.
Click to expand...

Okay...I'll take your word for that, although I do not know what **** means.

Non-theist is atheist! They are synonyms.
Click to expand...

Synonyms can be tricky. This is a more rigorous discussion than a casual one. There are subtle differences...and I want to be exact.

The a- prefix means non, or opposite. If you don't believe in a god, whether by positive declaration there isn't one, or simply by not having one, you are an atheist/non-theist.
Click to expand...

I am not an atheist in any way.

The notion that atheism means "a" + "theism" (a belief in a god) is wrong. The word came into the English language with the "a" prefix in atheist meaning the opposite of "theos" which means "with a god." I do not know if I am with a god or not. I cannot say I am not with a god without making the assertion there are no gods. I am not willing to do that. You atheists apparently are. I am not one of you.

Seriously, the mental gymnastics you're going through to remake atheism into something it's not so you can avoid it altogether is getting rather silly.
Click to expand...

I think it is important...so I will continue to do it.

Since you think it is silly...why don't you just drop it...and allow me to label myself agnostic, which is correct? I am not an atheist any more than I am a theist.


If you stopped pretending that it's a political movement and started recognizing that it's a word in the English language you'd probably get it a lot quicker.
Click to expand...

I have no idea of why you think I think it is a political movement , but I most assuredly do not.

I recognize that it is an English word...I understand how it came into the English language...and I know without any doubt that I am not an atheist.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I do not do believing, Freedom.

I know that there is a character named Mickey Mouse that was created by Walt Disney and the Disney team.

I know many kids delighted in the antics of Mickey when I was a kid.

I know what the character looks like...and way, way back I remember a lesson from a art teacher who taught us how to draw the character. (It was a very easy character to draw, although I doubt I could do it now.)
Click to expand...

See you wont do it either; you wont answer yes or no. But you expected me to answer, yes or no for the exact same type of question.

All what you are doing is avoiding a question, while expecting everyone but you to answer the question. It is very hypocritical of you.

ANd you base your logic on the belief that knowing if gods exist is impossible for humans to know. If it is according to you the atheists belief that no gods exist. Then it is your belief that humans cannot know if gods exist or not. Two sides of the same coin.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
See you wont do it either; you wont answer yes or no. But you expected me to answer, yes or no for the exact same type of question.

All what you are doing is avoiding a question, while expecting everyone but you to answer the question. It is very hypocritical of you.

ANd you base your logic on the belief that knowing if gods exist is impossible for humans to know. If it is according to you the atheists belief that no gods exist. Then it is your belief that humans cannot know if gods exist or not. Two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

Okay...I see your point. So...

...you question (questionS, actually) was: Do you believe that it is possible that Mickey Mouse is a real entity instead of a character made up by humans? If so why? If not why?

No.

Because I do not do believing.

Also because I do not do believing.
 
FreedomFromAll said:
ANd you base your logic on the belief that knowing if gods exist is impossible for humans to know. If it is according to you the atheists belief that no gods exist. Then it is your belief that humans cannot know if gods exist or not. Two sides of the same coin.
Click to expand...

Mostly I try to break the thing down into two parts, Freedom...but in order to save time, I will sometimes lump them together. I have explain in several places why. I'll do it again here:

It is absolutely totally impossible for anyone to know if there are no gods. There is NO way that can be done. Anyone asserting there are no gods is simply asserting a blind guess.

It is at least possible for someone to know there is a god. If there is a god...the god could reveal itself to someone in an unambiguous way. I suspect it does not happen...and has not happened, but I acknowledge I may be wrong. But because of that possibility, I try to stay away from the certainty of that comment about people who assert there are no gods.

I hope that clears thing up.
 
Frank Apisa said:
If there is a god...it is a part of nature. If there is a god...it is a part of WHAT IS.
Click to expand...

Then, by definition, such a thing would have to exist within the confines of the universe. So, such properties as timelessness, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc would NECESSARILY place this thing outside of the scope of the "natural" universe. Likewise, if you dumb the definition of a god down to the simple point of the act of creation alone, then such properties (namely timelessness, but also others) are still mandatory.

So, in other words, any definition of any kind of god REQUIRES the supernatural. Otherwise, you're simply not talking about a god.

...can you name a "god-like" quality that is NOT supernatural?

Stop trying to define just to protect your beliefs.
Click to expand...

But definitions are important, so we all know what it is that we are talking about at any given moment.... and I'm not the one defining things - that would be the dictionary.

You would know the importance of definitions if you had even the first inkling of how philosophy works.

Assert means to assert.
Click to expand...

Circular definitions are worthless.

Wrong is also wrong.... but stating such is not any argument to the wrongness of any given thing.

You may assert a thing...or assert a belief in a thing. You may, in fact, assert a guess about a thing.

I can assert that I guess the NY Giants will win the Super Bowl this coming season. That is a valid (if far-fetched) assertion of a guess.

If you assert a belief in a thing...you are, in effect, asserting a guess about a thing.
Click to expand...

But, you just said, "not all theists assert there is a god". "Assert" means to state a fact or belief; it can also mean to do so strongly, but at it's root it simply means to affirm/establish/declare/maintain. If someone claims they are a theist, they have asserted in some way, shape, or form, that they believe in a god/many gods.

You can't just decide what any given words means at arbitrary times. That's simply not how this whole philosophy/debate/language thing works.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Then, by definition, such a thing would have to exist within the confines of the universe. So, such properties as timelessness, omnipotence, omnipresence, etc would NECESSARILY place this thing outside of the scope of the "natural" universe. Likewise, if you dumb the definition of a god down to the simple point of the act of creation alone, then such properties (namely timelessness, but also others) are still mandatory.

So, in other words, any definition of any kind of god REQUIRES the supernatural. Otherwise, you're simply not talking about a god.

...can you name a "god-like" quality that is NOT supernatural?
Click to expand...

There are a whole bunch of things that I cannot name or describe, Gonzo...but that does not mean they do not exist.

IF there is a god...if a god exists...then it is a part of what IS.

If you want to think it has to be supernatural in order to qualify as a god...go for it.


But definitions are important, so we all know what it is that we are talking about at any given moment.... and I'm not the one defining things - that would be the dictionary.
Click to expand...

Yup...and the dictionary will tell you how the word is generally used.

But IF a god exists...then a god exists. And if it exists...it is a part of what IS. And whatever IS...IS. It is a part of nature. Perhaps IF we ever discover that a god does exists...obviously we will have to make some adjustments to the definition. Those kinds of adjustments happen as we all learn more about the world.


You would know the importance of definitions if you had even the first inkling of how philosophy works.
Click to expand...

I had three majors in college. Economics, philosophy, and religion. I know "how philosophy works." Don't know why you have to suggest ignorance on my part so often, but if it makes you feel good about yourself, continue. I just think it would be better if you didn't.


Circular definitions are worthless.
Click to expand...

What IS...IS. It is a tautology. IF a god exists...it is a part of what IS.

If you consider that worthless...nothing I can do about it.



Wrong is also wrong.... but stating such is not any argument to the wrongness of any given thing.
Click to expand...

Sorry...but the point here escapes me. If you want to flesh out what you are saying...and how it applies to "what IS...IS" I'll be happy to comment.



But, you just said, "not all theists assert there is a god". "Assert" means to state a fact or belief; it can also mean to do so strongly, but at it's root it simply means to affirm/establish/declare/maintain. If someone claims they are a theist, they have asserted in some way, shape, or form, that they believe in a god/many gods.

You can't just decide what any given words means at arbitrary times. That's simply not how this whole philosophy/debate/language thing works.
Click to expand...

I said "not all theists assert there is a god", because not all theists assert there is a god. Some assert that they have a "belief" there is a god. Those are two different things.

Not sure why you are making this so complicated, Gonzo.
 
Frank Apisa said:
I really hate to break this to you right here in public, Gonzo...with everyone watching, but...

...IF THERE IS A GOD...

...then the god will NOT be supernatural.
Click to expand...

Is that a guess or something that can be known through logic reason or science? Do you actively believe your statement to be the case?

fredmertzz said:
As I pointed out, it's the very first definition you posted "the doctrine or belief that there is no God." You cannot believe in the doctrine that there is no God if you have no concept of that doctrine. In order to have a concept of that doctrine, you MUST have a concept of God. It is a positive belief of a doctrine.
Click to expand...

It is impossible to have a concept of 'gods' because there are so many of them and they differ so wildly. It is only every possible to have a concept of a god (or some subset of gods that have been sufficiently defined). What you're essentilly saying, is that when it comes to the 'gods' question in general, it is impossible for anyone to be an atheist, because at the end of the day there is no well defined concept for 'gods'.
 
Last edited:
Nilly said:
Is that a guess or something that can be known through logic reason or science?
Click to expand...

It can be know through logic and reason. It is a fact.

Everything that exists is a part of what IS.

The term "supernatural" actually is a misnomer...a term used to explain the unknown or to denote things outside the ability of science to explain, for most part.

It serves a purpose...and there is nothing wrong with using it, but IF a god actually exists...it would have to be part of what exists...part of what IS.





Do you actively believe your statement to be the case?
Click to expand...

I do not do "believing."

If you are asking me if I consider my statement to be a reasonable, logical take on the issue...

...YES, I do.
 
Frank Apisa said:
It can be know through logic and reason. It is a fact.

Everything that exists is a part of what IS.

The term "supernatural" actually is a misnomer...a term used to explain the unknown or to denote things outside the ability of science to explain, for most part.

It serves a purpose...and there is nothing wrong with using it, but IF a god actually exists...it would have to be part of what exists...part of what IS.



I do not do "believing."

If you are asking me if I consider my statement to be a reasonable, logical take on the issue...

...YES, I do.
Click to expand...

And if something existed outside of time and space, if it broke logic and if it did not follow the laws of nature. Then would that not be supernatural? (Don't worry, this is leading somewhere..)
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
I said "not all theists assert there is a god", because not all theists assert there is a god. Some assert that they have a "belief" there is a god. Those are two different things.

Not sure why you are making this so complicated, Gonzo.
Click to expand...

Assert means to declare a fact or belief.

I don't believe you have a degree in philosophy. If you do, I'd sue your school for your money back with the law degree you're going to invent next.
 
Frank Apisa said:
There are a whole bunch of things that I cannot name or describe, Gonzo...but that does not mean they do not exist.
Click to expand...

Is a rock "a god"?

Why or why not?
 
Nilly said:
And if something existed outside of time and space, if it broke logic and if it did not follow the laws of nature. Then would that not be supernatural? (Don't worry, this is leading somewhere..)
Click to expand...

How can something that exists in nature...exist outside of time and space and not follow the laws of nature?

Isn't it possible that humans are not able to clearly define "nature" and "time" and "space" and "the laws of nature?"

So...go to wherever you were going with it.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Assert means to declare a fact or belief.
Click to expand...

I stand by what I said.

Some theists assert there is a god; some assert that they have a belief there is a god.

Some atheists assert there are no gods...but apparently none (here) assert they have a "belief" there are no gods.

I don't believe you have a degree in philosophy.
Click to expand...

I had a major in philosophy no matter what you believe or do not believe. It was required at the school I attended.

If you do, I'd sue your school for your money back with the law degree you're going to invent next.
Click to expand...

Sliding further and further down the inevitable insult trail.

Okay...the only one you can actually make a fool of...is yourself.
 
Frank Apisa said:
How can something that exists in nature...exist outside of time and space and not follow the laws of nature?

Isn't it possible that humans are not able to clearly define "nature" and "time" and "space" and "the laws of nature?"

So...go to wherever you were going with it.
Click to expand...

Ok, so would you not agree that many Christians define their god just like that? They define their god as existing outside of the realms of nature, of logic and of time and space?

In fact, even if you don't agree that Christians define their particular god such as that, I am going to do so now. I propose to you a god that by definition exists outside of time and space and does not follow the laws of nature, but is also part of reality, and influences reality.

If you say such a being cannot exist, then by your logic, you have concluded that the god I proposed (and the god certain Christians propose) cannot exist, by way of reason and logic. You have used reason and logic to deduce that a specific god can't exist. Thus, can I assume that you positively believe that such a god doesn't exist? You are an atheist with respect to that particular god?
 
Nilly said:
Ok, so would you not agree that many Christians define their god just like that? They define their god as existing outside of the realms of nature, of logic and of time and space?
Click to expand...

Absolutely I would agree with you, Nilly. Totally and without reservation.

But as you should know by now, I consider that god to be a cartoon...a rather evil, malevolent cartoon.

In fact, even if you don't agree that Christians define their particular god such as that, I am going to do so now. I propose to you a god that by definition exists outside of time and space and does not follow the laws of nature, but is also part of reality, and influences reality.
Click to expand...

As you see above, I do agree that the Christian god is defined that way.

I think any god defined that way cannot exist...any more than a square circle can.

IF a god exists...it is a part of WHAT IS. And if it is a part of WHAT IS...it is not outside nature.

The fact that humans cannot comprehend the full significance of that...does not change it.

There cannot be a square circle...nor a triangle with four sides.

If nature is defined as "everything that exists" (which it would be in a discussion of philosophy)...then everything that exists is a part of nature. (I grant that people could define nature as just the non-human element of existence.)

If you say such a being cannot exist, then by your logic, you have concluded that the god I proposed (and the god certain Christians propose) cannot exist, by way of reason and logic. You have used reason and logic to deduce that a specific god can't exist. Thus, can I assume that you positively believe that such a god doesn't exist? You are an atheist with respect to that particular god?
Click to expand...

After reading the last and penultimate sentences, I will not even bother to parse this comment.

I am NOT an atheist in any way whatsoever...and I do not do "believing."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom