• 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]

JamesBY said:
The OP if i make it is whatever I say it is. No you are not in charge of my OP. You don't like it, I don't care. You cannot disprove of deity, no matter how much you yell all day with FI in the chorus.
Click to expand...

Which deity and what proof do you have of its existence? There are quite a few of them.
 
JamesBY said:
^^ ;) It does not matter to you, so I shan't waste my time.
Click to expand...

If it doesn't matter to us, why do you continue to waste your time by replying?
 
JamesBY said:
To have fun showing that you guys simply have no game.
Click to expand...

I can't speak for everyone else, but I'm having a good time painting you into corners. When thinking of debate like a game, I can't think of anyone who doesn't enjoy an easy win every now and then.
 
pinqy said:
Un backed assertions and dismissing arguments out of hand is hardly "showing" anything.
Click to expand...

He has shown us the paucity of arguments for the existence of a god.
 
JamesBY said:
A negative can be disproven. Leprechauns be disproven. But deity can't.
Click to expand...

HaHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

The existence of Leprechauns cannot be any more disproven than the existence of a deity. The problem is that your burden of proof is skewed, by your desire to believe in one and not the other.
 
JamesBY said:
Fallacy of false equivalency, Gonzo. A negative can be disproven. Leprechauns be disproven. But deity can't.
Click to expand...

How have leprechauns been proven not to exist? Has anyone ever proven leprechauns not to exist?

The answer is that leprechauns have not been proven to not exist. A negative can not be "disproven".

No rational person thinks they do exist for the simple reason that they have not been demonstrated to exist. There is not any suggestive evidence for leprechauns. If and when such evidence does become available then and only then will the rational person think there is a chance leprechauns exist. Failing to prove leprechauns do not exist tells us nothing about whether or not they do exist. You can't even logically claim it's possible leprechauns exist because they have not been shown not to exist. Possibilities require knowledge of rules which would make them possible. We know of no rules, natural laws or anything which would enable the existence of leprechauns,,,,,,or god.
 
Russell797 said:
How have leprechauns been proven not to exist? Has anyone ever proven leprechauns not to exist?

The answer is that leprechauns have not been proven to not exist. A negative can not be "disproven".

No rational person thinks they do exist for the simple reason that they have not been demonstrated to exist. There is not any suggestive evidence for leprechauns. If and when such evidence does become available then and only then will the rational person think there is a chance leprechauns exist. Failing to prove leprechauns do not exist tells us nothing about whether or not they do exist. You can't even logically claim it's possible leprechauns exist because they have not been shown not to exist. Possibilities require knowledge of rules which would make them possible. We know of no rules, natural laws or anything which would enable the existence of leprechauns,,,,,,or god.
Click to expand...
Well, there is some suggestive evidence for the existence of fairies, which includes leprechauns. There is a near universality across cultures of hidden people/spirit folk that match descriptions of fairies. There is the case of Thomas of Ercldoun, aka Thomas the Rhymer, who is known to have existed and was known for his prophecy, which allegedly came from his experience of 7 years in Fairyland. Sightings and abductions were relatively common, and theoretically, alien sightings could be attributed to Fairies.

Their lack of current evidence could also be explained if they were more electro-magnetic in nature (which would explain their invisibility, shape-shifting, and aversion to iron) as the modern prevalence of elecro-magnetic radiation would be extremely harmful.

Of course there are better explanations for all that than actual existence of fairies. And there's no real evidence for the existence of supernatural or electro-magnetic based beings. So we cannot reject the null hypothesis of "Fairies do not exist" and therefore cannot accept the hypothesis that they do.
 
pinqy said:
Well, there is some suggestive evidence for the existence of fairies, which includes leprechauns. There is a near universality across cultures of hidden people/spirit folk that match descriptions of fairies. There is the case of Thomas of Ercldoun, aka Thomas the Rhymer, who is known to have existed and was known for his prophecy, which allegedly came from his experience of 7 years in Fairyland. Sightings and abductions were relatively common, and theoretically, alien sightings could be attributed to Fairies.

Their lack of current evidence could also be explained if they were more electro-magnetic in nature (which would explain their invisibility, shape-shifting, and aversion to iron) as the modern prevalence of elecro-magnetic radiation would be extremely harmful.

Of course there are better explanations for all that than actual existence of fairies. And there's no real evidence for the existence of supernatural or electro-magnetic based beings. So we cannot reject the null hypothesis of "Fairies do not exist" and therefore cannot accept the hypothesis that they do.
Click to expand...

It all boils down to one simple demand.....show me the bones. Anything less than that is circumstantial and suspect at best. Everything which has ever existed or exists imprints evidence of it's being on the universe. Every beat of a heart leaves an indelible imprint on it's surroundings which changes the universe forever. Find it and I can begin to accept what caused it.
 
JamesBY said:
You are admitting you don't have the tools for your belief system.
Click to expand...

Christianity isn't a religion. It's a cult, which brainwashes its members into believing in supernatural deities in order to use the labor and resources of the members to prop up the leadership of the cult and grow the membership.

Atheists attend no organized ceremonies or meetings to be indoctrinated and brainwashed. They pay no tithes or pledge personal resources or wealth to support an organization that's sole purpose is to proliferate it's membership in order to grow the wealth of the organization and its leaders.

There is no mental resources spent to sustain an indoctrination that is often imposed on children so that they are prone to follow in the traditions of their parent(s) or guardians to continue to participate in a given indoctrination and brainwashing in order to perpetuate the cult.

There's no investment, mental or otherwise, to extend one's efforts outside our empirical existence.

When I see cartoon characters in movies that performed what would be considered as supernatural feats, I don't ponder the possibility that they are in fact supernatural beings.

Reality is a wonderful thing. Try it sometime.
 
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...

Hate to tell you but you are wrong. Religion is a belief based on irrationalism. Atheism is a believe based on reason. They are an 180 degree opposite. To a theist the existence of god is based on faith and exists whether rationally proven or not. To an atheist god can only exist if rationally proven and if proven they would give up their belief. For a theist to give up their belief in god would show a lack of faith and be a mortal sin. There isn't a credible theist alive who would give up their belief in god simply because someone had a rational proof that he didn't exist. This is why a religion is a religion and why atheism is not...to be a religion one must have complete faith...
 
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...

My atheism is not based on a system of firm beliefs. I don't have beliefs, I either know something through rational investigation or through the rational investigation of others. I accept interpretations in terms of probability, rather than firm belief one way or the other. Since I lack any unambiguous evidence for gods I think their probability is at this time extremely low. Since I have reams of confirming evidence in support of biological evolution, global warming and Big Bang cosmology I regard those explanations as correct to a level of high probability....The existence of the Higgs Boson to a confidence level of 3.5 million to 1.. for example.

I do not behave based on religion or lack thereof. I behave based on what it is like to live in someone else's shoes and to do the least disruption to nature as possible.

What I "believe" has nothing to do with it.
 
Peter3785 said:
Hate to tell you but you are wrong. Religion is a belief based on irrationalism. Atheism is a believe based on reason. They are an 180 degree opposite. To a theist the existence of god is based on faith and exists whether rationally proven or not. To an atheist god can only exist if rationally proven and if proven they would give up their belief. For a theist to give up their belief in god would show a lack of faith and be a mortal sin. There isn't a credible theist alive who would give up their belief in god simply because someone had a rational proof that he didn't exist. This is why a religion is a religion and why atheism is not...to be a religion one must have complete faith...
Click to expand...

In logic there is a fallacy known as an argument of ignorance. It is an attempt to prove a negative by use of lack of evidence. This is what your belief in atheism is using.

A rational proof of a god or gods is not necessary. One may exist that you simply do not know about. This is true of any argument. Just because you don't see any evidence doesn't mean a thing doesn't exist.

Philosophy has long debated what constitutes a religion and what constitutes science. One of the best philosophers in recent times was Karl Popper. His ability to put the knife edge through the difference is based on the reasoning that science must be made up of only falsifiable theories. Any other theory is essentially a circular argument. This is actually the way all theories begin. What takes them beyond the circular argument and is the ability to test for theory's null hypothesis. This also isolates science from the problems of phenomenology. Everyone observes according to their own unique model of the universe. This model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. Three people see the same sunrise, for example. One sees the effect of Earth's rotation. Another sees the Sun orbiting the Earth. Another sees the result of some god or gods hauling the Sun across the sky each day. Each feels their model is the one true model. This is what phenomenology is all about. It is why observation is not a good thing to base science upon. It is evidence only. Lack of evidence does not prove a negative.

The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy in logic, it IS a fallacy to not recognize a circular argument for what it is. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Faith is part of everything. It is part of science, it is part of religion, it is part of conducting your own life. It takes a certain amount of faith to take a new theory, for example, to the point of building a null hypothesis for it and testing it.

I have found most atheists are just as religious as those they despise. There are rare cases where I have found an atheist taking the true meaning of the term. They happen to not believe in any god or gods, but they DO allow for the possibility of it. They don't try to prove it.

It is not possible to prove or to disprove any god or gods. Any attempt to prove either way is an argument of faith, or a circular argument.
 
Peter3785 said:
Hate to tell you but you are wrong. Religion is a belief based on irrationalism. Atheism is a believe based on reason. They are an 180 degree opposite. To a theist the existence of god is based on faith and exists whether rationally proven or not. To an atheist god can only exist if rationally proven and if proven they would give up their belief. For a theist to give up their belief in god would show a lack of faith and be a mortal sin. There isn't a credible theist alive who would give up their belief in god simply because someone had a rational proof that he didn't exist. This is why a religion is a religion and why atheism is not...to be a religion one must have complete faith...
Click to expand...

There are a few flaws with your arguments. Firstly, although most scientists are atheists, not all atheists are scientists. There are plenty of irrational atheists. Reason is not the common thread of atheism. The only thing required to be a card carrying atheist, is to deny the existence of God. This does not require the ability to reason. It only requires the ability to memorize and deny.

The second flaw is as follows. Buddhism is one of the major world religions, yet Buddhists do not believe in deities. Buddhism shows that it is possible to be a religion, even without believing in a god or goddess. Atheism is a religion analogous to Buddhism; both lack belief in deities. The lack of belief in deities is what recruits the irrational to atheism. The main difference is Buddhism is based on the inner world of man; introspection, while the religion of Atheism is more about the outer world; extroversion and materialism. The Buddha left the atheist world of materialism and unconscious projection of his day, and found his own religion.

Thirdly, which is connected to the second, scientists base their perception of reality on the philosophy of science. The philosophy of science is designed to only addresses the outer world. It does not fully address aspects of the inner world. For example, we have all dreams. Dreams are a natural output product of the human brain. However, since dreams tend to be unique to reach person, and unique is not reproducible in the lab, dreams are outside the philosophy of science. If I had a dream there is no way for science to prove the details of my dreams. Aspect of science that deal with dreams are called soft science since dreams, although common and real, are not reproducible.

Buddhism deals with various outputs and inductions of the mind and brain, that are on the other side of the philosophy of science. This is why it is called as religion Yet it deals with real phenomena common to the human mind. A hardcore atheists who bases his perception of reality on only the philosophy of science, has to deny a large aspect of neural reality. This makes atheism irrational unless they consciously are aware of the limits of the philosophy of science. Enlightenment, which is a Buddhist term is connected to tapping into deepest aspects of the brain, that can only be accessed from within. Science can't go there, yet.
 
Last edited:
Bald is a hair color.
Water is juice minus the fruit.
Acorns are trees.


Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.
 
wellwisher said:
There are a few flaws with your arguments. Firstly, although most scientists are atheists, not all atheists are scientists. There are plenty of irrational atheists. Reason is not the common thread of atheism. The only thing required to be a card carrying atheist, is to deny the existence of God. This does not require the ability to reason. It only requires the ability to memorize and deny.

The second flaw is as follows. Buddhism is one of the major world religions, yet Buddhists do not believe in deities. Buddhism shows that it is possible to be a religion, even without believing in a god or goddess. Atheism is a religion analogous to Buddhism; both lack belief in deities. The lack of belief in deities is what recruits the irrational to atheism. The main difference is Buddhism is based on the inner world of man; introspection, while the religion of Atheism is more about the outer world; extroversion and materialism. The Buddha left the atheist world of materialism and unconscious projection of his day, and found his own religion.

...
Click to expand...

I think that leans more towards agnosticism. An atheist doesn't lack belief in deities, he believes there are none .
 
pinqy said:
Nope. The common definition among atheists is lack of belief.
Click to expand...

Not "nope". I'd maybe go with, "That's not exactly accurate in the broadest sense .... ", but not just a "nope".

"Atheism is, in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2][3][4] Less broadly, atheism is the rejection of belief that any deities exist.[5][6] In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[1][2][7][8] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[9][10] which, in its most general form, is the belief that at least one deity exists."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism
 
Into the Night said:
In logic there is a fallacy known as an argument of ignorance. It is an attempt to prove a negative by use of lack of evidence. This is what your belief in atheism is using.

A rational proof of a god or gods is not necessary. One may exist that you simply do not know about. This is true of any argument. Just because you don't see any evidence doesn't mean a thing doesn't exist.

Philosophy has long debated what constitutes a religion and what constitutes science. One of the best philosophers in recent times was Karl Popper. His ability to put the knife edge through the difference is based on the reasoning that science must be made up of only falsifiable theories. Any other theory is essentially a circular argument. This is actually the way all theories begin. What takes them beyond the circular argument and is the ability to test for theory's null hypothesis. This also isolates science from the problems of phenomenology. Everyone observes according to their own unique model of the universe. This model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. Three people see the same sunrise, for example. One sees the effect of Earth's rotation. Another sees the Sun orbiting the Earth. Another sees the result of some god or gods hauling the Sun across the sky each day. Each feels their model is the one true model. This is what phenomenology is all about. It is why observation is not a good thing to base science upon. It is evidence only. Lack of evidence does not prove a negative.

The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy in logic, it IS a fallacy to not recognize a circular argument for what it is. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

Faith is part of everything. It is part of science, it is part of religion, it is part of conducting your own life. It takes a certain amount of faith to take a new theory, for example, to the point of building a null hypothesis for it and testing it.

I have found most atheists are just as religious as those they despise. There are rare cases where I have found an atheist taking the true meaning of the term. They happen to not believe in any god or gods, but they DO allow for the possibility of it. They don't try to prove it.

It is not possible to prove or to disprove any god or gods. Any attempt to prove either way is an argument of faith, or a circular argument.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. The only thing a theist actually has is faith, nothing else. There is no evidence of or reason to believe in a god. It is purely faith based.

But it is incorrect to say then that all things are faith based. As science does produce good evidence as well as good reasoning for holding a position. As well most people base their life on experience and what has worked for them in the past. Where as a belief in a god is personal and nothing more than faith holds it together as there is no past experience of a god.

You demonstrate well the problem with the theist thinking. That your beliefs are faith based but even so you still attempt to use reason to establish some cause for having faith. In this case a false reasoning that if believing in a god is faith based then everything must be faith based.

You are also incorrect about atheism. It is not an attempt to prove anything. It merely points out the fallacious thinking of a theist. It points out that whatever evidence a theist believes in is not in fact evidence of any such thing. You have forgotten that it is up to a theist to produce evidence or reason and not the job of an atheist to create and then disprove evidence or reason.
 
soylentgreen said:
I agree with this. The only thing a theist actually has is faith, nothing else. There is no evidence of or reason to believe in a god. It is purely faith based.

But it is incorrect to say then that all things are faith based. As science does produce good evidence as well as good reasoning for holding a position. As well most people base their life on experience and what has worked for them in the past. Where as a belief in a god is personal and nothing more than faith holds it together as there is no past experience of a god.

You demonstrate well the problem with the theist thinking. That your beliefs are faith based but even so you still attempt to use reason to establish some cause for having faith. In this case a false reasoning that if believing in a god is faith based then everything must be faith based.

You are also incorrect about atheism. It is not an attempt to prove anything. It merely points out the fallacious thinking of a theist. It points out that whatever evidence a theist believes in is not in fact evidence of any such thing. You have forgotten that it is up to a theist to produce evidence or reason and not the job of an atheist to create and then disprove evidence or reason.
Click to expand...

Science is not evidence. Neither does it produce evidence. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. This definition of science comes out of the reasoning by Karl Popper. By rejecting the use of supporting evidence for a theory, the only remaining test is the null hypothesis, that is, how can you test the theory to see if it's wrong?

No theory of science is ever proven true. A theory remains a theory until it destroyed by falsification. The reason theories of science have a stronger case than any other kind of theory is the test of falsifiability.

Science itself cannot prove whether a god or gods exist or not. Neither can logic. Both are atheistic. Neither address the question, because the question is not falsifiable for either case. Logic is a closed system, much like mathematics. It operates only in that closed system. The question of the existence of a god or gods existing or not cannot be answered by logic either. It's like trying to prove such a thing with mathematics.

This doesn't mean science rejects the idea of a god or gods. It simply doesn't go there. This is atheism...not a declaration that a god or gods do not exist, but that the question is simply irrelevant. Both science and atheism do allow for the possibility that a god or gods MIGHT exist, but don't try to prove one way or the other. It's simply an irrelevant question.

This is hopefully close to how you approach atheism. It simply doesn't address or believe that a god or gods exist, yet it does allow for the possibility of it.

This is different from an agnostic. An agnostic believes a god or gods probably exist, but refuses to ascribe a nature to it. The agnostic simply says a god or gods probably exist, but stops there and goes no further. Similar, yet different.

Then there is the 'militant' atheist. This is the kind that tries to prove no god or gods exist, despite no way of doing so. This is actually a religion, as it is based on an initial circular argument like any religion. It points to supporting evidence like any religion. It builds model after model upon the initial circular argument like any religion. This is a much different kind of atheist than you are describing yourself to be. They do exist, however. Their position is a fundamentalist one...arguing by repetition, insulting any that dare oppose them, and generally 'condemning to hell' any that does not see their view. It is this individual that builds the image of atheism as a religion. For the 'militant' atheist, it is.

I do not think of you as the 'militant' style of atheist. Your arguments are following well reasoned patterns. You seem to be one of the few atheists that do not try to prove one way or the other. Be proud of it. It means you have learned to think for yourself...a rare commodity these days.
 
Atheism to me is a very individualized situation that can and yet cannot be placed in generalized category. While I do indeed carry a complete lack of belief in any of the man made God entities, and consider each to be little more than fantasy novel characters with cultish followers I also accept that I am not some all knowing super genius who "Knows" what is out there. The literature that pertains to and "Explains" the Gods of men are enough evidence to make clear to me that the things they project cannot be real and when someone claims they are I tend to dispute it, this is after all a debate forum....this does not make me "Militant" it makes me opinionated just as the theist is.
This Militant label seems to be little more than pouty, anger driven reaction to disagreement from persecution complex sufferers with a need to whine.
 
To address the Christian and faith:

Since the circular argument is also the argument of faith, one must look at the nature of the circular itself; an argument that uses it's own conclusion as the predicate.

In logic, the circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. It actually satisfies what is known as the proof of identity. It exist. That's enough.

Failing to recognize the circular argument for what it is becomes the fallacy. This is the moment you try to construct a formal proof by using the conclusion as the predicate. Such a proof MUST produce a True or False result. This is not possible with the circular argument. That it exists is perfectly legitimate and not a fallacy. It's existence is a True. However, since a conclusion is dependent on it's predicates, it is not possible to determine if the conclusion is True or False. It is Nil. It is Unknown. There is no other predicate, so it remains Unknown. You cannot prove a True or False with an Unknown for a predicate. This would be self defining, and is nonsense. This is the fallacy of the circular argument. Not the argument itself, but the attempt to use it to prove something.

In science the same kind of reasoning exists. When a new theory is inspired (by whatever means...an observation, a new way to look at a math formula, how another theory was falsified, dreaming it up while sleeping, watching an episode of Sponge Bob...anything), that theory begins as just an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion (it doesn't matter if the predicate IS the conclusion), that new theory begins as a circular argument. The only thing supporting it is itself.

To take a theory beyond the realm of a simple circular argument, one must apply a bit of logic to it to force either a True or a False condition. The theory itself is the supporting argument. It needs no other, and no amount of supporting evidence can ever prove a theory True.
However, a single bit of conflicting evidence can prove a theory False if, and only if, a null hypothesis for that theory can be constructed. The test must be specific, producing a specific result, it must be available, and it must be practical to perform. A test that is nonspecific, or does not produce a specific result, or is not available to conduct, means the test effectively doesn't exist. Such a test can result in a False condition. That's enough. You do not need to produce a True condition.

Thus, a theory remains a theory. The test of falsifiability is the test against the null hypothesis of that theory. No theory is ever proven True. It remains a theory until it is destroyed by falsification (a False result). It is this and only this that separates a scientific theory from any other theory.
It is this and only this that takes a theory of science beyond the realm of the simple argument of faith. As long as the theory can survive tests against the null hypothesis, the theory is part of the body of science. Once a theory is falsified, it is no longer an explanatory argument. It because a fallacy. It becomes a non-argument. Such a theory is utterly destroyed. This may, of course, inspire a new theory, along with it's model and it's null hypothesis to be tested.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom