• 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]

calamity said:
What makes you think that?

Gods can be believed in . They can not be believed in. Someone can even believe gods do not exist at all. Also, and this is key, if gods by some chance actually do exist, there is or perhaps will be a means out there which can be used to verify they exist.

That's just it. We know not enough about gods to exclude their existence.
Click to expand...

That is because there is nothing to know about gods since it is a human created concept. You can't conceptualize something into existence. Hence, people can only believe that gods is something more than just a concept. Gods can only be believed in, just the same as any concept that has no evidence or basis in reality. I have no idea what a Zoroastrian believes in. This doesn't mean that I believe that their beliefs are impossible. It means I don't even consider them. Every belief held does not have a corresponding counter-belief that the belief is not possible.
 
calamity said:
What makes you think that?

Gods can be believed in . They can not be believed in. Someone can even believe gods do not exist at all. Also, and this is key, if gods by some chance actually do exist, there is or perhaps will be a means out there which can be used to verify they exist.

That's just it. We know not enough about gods to exclude their existence.
Click to expand...

Don't imply that we know anything about gods because we don't. I don't even know what the word refers to. No one else does either. As soon as you try to define it, you limit it.
 
Russell797 said:
Don't imply that we know anything about gods because we don't. I don't even know what the word refers to. No one else does either. As soon as you try to define it, you limit it.
Click to expand...

That's probably true.
 
calamity said:
What makes you think that?

Gods can be believed in . They can not be believed in. Someone can even believe gods do not exist at all. Also, and this is key, if gods by some chance actually do exist, there is or perhaps will be a means out there which can be used to verify they exist.

That's just it. We know not enough about gods to exclude their existence.
Click to expand...

We don't know enough about gods to include their existence, in much the same we don't know enough about unicorns or leprechauns to include their existences either.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
We don't know enough about gods to include their existence, in much the same we don't know enough about unicorns or leprechauns to include their existences either.
Click to expand...

Including their existence is a far cry from excluding the possibility that they may exist. You know that right?
 
calamity said:
Including their existence is a far cry from excluding the possibility that they may exist. You know that right?
Click to expand...

The rules of reality as we know them, as well as philosophy, kind of do that for us.

The real argument between theists and atheists is over what the empty set contains. Atheists assume the null hypothesis is that there is no god, so compelling evidence must exist to defeat the null hypothesis, and that there really isn't any. Theists, on the other hand, either believe that compelling evidence does exist, or that the null hypothesis relates to creation and compelling evidence must show that we were not created.

The atheistic argument is far simpler and requires far fewer assumptions. Occam's razor breaks to the side that does not require magic to exist.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
The rules of reality as we know them, as well as philosophy, kind of do that for us.

The real argument between theists and atheists is over what the empty set contains. Atheists assume the null hypothesis is that there is no god, so compelling evidence must exist to defeat the null hypothesis, and that there really isn't any. Theists, on the other hand, either believe that compelling evidence does exist, or that the null hypothesis relates to creation and compelling evidence must show that we were not created.

The atheistic argument is far simpler and requires far fewer assumptions. Occam's razor breaks to the side that does not require magic to exist.
Click to expand...

Which is why I believe, almost to the point of certainty, that gods do not exist. Problem is...Occam's razor is nice, but it still does not tell us anything for sure. It's still a guess--or, a belief, if you will.
 
calamity said:
Which is why I believe, almost to the point of certainty, that gods do not exist. Problem is...Occam's razor is nice, but it still does not tell us anything for sure. It's still a guess--or, a belief, if you will.
Click to expand...

Occams razor is the pivot point of the scales of probability, with the null hypothesis as the weight at one end, and nothing in the pan.
 
Manc Skipper said:
Occams razor is the pivot point of the scales of probability, with the null hypothesis as the weight at one end, and nothing in the pan.
Click to expand...

Not that I believe all the testimonials from days gone by, but a lot of people do. And, that would be some weight on the otherwise empty pan on the scale.
 
calamity said:
False. There is no problem with saying you believe they do not exist. That's perfectly legit. But, since you lack enough evidence to assert that they do not exist, saying so is a false statement.
Click to expand...

Does the same thing apply to leprechauns and goblins?
 
zyzygy said:
Does the same thing apply to leprechauns and goblins?
Click to expand...

I certainly believe they, like gods, do not exist. But, do we really know it?
 
calamity said:
Not that I believe all the testimonials from days gone by, but a lot of people do. And, that would be some weight on the otherwise empty pan on the scale.
Click to expand...

The number of testimonials is not weight in the pan.

The ancient nature of the testimonials is not weight in the pan.

The collection of testimonials in a book is not weight in the pan.

The testimonials are unverifiable, untestable, and rely solely on mechanisms unobtainable by any modern science. For example, the Bible is full of ressurections, as that was a popular cultural belief at the time that death could be cheated.... and yet, not a single ressurection in the modern era. Is that because they are simply less common now... or is it that we can verify the illigitimacy of new claims now?
 
calamity said:
It certainly has its zealots.
Click to expand...

It does have those who will zealously speak out to ensure that theists of all stripes do not incorrectly try to label atheism a religion, which it in no way shape of form is or ever will be. When it come to gods, atheists rely entirely on knowledge and not at all on belief. A concept such as gods that was invented by man does not require one to believe anything at all one way or the other. Theists have incorrectly used belief to conjure gods from a mere idea into some sort of literal existence. Atheists do not make that error.
 
calamity said:
I certainly believe they, like gods, do not exist. But, do we really know it?
Click to expand...

Can you say the same thing about magic?

I am going to make a claim, ok? Here goes: Magic doesn't exist.

Do you dispute the strength of that statement?
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
Can you say the same thing about magic?

I am going to make a claim, ok? Here goes: Magic doesn't exist.

Do you dispute the strength of that statement?
Click to expand...

Of course. All you can say is that we have not been able to show that magic exists.
 
calamity said:
Of course. All you can say is that we have not been able to show that magic exists.
Click to expand...

Well, I can't show that you're not a rhinoceros. Further, you can't either.

I mean, how can we know that you're not one? You could be a special rhinoceros that projects the form of a human, so convincingly that you even believe you're a human and not a rhinoceros.

I guess we'll never know though.
 
Since no one can only argue from positive claims and be objective, and since negatives can be disproven, then atheism is a faith belief because no one can prove deity does not exist.
 
JamesBY said:
Since no one can only argue from positive claims and be objective, and since negatives can be disproven, then atheism is a faith belief because no one can prove deity does not exist.
Click to expand...

In that case, leprechauns must also exist, because you can't prove they don't either. Or, at least, the perfectly reasonable logic that suggests leprechauns probably don't exist must be taken as merely an article of faith.
 
Gonzo Rodeo said:
In that case, leprechauns must also exist, because you can't prove they don't either. Or, at least, the perfectly reasonable logic that suggests leprechauns probably don't exist must be taken as merely an article of faith.
Click to expand...
Fallacy of false equivalency, Gonzo. A negative can be disproven. Leprechauns be disproven. But deity can't.
 
JamesBY said:
Fallacy of false equivalency, Gonzo. A negative can be disproven. Leprechauns be disproven. But deity can't.
Click to expand...

How can you disprove the existence of leprechauns?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom