• 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!

Is atheism a religion[W:711:831]

Is atheism a religion

  • Total voters
    119
Re: Is atheism a religion

Anagram said:
I' know one who does and he was who I was thinking of when I wrote that post. I imagine there are others out there. I wasn't saying it was some widespread problem but it definitely exists.
Click to expand...

To whom are you referring?

Peter Grimm said:
You're making my argument out to be something it isn't. I never mentioned a specific god, I simply pointed out the truism that either A.) God/gods exist, or B.) He/it/they don't. One or the other statement is true, while the remaining one is false. They can't both be true, and it can't be the case that neither is true.
Click to expand...

Well yeah. Of course something either exists or it doesn't. But saying that doesn't mean they're equally likely. It is not a 50/50 chance. Dragons either exist or they don't. But we all know they don't. The probability of dragons existing is far less than the probability of them simply being made up. The same is true of any other supernatural creature.

That said, there is no more evidence to support the notion that no god exists than there is to support the notion that a god does exist.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. Of course there is. Assuming that one uses any commonly understood definition for a god. There is no magic in the world. There are no miracles. The world operates exactly as it should without gods in it. Every single postulated attribute ever given to a god has been false. No two people agree on what god or gods there are. All of this is very consistent with mistaken human experience. Not divine truth.

Just so we're straight.... are you claiming that you can prove that God doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

Easily. I'll make the same offer to you I make all the time on this forum. Define a god, and I'll be happy to prove that it doesn't exist. Of course, most likely you'll offer a vague definition that doesn't include any of the things commonly attributed to god, so I usually end up proving that such a god is irrelevant to our existence. That's what everyone does. No one has ever offered me a god that would lead to judgment, prophets, or moral codes. So either deep down you're all deists who don't actually believe a word of your own religions, or you know it's nonsense and you just don't want to admit it.

So please, define me a god. Make it one that matters. I'll show how it's nonsense.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Paschendale said:
Why resort to something as silly and useless as a belief when you can attempt to gain actual knowledge and reach reasoned conclusions? A belief is just something you want to be true, not something that is true, or is even likely true.
Click to expand...
A belief is something that is likely to be true based on past experience. You believe all sorts of things that you never acquired with "actual knowledge" - Do you believe that Mt. Everest exists? Do you believe that it's the highest mountain on Earth? That's not "actual knowledge" - assuming you've never been there yourself, and never independently determined its height - you simply believe something that you've heard from someone else.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
The whole burden of proof debate is tiresome. Haven't you atheists "evolved" beyond that yet? It's the same thing Richard Dawkins was spitting out 30 years ago.

Look, debate forum or no, nobody is required to substantiate their faith
Click to expand...

Of course you're not...in any other circumstance, but you are absolutely required to substantiate it if you make a claim in a debate. Your faith is not in any way a get-out-of-jail-free card.

Peter Grimm said:
I didn't want to get dragged in to this old debate on burden of proof, but look. Let's view this logically. Let's begin with two statements....

A.) There is no God
B.) God/gods exists.

We know that one of the above is true, that is fact. But which is it, A or B? Which is truth? In fact, we can't find enough evidence to prove either claim. Thus, belief in either is a matter of faith.

This is a fact and you cannot dispute it.

Now I realize you would like to unload the entire burden of proof on the religious (making us have to prove claim B while you do not have to prove claim A), however, that just ain't gonna happen.
Click to expand...

We don't have to "prove" A), we only need to conclude that evidence for god's existence hasn't been offered, so we need not take his existence seriously any more than you should seriously consider the possibility that I'm Batman.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Paschendale said:
Well yeah. Of course something either exists or it doesn't. But saying that doesn't mean they're equally likely. It is not a 50/50 chance. Dragons either exist or they don't. But we all know they don't. The probability of dragons existing is far less than the probability of them simply being made up. The same is true of any other supernatural creature.
Click to expand...

Again, you need to stop projecting arguments on to me that I'm not making. I never said anything about probabilities, I simply said the truth is either that god exists or not. In fact, we can't assign a probability to either option being correct.


Paschendale said:
Nonsense. Of course there is. Assuming that one uses any commonly understood definition for a god. There is no magic in the world. There are no miracles. The world operates exactly as it should without gods in it. Every single postulated attribute ever given to a god has been false. No two people agree on what god or gods there are. All of this is very consistent with mistaken human experience. Not divine truth.



Easily. I'll make the same offer to you I make all the time on this forum. Define a god, and I'll be happy to prove that it doesn't exist. Of course, most likely you'll offer a vague definition that doesn't include any of the things commonly attributed to god, so I usually end up proving that such a god is irrelevant to our existence. That's what everyone does. No one has ever offered me a god that would lead to judgment, prophets, or moral codes. So either deep down you're all deists who don't actually believe a word of your own religions, or you know it's nonsense and you just don't want to admit it.

So please, define me a god. Make it one that matters. I'll show how it's nonsense.
Click to expand...

That's quite something, considering nobody in the history of man has ever been able to disprove the existence of God. But you're saying that you can. Forgive me for doubting you.

However, although I doubt you, don't get that confused. That doesn't mean I believe you can't disprove God. You see, the lack of belief in something is not at all the same as believing you can't do something... duh.

...

Hey, you want to take swing at it? I'd be amused to see what you come up with. Try to disprove the biblical God. And.....go.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:
Of course you're not...in any other circumstance, but you are absolutely required to substantiate it if you make a claim in a debate. Your faith is not in any way a get-out-of-jail-free card.
Click to expand...

What claim did I make, Cardinal?


Cardinal said:
We don't have to "prove" A), we only need to conclude that evidence for god's existence hasn't been offered, so we need not take his existence seriously any more than you should seriously consider the possibility that I'm Batman.
Click to expand...

So I need to prove that God exists, but you don't need to prove that no god exists. Yeah.....no. Sorry, but I'm only interested in level playing fields.

The fact remains that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, so atheism and theism are equally matters of belief. You may think your belief is superior to mine, but you cannot prove it.

As for Batman, if you choose to believe you are Batman, that's your business.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
Again, you need to stop projecting arguments on to me that I'm not making. I never said anything about probabilities, I simply said the truth is either that god exists or not. In fact, we can't assign a probability to either option being correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, we most certainly can. That's the argument you're making. That it's a completely arbitrary decision and there's no compelling reason not to believe. We both know there's no reason to believe. Your whole argument is a false equivalency.

Hey, you want to take swing at it? I'd be amused to see what you come up with. Try to disprove the biblical God. And.....go.
Click to expand...

You'll have to be a lot more specific than that. There is no singular biblical god. There are half a dozen distinct god myths that contradict each other in just modern translations of the bible, and millions of different assertions on what does or doesn't count from the text, and what else is implied by it.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
What claim did I make, Cardinal?
Click to expand...

The "royal" you. If you" make the claim that there is a god you are required to substantiate it.

So I need to prove that God exists, but you don't need to prove that no god exists.
Click to expand...

Yup! Because if everyone were required to prove a negative then anybody could get away with making any claim whatsoever. No claim, however factually and demonstrably false, could be dismissed.

Yeah.....no. Sorry, but I'm only interested in level playing fields.
Click to expand...

The "level playing field" you seek would allow any false claim and superstition to persist as fact.

The fact remains that the existence of God can neither be proved nor disproved, so atheism and theism are equally matters of belief. You may think your belief is superior to mine, but you cannot prove it.
Click to expand...

As I said, we don't need to prove god doesn't exist. We can just observe truthfully that no evidence has been offered.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Paschendale said:
Yes, we most certainly can. That's the argument you're making. That it's a completely arbitrary decision and there's no compelling reason not to believe. We both know there's no reason to believe. Your whole argument is a false equivalency.
Click to expand...

If you think that's the argument I'm making, no wonder we're not getting anywhere. Try going through and reading what I actually wrote before you respond to it.


Paschendale said:
You'll have to be a lot more specific than that. There is no singular biblical god. There are half a dozen distinct god myths that contradict each other in just modern translations of the bible, and millions of different assertions on what does or doesn't count from the text, and what else is implied by it.
Click to expand...

No, there's just one God in the bible. Cute story though, the one you made up about there being half a dozen gods or whatever. Why don't you start by proving THAT?

It's time to nail you down to something, you keep squirming around the issues and intentionally misrepresenting my positions. Prove that there are "half a dozen distinct god myths that contradict each other" in the bible.

I'll wait.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:
The "royal" you. If you" make the claim that there is a god you are required to substantiate it.
Click to expand...

Wait, so I never made a claim, did I? Caught red handed.


Cardinal said:
Yup! Because if everyone were required to prove a negative then anybody could get away with making any claim whatsoever. No claim, however factually and demonstrably false, could be dismissed.
Click to expand...

If a claim were factually false, it probably could be dismissed. For instance, we know the earth revolves around the sun because we can observe it. If I tell you the Eiffel Tower is made of cheese, you can disprove that by going to the Eiffel Tower and observing it.

Cardinal said:
The "level playing field" you seek would allow any false claim and superstition to persist as fact.
Click to expand...

You're confused. I never claimed the existence of God is an indisputable fact. I claimed it was a belief, and one that cannot be disproved. Likewise, I claimed that belief in no god is still a belief, and one that cannot be disproved nor proved.

Cardinal said:
As I said, we don't need to prove god doesn't exist. We can just observe truthfully that no evidence has been offered.
Click to expand...

I know, you desperately want an uneven playing field so that your side can win. You're not getting it. If you make a claim (God does not exist) you need to prove it, just like you're asking me to do.

Burden of proof is not a one-way street.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
The question was whether atheism is a religion, and the definition of religion is: "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

What in the world is "supernatural" anyway? What a vague and useless word that is. Fun fact... did you know that many ancient people did in fact worship animals for their various superhuman qualities?
Click to expand...

Um, according to whom? I don't recall ever seeing or agreeing to that definition.

"Supernatural" is something that is outside the laws of what can occur naturally.

Yes, I am. So?



And I'm telling you there's no such thing as a lack of belief. Imagine a NOT pink elephant.
Click to expand...

I can imagine one. Doesn't mean I believe in one. Also doesn't mean they don't exist.

Pink dolphins exist. I thought that was a hoax at first, until I proved to my own satisfaction it wasn't.

Just because you're incapable of understanding what a lack of believe is, doesn't mean it can't exist.

I don't think you understand what belief is.... dude.

I believe there are no purple ants on Mars. Just because I believe it doesn't mean I am certain. Belief does not equal certainty. I simply believe there are no purple ants on Mars due to my limited experience and knowledge of Mars.

There isn't a single person on earth who limits his/her beliefs to that which they are certain of. Human beings are not capable of behaving that way.

However, I'm not knocking your stance on God. You feel free to believe what you want, based on your experience of the world around you.
Click to expand...

Actually, you're the one who doesn't understand what "believe" means.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with a dictionary, and then get back to me.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
Wait, so I never made a claim, did I? Caught red handed.
Click to expand...

I did exactly what you did at the bottom of your own post: if you make the claim, you have to substantiate it.


If a claim were factually false, it probably could be dismissed. For instance, we know the earth revolves around the sun because we can observe it. If I tell you the Eiffel Tower is made of cheese, you can disprove that by going to the Eiffel Tower and observing it.
Click to expand...

Which is all very well and good because we can observe the sun and our rotation around it, and there's an Effel Tower to go visit to confirm it isn't made of cheese. So far God doesn't fit any of those qualifications.

You're confused. I never claimed the existence of God is an indisputable fact. I claimed it was a belief, and one that cannot be disproved.
Click to expand...

A belief is not special by virtue of it being a "belief." It still must be substantiated or else not taken seriously.

I know, you desperately want an uneven playing field so that your side can win. You're not getting it. If you make a claim (God does not exist) you need to prove it, just like you're asking me to do.

Burden of proof is not a one-way street.
Click to expand...

I said that no evidence of God has been offered, and therefore his existence need not be taken seriously. But I have a feeling you're going to ignore this like you have every other time I've said it and default back to "you can't prove god's non-existence" anyway, aren't you?
 
Last edited:
Re: Is atheism a religion

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Um, according to whom? I don't recall ever seeing or agreeing to that definition.
Click to expand...

relig.jpg

SmokeAndMirrors said:
"Supernatural" is something that is outside the laws of what can occur naturally.
Click to expand...

Right, but my question was more philosophical. What can occur "naturally?" For instance, if I were to show that adding mustard to yellow paint turned the paint in to pure gold, would that be supernatural, or would it simply be adopted as part of what occurs naturally?

If I could replicate it over and over, it would simply be a law of nature. Mustard + yellow paint = Pure Gold.

What I'm getting at is this: the laws defining nature are constantly changing, expanding, depending on what we discover. If we were to find proof of God, then, by your definition, He would no longer be God (if God is defined as something "supernatural"), but a natural phenomenon.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Yes, I am. So?
Click to expand...

So an elephant would make a perfectly suitable god in some cultures.



SmokeAndMirrors said:
I can imagine one. Doesn't mean I believe in one. Also doesn't mean they don't exist.
Click to expand...

You can imagine a "not pink" elephant? What does "not pink" look like?

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Pink dolphins exist. I thought that was a hoax at first, until I proved to my own satisfaction it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Are they a gross pink or a cool pink? I could see that going either way.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Just because you're incapable of understanding what a lack of believe is, doesn't mean it can't exist.
Click to expand...

A lack of belief is the same as belief in nothing. Nothingness, in itself, is a concept.

SmokeAndMirrors said:
Actually, you're the one who doesn't understand what "believe" means.

I suggest you acquaint yourself with a dictionary, and then get back to me.
Click to expand...

What makes you say that? Surely there is a difference between belief and certainty?
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:
Which is all very well and good because we can observe the sun and our rotation around it, and there's an Effel Tower to go visit to confirm it isn't made of cheese. So far God doesn't fit any of those qualifications.
Click to expand...

Right, so we've established that some things can be proved, while other things cannot.

Cardinal said:
A belief is not special by virtue of it being a "belief." It still must be substantiated or else not taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Actually, belief is distinct from certainty in that certainty is mandated by a body of evidence, whereas belief is a choice.


Cardinal said:
I said that no evidence of God has been offered, and therefore his existence need not be taken seriously. But I have a feeling you're going to ignore this like you have every other time I've said it and default back to "you can't prove god's non-existence" anyway, aren't you?
Click to expand...

Well, I mean that's what we're saying, isn't it?

Again, one of the following is correct....

A.) God/gods exist
B.) No god/gods exist

I have never claimed to be able to prove A. You have never claimed to be able to prove B (although Paschendale did claim to be able to, so I'm still waiting on that).

So, absent proof either way, what you're left with is belief in one or the other.

Now, you can list a whole slew of reasons why you think your belief is better than mine, or vice versa. However, the sum of it does not amount to proof, it's just an opinion at the end of the day.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
You can imagine a "not pink" elephant? What does "not pink" look like?
Click to expand...

You really don't know what a not pink elephant looks like? It looks like every other elephant on the planet.

Oh look, here's a few of them now:

elephants_Peter%20Knights.JPG
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
Well, I mean that's what we're saying, isn't it?
Click to expand...

That's what you say we're saying, and then quick as a rabbit you bounce right back to "you can't prove God's nonexistence" and every variation thereof as if that's what I've claimed I had any intention of doing. But I have no intention at all of disproving god. I will only say what I've always been saying: no evidence for god has been offered, so consideration of his existence need not be taken seriously. No matter how many times you default to "you can't prove god's nonexistence" (and I'm sure you will...again), that fact will never change.

Unless of course you feel like offering evidence of God's existence. Feel up to it?
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

I would call those elephants "gray."

You just made my point for me. You can't imagine "not." Your mind needs a placeholder, in this case, gray.

RabidAlpaca said:
You really don't know what a not pink elephant looks like? It looks like every other elephant on the planet.

Oh look, here's a few of them now:

elephants_Peter%20Knights.JPG
Click to expand...
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:
That's what you say we're saying, and then quick as a rabbit you bounce right back to "you can't prove God's nonexistence" and every variation thereof as if that's what I've claimed I had any intention of doing. But I have no intention at all of disproving god. I will only say what I've always been saying: no evidence for god has been offered, so consideration of his existence need not be taken seriously. No matter how many times you default to "you can't prove god's nonexistence" (and I'm sure you will...again), that fact will never change.

Unless of course you feel like offering evidence of God's existence. Feel up to it?
Click to expand...

You're taking a page out of Paschendale's book and attributing to me arguments I'm not trying to make. Did you learn that at the "Richard Dawkins School of Debate and Stuff"?

I never said I was interested in proving that God exists. I'm not. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

You say "no evidence for god has been offered, so consideration of his existence need not be taken seriously."

Is it not the same, then, to say "no evidence for the lack of god has been offered, so consideration for the lack of his existence need not be taken seriously?"

Perhaps when presented with a mirror, you'll see the glaring flaw in your logic.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
You're taking a page out of Paschendale's book and attributing to me arguments I'm not trying to make. Did you learn that at the "Richard Dawkins School of Debate and Stuff"?

I never said I was interested in proving that God exists. I'm not. Belief in God is a matter of faith.

You say "no evidence for god has been offered, so consideration of his existence need not be taken seriously."

Is it not the same, then, to say "no evidence for the lack of god has been offered, so consideration for the lack of his existence need not be taken seriously?"

Perhaps when presented with a mirror, you'll see the glaring flaw in your logic.
Click to expand...

No, they are not equal. The person making the claim that a thing exists/happens has to substantiate it.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
No, there's just one God in the bible. Cute story though, the one you made up about there being half a dozen gods or whatever. Why don't you start by proving THAT?

It's time to nail you down to something, you keep squirming around the issues and intentionally misrepresenting my positions. Prove that there are "half a dozen distinct god myths that contradict each other" in the bible.

I'll wait.
Click to expand...

Seriously? You don't know any of the literary origins of the bible? The first four books came from a distinctly different time period than Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy retcons away some of the more physical aspects of god from the previous books, which depict god as frequently appearing as physical manifestations and eating food. The former depiction eschews most of the omnipotence, too. Meanwhile, the new testament depictions are generally based on Zeus. The elements of judgment based on morality in life and consignment to an afterlife are taken straight from Greek myth, not from the old testament. Not to mention the addition of the messiah being a physical descendant of a god, which is completely antithetical to the old testament stories about the messiah. Modern views of god, meanwhile, both in Christianity and Islam, assert that their god is the only one in existence, while the old testament explicitly mentions other gods, some even by name.

Didn't you know all this already?

So yeah, which god are you talking about? The one who appears as a ball of fire to lead people through the desert and eats food with the patriarchs, or the one who is completely unknowable? The one who insists that he's the only god in the universe, or the one who specifically conquers the Egyptian gods?

No, I have not misrepresented you. You said there's no reason not to think there's a god. You drew a false equivalence between the likelihood of the existence or nonexistence of a specific deity, which you still have not defined. You also said that we cannot determine probability. We can.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:
I would call those elephants "gray."

You just made my point for me. You can't imagine "not." Your mind needs a placeholder, in this case, gray.
Click to expand...

Yes, they are gray, which is "not pink". What you're essentially asking for is a colorless elephant, but that's not how you described it.

So admit you are wrong and move on.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Paschendale said:
Seriously? You don't know any of the literary origins of the bible? The first four books came from a distinctly different time period than Deuteronomy. Deuteronomy retcons away some of the more physical aspects of god from the previous books, which depict god as frequently appearing as physical manifestations and eating food. The former depiction eschews most of the omnipotence, too. Meanwhile, the new testament depictions are generally based on Zeus. The elements of judgment based on morality in life and consignment to an afterlife are taken straight from Greek myth, not from the old testament. Not to mention the addition of the messiah being a physical descendant of a god, which is completely antithetical to the old testament stories about the messiah. Modern views of god, meanwhile, both in Christianity and Islam, assert that their god is the only one in existence, while the old testament explicitly mentions other gods, some even by name.

Didn't you know all this already?

So yeah, which god are you talking about? The one who appears as a ball of fire to lead people through the desert and eats food with the patriarchs, or the one who is completely unknowable? The one who insists that he's the only god in the universe, or the one who specifically conquers the Egyptian gods?
Click to expand...

This topic is more interesting than your point about probabilities, so let's stick to that. Your mind has an odd tendency to wander, so better we focus in on one topic at a time.

What do you mean the "literary origins of the Bible?" If you're asking whether I'm aware when and by whom the given books were written, my answer is "yes," roughly, although there is some academic dispute on the matter so in some ways, we can't be totally sure.

That really has nothing to do with there being one God. God never claims authorship of the Bible. The Bible is the word of God, written by man. Now let's address some of your points individually.

"The first four books came from a distinctly different time period than Deuteronomy." - So? The bible was written by people over a long time span, not just Deuteronomy.

"Deuteronomy retcons away some of the more physical aspects of god from the previous books, which depict god as frequently appearing as physical manifestations and eating food. The former depiction eschews most of the omnipotence, too." - So? Why can't God appear in physical form? Why can't a god who appears in physical form be omnipotent? That doesn't logically follow.

"Meanwhile, the new testament depictions are generally based on Zeus." - In what way? Does Jesus live on mount Olympus and throw lightning bolts at people?


"The elements of judgment based on morality in life and consignment to an afterlife are taken straight from Greek myth, not from the old testament." - I disagree, but feel free to prove it.

"Not to mention the addition of the messiah being a physical descendant of a god, which is completely antithetical to the old testament stories about the messiah." - Again, prove it.

"Modern views of god, meanwhile, both in Christianity and Islam, assert that their god is the only one in existence, while the old testament explicitly mentions other gods, some even by name." - It doesn't say that other gods exist, it recognizes that other people believe in other gods, and goes out of its way to show that those gods do not exist. Deuteronomy 6:4..... "hear o israel, the lord our god, the lord is one."


So you've made a lot of claims there, and I don't agree with a single one of them. Go ahead and substantiate them. And make sure to show why all of that means there are several gods represented in the Bible, and ultimately, why you've proven that the Biblical God does not exist.... which was your original claim.
 
Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:
Why does the burden of evidence lie with the prosecution when someone is accused of a crime?
Click to expand...

In America that's true. Not everywhere.

But to answer your question.... we have a burden of evidence standard because somebody has to win in a court of law. It's a tiebreaker. Nobody has to win here.

By the way, just because someone loses a case in court doesn't mean they are guilty by virtue of logic, it means the prosecution met the burden of proof as defined by American law and as interpreted, subjectively, by a human judge or jury.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom