• 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]

You tell me.

I'm asking you, Mr. Philosophy Professor.

You see, the answer is obviously, "no." That answer is no because of definitional properties.

The next follow-on is to ask you what properties are necessary for a god to have. But it seems you are immune to the Socratic method. Very well. You simply won't learn anything today. No skin off my back.
 
I'm asking you, Mr. Philosophy Professor.

You see, the answer is obviously, "no." That answer is no because of definitional properties.

The next follow-on is to ask you what properties are necessary for a god to have. But it seems you are immune to the Socratic method. Very well. You simply won't learn anything today. No skin off my back.

If nature is everything that exists, Gonzo...

...and IF a god exists...

...it is a part of nature.

That's just the way it is.
 
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.



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.)



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."

So you, without reservation, think that such a God can't exist.

But you don't necessarily believe that it does not exist?

I don't understand, it seems very clear to me that you have a very strong belief that God (at least Yahweh) does not exist.
 
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.

Mickey Mouse unlike gods was invented by one man. We know the mans name. He gave a explanation for the characters existence. It doesnt take belief to know that Mickey Mouse is a fictional Character invented in the mind of one man. Yet you gave me this odd answer asserting that you "do not do believing".

The concept of Mickey Mouse came from the mind of a man. That is what the evidence says. The evidence is indisputable. Of course if new evidence was found that showed that Disney stole the character then from someone else, then it would only show that another human invented the concept of Mickey Mouse.

When it comes to gods we dont know the actual people who invented the concept of gods. But all of the evidence says that the concept of gods came from humans. You dont need to actually know who the first people were to know that the concept of gods came from humans. Deduction tells us that there isnt any physical evidence for the concept of gods, which leaves only the stories told by humans. There isnt anything to believe except for those that want to believe in gods. The rest of us that do not believe in gods dont believe the stories are true.
 
So you, without reservation, think that such a God can't exist.

I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly.

Any god...or anything else that EXISTS...exists in nature. If it exists...it IS...and it is a part of nature.

At very least, the notion that the god is outside of nature makes no more sense than a square circle...or a triangle with four sides.

But you don't necessarily believe that it does not exist?

I do not do any "believing."

If you are asking me if I guess that particular god does not exist...I will say what I said earlier. I do not make guesses, because there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. But I KNOW that if the god does exist...then the notion that it exists outside of nature is wrong.


I don't understand, it seems very clear to me that you have a very strong belief that God (at least Yahweh) does not exist.

I do not do any "believing." I have made that abundantly clear.

I do not guess about gods, because I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. I have made that abundantly clear.

I KNOW there can be no such thing as a square circle...and I know there can be nothing that exists outside of existence.
 
Mickey Mouse unlike gods was invented by one man. We know the mans name. He gave a explanation for the characters existence. It doesnt take belief to know that Mickey Mouse is a fictional Character invented in the mind of one man. Yet you gave me this odd answer asserting that you "do not do believing".

The concept of Mickey Mouse came from the mind of a man. That is what the evidence says. The evidence is indisputable. Of course if new evidence was found that showed that Disney stole the character then from someone else, then it would only show that another human invented the concept of Mickey Mouse.

When it comes to gods we dont know the actual people who invented the concept of gods. But all of the evidence says that the concept of gods came from humans. You dont need to actually know who the first people were to know that the concept of gods came from humans. Deduction tells us that there isnt any physical evidence for the concept of gods, which leaves only the stories told by humans. There isnt anything to believe except for those that want to believe in gods.

Freedom...the god of the Bible might exists. If it does...I suspect damn near everything people have written about it is wrong.

The fact that humans might have gotten stuff wrong...does not in any way impact on whether the god exists or not.

The rest of us that do not believe in gods dont believe the stories are true.

I suspect you meant to say that those who do not "believe" in gods...believe the stories are not true.

That is not the same as, "do not believe the stories are true." It is a very, very, very, very significant difference...in this conversation.

If that is not what you meant...please let me know and we can discuss it further.
 
If nature is everything that exists, Gonzo...

...and IF a god exists...

...it is a part of nature.

That's just the way it is.

Let's assume for a minute that you believe the universe may have been created by a god.

...so, how did this god accomplish the creation? If you think the Kalam cosmological argument may be true, then you could argue that everything needs a cause, except one initial thing that is causeless... which then places this thing outside of the bounds of the universe at one time. The nature of causelessness also demands the property of timelessness... which, again, is beyond the bounds of the universe.

So, I ask again... can you think of any "god-like" properties that are not outside of the bounds of this universe, making them "natural" vice "supernatural"?
 
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.

Why do you believe it is impossible to know if are no gods? The only way to believe it is impossible to know there are no gods are those people that place gods out of reality. Everything that is makes some kind of impact on something else. If any god exists we should be able to see something affected by its existence. If the concept of gods is real then it would not be impossible to find physical evidence. The lack of evidence doesnt prove the nonexistence of any god. But the lack of evidence puts the concept of gods in fantasy land.

So far we have seen nothing affected by this concept called gods. The evidence shows that the concept of gods is a human invention.

The definition of the concept of gods is also very subjective. It is hard to pin down a direct definition of the concept of gods. Which is more evidence of the silliness of the concept of gods. I asserted that only a omnipotent being qualifies as a god. Anything less than omnipotent could just be a very advanced life form. And thus not a god. Which brings into to play the many concepts that were attributed to gods that are no longer attributed to gods. Science keeps whittling down the concept of gods. In fact science pretty much has made the concept of gods worthless fantasies. Things that were was once magic are now explained. It has moved the concept of gods to the Deist concept of gods. A idiosyncratic notion that there must be a sentient being that set things in motion; creator. But that is is just that a belief without any possible reason to believe such a thing. Someone who believes in a god(s) cannot explain their belief in terms of rational plausible truths. The believer just believes because that is how they feel. And I agree that some people that identify as atheists just dont believe in the same fashion. ANd well you yourself dont believe in the same fashion. You cannot explain why you dont do any believing. You have said that it is impossible to to engage the concept of gods. But that too is a belief. You are just parroting other humans that identify as agnostic that think that you cannot know if gods exist or not. But you wont ever engage that notion you will just maintain that its impossible with no evidence as to why. Oh you will again repeat its impossible and probably go on about how little we know about the universe and such, but you will not be able to SHOW why it would be impossible to know if gods dont exist. Impossible is a absolute claim of infinite magnitude. To state that something is impossible means that you have evidence that it is impossible. Who areto assert that humans cannot ever find evidence for or against gods? Do we have to believe that Mickey Mouse is not real or can we show the evidence?

My evidence as to why I do not believe in the concept of gods is centered around the evidence that the concept of gods is a archaic human invention to explain elements of the universe that were not or are still not completely known. That is the actual definition of the concept of gods.
 
Freedom...the god of the Bible might exists. If it does...I suspect damn near everything people have written about it is wrong.

The fact that humans might have gotten stuff wrong...does not in any way impact on whether the god exists or not.
You believe that the god of the bible might exist. I dont believe that the god of the bible might exist.



I suspect you meant to say that those who do not "believe" in gods...believe the stories are not true.
No..... I said what I said dont try to change it to suit your argument.

That is not the same as, "do not believe the stories are true." It is a very, very, very, very significant difference...in this conversation.

If that is not what you meant...please let me know and we can discuss it further.[/QUOTE] You should apologize for trying to manipulate my words.
I clearly stated that the people that dont believe in gods do not believe that the stories (that asserted that gods are real) are true. Obviously you are still trying to conflate the issue.

Person A: X is real!

Person B: I dont believe you! Prove it!.

Frank Apisa: You both believe! One believes that X is real! The other believes that X isnt real!

Person B: Hey Frank I just said that I dont believe the claim made by Person A.

Frank Apisa: Yea you are believing that X isnt real.

Person B: Do you Frank believe that X isnt real?

Frank Apisa: I dont do any believing; I dont believe X is real and I dont believe that X isnt real.

Person B: In other words you have nothing to add, except that you believe that Persons A and B are believers?

Frank Apisa: Yes and that it is impossible to know anything about X.

Person B: you dont think that is a belief?

Frank Apisa: I do no believing!

Do you believe that you are correct Frank?
 
I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly.

Sorry what, you can't just redefine what people think to suit your world view. Their world view is about their specific (and yes illogical, god). You say that god can't exist.

Any god...or anything else that EXISTS...exists in nature. If it exists...it IS...and it is a part of nature.

At very least, the notion that the god is outside of nature makes no more sense than a square circle...or a triangle with four sides.

I do not do any "believing."

If you are asking me if I guess that particular god does not exist...I will say what I said earlier. I do not make guesses, because there is not enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. But I KNOW that if the god does exist...then the notion that it exists outside of nature is wrong.

I do not do any "believing." I have made that abundantly clear.

I do not guess about gods, because I do not have enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. I have made that abundantly clear.

I KNOW there can be no such thing as a square circle...and I know there can be nothing that exists outside of existence.

be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

What would your positions be on the statements below? How can you be above belief?

I believe the sun exists, I believe this forum exists, I believe that the Christian god (as we defined it above) doesn't exist . I believe that square circles don't exist. I believe leprechauns don't exist.

Your turn.
 
Sorry what, you can't just redefine what people think to suit your world view. Their world view is about their specific (and yes illogical, god). You say that god can't exist.

What are you talking about???

I said "I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly."

If they are saying that the god exists...but that it doesn't exist...they are defining it incorrectly.

If it exists...it EXISTS.

be·lief
bəˈlēf/
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
"his belief in the value of hard work"
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
"a belief in democratic politics"

What would your positions be on the statements below? How can you be above belief?

I believe the sun exists, I believe this forum exists, I believe that the Christian god (as we defined it above) doesn't exist . I believe that square circles don't exist. I believe leprechauns don't exist.

Your turn.

I believe the sun exists,

I know the sun exists.



I believe this forum exists,

I know this forum exists.



I believe that the Christian god (as we defined it above) doesn't exist .

I have no idea if the Christian god exists or not...but if it does, the people describing it have lots of things wrong.



I believe that square circles don't exist.

I know that square circles do not exist.


I believe leprechauns don't exist.

I have no idea if leprechauns exist or not.




Ball in your court.
 
What are you talking about???

I said "I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly."

If they are saying that the god exists...but that it doesn't exist...they are defining it incorrectly.

But you've said yourself that the god of the bible can't exist.That means that the god that they are explicitly talking about does not exist. If some other god exists it is a different god, because it has different qualities to the one defined in the bible.

You have a positive belief that the god defined in the bible (as we clarified a few posts up) does not exist. Not only would that put you in the atheist camp, it would also mean that not only do you not just 'lack belief', but you have a positive belief that that god does not exist, as you have recognized it is an impossible being, along with circular squares and whatnot.

Likewise, we can logically conclude that a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist. It is self contradicting, like a circular square. If I were to propose to you a god that is omnipotent and omniscient. It only seems logical to come to believe that such a god could not, and does not, exist.

If it exists...it EXISTS.

I know the sun exists.

I know this forum exists.

I have no idea if the Christian god exists or not...but if it does, the people describing it have lots of things wrong.

I know that square circles do not exist.

I have no idea if leprechauns exist or not.

Ball in your court.

I'm not asking you what you know, I'm asking you what you believe. They are different questions. Try again.
 
But you've said yourself that the god of the bible can't exist.

Stop paraphrasing me.

What I said was: "I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly."

That means that the god that they are explicitly talking about does not exist. If some other god exists it is a different god, because it has different qualities to the one defined in the bible.

It means: I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly.

You have a positive belief that the god defined in the bible (as we clarified a few posts up) does not exist. Not only would that put you in the atheist camp, it would also mean that not only do you not just 'lack belief', but you have a positive belief that that god does not exist, as you have recognized it is an impossible being, along with circular squares and whatnot.

It does not mean that. It means what I said...and once again, what I said was: I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly.

Likewise, we can logically conclude that a being that is both omnipotent and omniscient cannot exist. It is self contradicting, like a circular square. If I were to propose to you a god that is omnipotent and omniscient. It only seems logical to come to believe that such a god could not, and does not, exist.

If you want to "believe" things..."believe" them. Stop telling me I must do so.


I'm not asking you what you know, I'm asking you what you believe. They are different questions. Try again.

Okay...what I "believe" is

I have mentioned that several times. I wish you would finally get it.
 
I do not do any "believing." I have made that abundantly clear.
Person A: X is real!

Person B: I dont believe you! Prove it!.

Frank Apisa: You both believe! One believes that X is real! The other believes that X isnt real!

Person B: Hey Frank I just said that I dont believe the claim made by Person A.

Frank Apisa: Yea you are believing that X isnt real.

Person B: Do you Frank believe that X isnt real?

Frank Apisa: I dont do any believing; I dont believe X is real and I dont believe that X isnt real.

Person B: In other words you have nothing to add, except that you believe that Persons A and B are believers?

Frank Apisa: Yes and that it is impossible to know anything about X.

Person B: you dont think that is a belief?

Frank Apisa: I do no believing!

Do you believe that you are correct Frank?

FFA, this was the best summary possible for the dozens of pages of Frank-wrestling that has occurred here. A theist makes a claim, an atheist says "Bull****, prove it" and to Frank, they're both "believers".

Most of this discussion seems to be arguing with Frank over the definitions of simple words, like atheist, disbelief, assert and numerous others. I like you as a person, Frank, I do, but this discussion has excruciatingly little intellectual value anymore, if it ever did.
 
Last edited:
Stop paraphrasing me.

What I said was: "I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly."



It means: I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly.



It does not mean that. It means what I said...and once again, what I said was: I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly.



If you want to "believe" things..."believe" them. Stop telling me I must do so.




Okay...what I "believe" is

I have mentioned that several times. I wish you would finally get it.

Forth fourth time:

Name some qualities that only a god might possess ("god-like") that might be considered "natural".

Let's get to the bottom of this definitIn of a god thing.
 
Stop paraphrasing me.

What I said was: "I think that if the god of the Bible exists...the people are defining it incorrectly."


Lets focus on the absurdity of this statement.

We already settled on a definition of the god of the bible. We have also agreed that any creature fitting that definition cannot exist.

What that means, is that the god of the bible cannot exist.

If a god does exist, then by definition it cannot be the god of the bible. It would instead be some other god which is defined somehow differently.

People are not defining Yahweh incorrectly, it is the definitions themselves that make it Yahweh. If a being exists that does not fit the definitions of Yahweh, it doesn't not mean that the definition of Yahweh is incorrect, it means that that the being is not Yahweh.

Holding beliefs is simply the way we interact with the world Frank. If I put one foot down in front of the other I believe it will hit the floor and I can carry on walking. It's something we all do. You are not above it.
 
FFA, this was the best summary possible for the dozens of pages of Frank-wrestling that has occurred here. A theist makes a claim, an atheist says "Bull****, prove it" and to Frank, they're both "believers".

Most of this discussion seems to be arguing with Frank over the definitions of simple words, like atheist, disbelief, assert and numerous others. I like you as a person, Frank, I do, but this discussion has excruciatingly little intellectual value anymore, if it ever did.

I think it is very interesting...and has intellectual value...which is the reason I continue to engage in it.

Since you feel the way you do...why do you continue?
 
Forth fourth time:

Name some qualities that only a god might possess ("god-like") that might be considered "natural".

Let's get to the bottom of this definitIn of a god thing.


I'm the agnostic here, Gonzo...remember?

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

ANY!

But if any gods EXIST...the fact that they exist would be considered "natural"...it would of necessity be of nature. What exists...exists. What IS...IS.

If you are asking me to define what a god is...I do not know if gods exist...and I have absolutely no idea of what the nature of a god would be.

Do you?
 
I'm the agnostic here, Gonzo...remember?

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

ANY!

But if any gods EXIST...the fact that they exist would be considered "natural"...it would of necessity be of nature. What exists...exists. What IS...IS.

If you are asking me to define what a god is...I do not know if gods exist...and I have absolutely no idea of what the nature of a god would be.

Do you?

a) That's not what he's asking.

b) Earlier you concluded that the cartoon god couldn't exist because it was self contradicting.
 
Lets focus on the absurdity of this statement.

We already settled on a definition of the god of the bible. We have also agreed that any creature fitting that definition cannot exist.

What that means, is that the god of the bible cannot exist.

If a god does exist, then by definition it cannot be the god of the bible. It would instead be some other god which is defined somehow differently.

People are not defining Yahweh incorrectly, it is the definitions themselves that make it Yahweh. If a being exists that does not fit the definitions of Yahweh, it doesn't not mean that the definition of Yahweh is incorrect, it means that that the being is not Yahweh.

Holding beliefs is simply the way we interact with the world Frank. If I put one foot down in front of the other I believe it will hit the floor and I can carry on walking. It's something we all do. You are not above it.

Your point is...WHAT?

I have said that I think if the god of the Bible exists...the people defining it are defining it incorrectly.

That was in response to questions about whether or not a god that exists would be supernatural...or would be a part of nature.

If the people describing the god says it exists...and still claim it is supernatural...they are describing the god incorrectly. They are, as I said, trying to define a square circle...or a triangle with four sides.

Stop reading more into it than what I am actually saying.

And I have not "agreed" with anyone on a definition of the god of the Bible. I wouldn't even attempt that...because the god seems to me to be a cartoon.

(For the record, though, I don't think the Bible is particularly consistent in calling the god supernatural...particularly in what we refer to as The Old Testament. )
 
a) That's not what he's asking.

What is it you think he is asking?



b) Earlier you concluded that the cartoon god couldn't exist because it was self contradicting.

Quote my words...rather than paraphrasing what you suppose I said.
 
What is it you think he is asking?





Quote my words...rather than paraphrasing what you suppose I said.

OK.

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.

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.

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



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


Here is what I was agreeing with:

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?

Yeah, Nilly...I agree with that.

I have said that many times.

How does that impact on my argument?
 
Here is what I was agreeing with:



Yeah, Nilly...I agree with that.

I have said that many times.

How does that impact on my argument?

Which you follow with the line I bolded (and I also quoted it again for good measure).

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

Quite clearly you believe that such a god that is self contradicting by definition cannot exist. If that's not what I'm supposed to take away from that quote, then I'm afraid you're speaking an entirely different language from me (and the rest of the posters in this thread) and further discussion is barely worth having.
 
I'm the agnostic here, Gonzo...remember?

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

ANY!

But if any gods EXIST...the fact that they exist would be considered "natural"...it would of necessity be of nature. What exists...exists. What IS...IS.

If you are asking me to define what a god is...I do not know if gods exist...and I have absolutely no idea of what the nature of a god would be.

Do you?

This is why I asked you if a rock is a god.

A rock is not a god; it's a rock. Rocks do not have any god-like properties, but they do have a host of rock-like properties.

...which leads to the next question: what are some god-like properties?

It's very telling that you can't answer this simple question. And more than anything, it tells me you don't have a degree in philosophy. This is 100-level stuff, and it is COMPLETELY stumping you.
 
Back
Top Bottom