Is atheism a religion[W:711:831]

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cephus said:

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.

Click to expand...

What I've shown is that the human mind can't deal in negatives. The only way you can conceive of a "not pink" elephant is to substitute pink for something else.... another positive.... like "gray" or "blue" or "polka dot."

That was the point of my experiment.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

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.

Click to expand...

No. The burden of evidence lies with the prosecution because otherwise it would be fantastically easy to put innocent people in prison. We (rightly) consider countries that place the burden of evidence on the defendants to be largely backwards and uncivilized. The burden of evidence isn't placed on the prosecution "because somebody has to win," it's to minimize bad accusations that result in innocent people being punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Likewise, the burden of evidence lies with those making the claim that a thing exists/happens so that bad ideas don't so easily get swallowed as fact. This is true in all cases where a claim that a thing is real is made: criminal charges, scientific hypotheses and, yes, even religious claims.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

"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."

Click to expand...

Yes, I know that Christians know almost nothing about Judaism, despite claiming that it predicted Jesus. And just saying "nuh uh" when confronted with the mainstream historical and literary understandings of the bible... yeah, compelling.

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.

Click to expand...

I know you don't agree with them. Fortunately for the rest of us, that doesn't matter. Nor will you rise to my challenge and concisely define a god. "The god of the bible" is not a single concise character. I can show all manner of contradictions that make it nonsense, but I don't want this to devolve into just a lot of you saying that my arguments don't count because they don't square with your view of god. It already devolved into that over the bible.

Pick a myth. Describe it clearly. I'll trash it.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:

No. The burden of evidence lies with the prosecution because otherwise it would be fantastically easy to put innocent people in prison. We (rightly) consider countries that place the burden of evidence on the defendants to be largely backwards and uncivilized. The burden of evidence isn't placed on the prosecution "because somebody has to win," it's to minimize bad accusations that result in innocent people being punished for crimes they didn't commit.

Likewise, the burden of evidence lies with those making the claim that a thing exists/happens so that bad ideas don't so easily get swallowed as fact. This is true in all cases where a claim that a thing is real is made: criminal charges, scientific hypotheses and, yes, even religious claims.

Click to expand...

Actually in many European countries, the standard is "guilty until proven innocent." Still, it's not "fantastically easy" to put innocent people in jail.

However, the metaphor is a bad one. You can't compare a court of law, in which at the end of the day, the judge/jury have to make a "best call," to a debate dealing in absolute logic.

You might believe OJ Simpson was not guilty, but you can never prove he was not guilty. Likewise, you can never prove that he was guilty. The best you can do is meet a given threshold of evidence, defined by local law, and interpreted/judged subjectively by a jury/judge.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Paschendale said:

Yes, I know that Christians know almost nothing about Judaism, despite claiming that it predicted Jesus. And just saying "nuh uh" when confronted with the mainstream historical and literary understandings of the bible... yeah, compelling.



I know you don't agree with them. Fortunately for the rest of us, that doesn't matter. Nor will you rise to my challenge and concisely define a god. "The god of the bible" is not a single concise character. I can show all manner of contradictions that make it nonsense, but I don't want this to devolve into just a lot of you saying that my arguments don't count because they don't square with your view of god. It already devolved into that over the bible.

Pick a myth. Describe it clearly. I'll trash it.

Click to expand...

Are you going to actually respond to my post, or what is this nonsense? You haven't addressed a single point I've made.

You were to disprove the God of the Bible. Get crackin' at it, time is wasting away.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Actually in many European countries, the standard is "guilty until proven innocent." Still, it's not "fantastically easy" to put innocent people in jail.

However, the metaphor is a bad one. You can't compare a court of law, in which at the end of the day, the judge/jury have to make a "best call," to a debate dealing in absolute logic.

You might believe OJ Simpson was not guilty, but you can never prove he was not guilty. Likewise, you can never prove that he was guilty. The best you can do is meet a given threshold of evidence, defined by local law, and interpreted/judged subjectively by a jury/judge.

Click to expand...

You're missing the point. I'm not attempting to demonstrate a perfect system, I'm showing that in the example of the court of law the prosecution is presenting evidence that can be falsified. In other words you can hear their evidence, examine it, weigh it, possibly counter it or of course accept it. In a civilized system where there is no evidence the case is typically thrown out for lack of evidence. When this happens the statement being made isn't that the defendant is necessarily innocent, but that the prosecution has no case.

That's what's going on here. Religious people have made a claim, presented no evidence, and therefore their case has until further notice been thrown out.

In the meantime the faithful are perfectly free to present evidence as they wish to be examined and weighed. If they refuse to present that evidence then they will continue to not be taken seriously in any serious debate on the existence of god.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:

You're missing the point. I'm not attempting to demonstrate a perfect system, I'm showing that in the example of the court of law the prosecution is presenting evidence that can be falsified. In other words you can hear their evidence, examine it, weigh it, possibly counter it or of course accept it. In a civilized system where there is no evidence the case is typically thrown out for lack of evidence. When this happens the statement being made isn't that the defendant is necessarily innocent, but that the prosecution has no case.

That's what's going on here. Religious people have made a claim, presented no evidence, and therefore their case has until further notice been thrown out.

In the meantime the faithful are perfectly free to present evidence as they wish to be examined and weighed. If they refuse to present that evidence then they will continue to not be taken seriously in any serious debate on the existence of god.

Click to expand...

Two things. First, religion isn't under examination in any court of law, and it isn't up for any sort of civil decision. So I don't see the relevance here. Second, before you do a victory dance over the supposed superiority of atheism to theism in "any serious debate," understand that far, far more people are religious than not. So, whatever the reasons may be, religion seems to be winning the great civil debate.

Re: Is atheism a religion

On the contrary, people are socialised and indoctrinated into their parent's religion at an early age, well before they are capable of making an informed choice.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Two things. First, religion isn't under examination in any court of law, and it isn't up for any sort of civil decision. So I don't see the relevance here. Second, before you do a victory dance over the supposed superiority of atheism to theism in "any serious debate," understand that far, far more people are religious than not. So, whatever the reasons may be, religion seems to be winning the great civil debate.

Click to expand...

Wow. Argumentum ad populam? Seriously? Well, if that's how you want to play it be my guest. As the trend is for decreasing Christianity and rising self-identified nonreligious, that would mean at some point in time, if the trend continues, the claims of Christianity will be rendered false by virtue of it being in the minority.

Your logic, not mine.

In a debate the claims of religion are absolutely under examination. If the faithful can't handle challenges to their beliefs then they need to stick to other discussion topics or keep their claims squarely within their own circles. But in an actual debate religious claims have no special privileges, no get-out-of-jail-free cards, and no time off for good behavior. Down here in the pit you're just like the rest of us.

As to your continually bringing up which is "superior," in a debate the side that points out the absence of evidence is unconditionally superior to the side that refuses to present it.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:

Wow. Argumentum ad populam? Seriously? Well, if that's how you want to play it be my guest. As the trend is for decreasing Christianity and rising self-identified nonreligious, that would mean at some point in time, if the trend continues, the claims of Christianity will be rendered false by virtue of it being in the minority.

Your logic, not mine.

In a debate the claims of religion are absolutely under examination. If the faithful can't handle challenges to their beliefs then they need to stick to other discussion topics or keep their claims squarely within their own circles. But in an actual debate religious claims have no special privileges, no get-out-of-jail-free cards, and no time off for good behavior.

As to your continually bringing up which is "superior," in a debate the side that points out the absence of evidence is unconditionally superior to the side that refuses to present it.

Click to expand...

Hang on now. You're the one who made this an "ad populum" debate because you brought up the example of a court of law. Unless you still don't understand that a court operates under ad populum principles.

I tried to actively avoid that, by shooting down your metaphor since, clearly, a court doesn't actually prove anything absolutely, it simply meets a threshold of evidence under law as subjectively interpreted by a judge or jury.

But I figured hey, if you want to go down the ad populum route, I'll oblige, because I'll win that one too. Religion wins the civil argument because more people are religious than not.

Trends are meaningless.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Manc Skipper said:

On the contrary, people are socialised and indoctrinated into their parent's religion at an early age, well before they are capable of making an informed choice.

Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that people are incapable of choosing what to believe?

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Hang on now. You're the one who made this an "ad populum" debate because you brought up the example of a court of law. Unless you still don't understand that a court operates under ad populum principles.

I tried to actively avoid that, by shooting down your metaphor since, clearly, a court doesn't actually prove anything absolutely, it simply meets a threshold of evidence under law as subjectively interpreted by a judge or jury.

But I figured hey, if you want to go down the ad populum route, I'll oblige, because I'll win that one too. Religion wins the civil argument because more people are religious than not.

Trends are meaningless.

Click to expand...

Oy vey. I brought up the court of law as an analogy because the prosecution is required to present evidence, or else the case is thrown out...for lack of evidence. And if it weren't required to present evidence then it would be easier to make bad accusations that would result in innocent people going to prison. It's a system that's set up to try to snuff out bad accusations (bad ideas/claims). How is it possible that point could go over your head?

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:

Oy vey. I brought up the court of law as an analogy because the prosecution is required to present evidence, or else the case is thrown out for...for lack of evidence. And if it weren't required to present evidence then it would be easier to make bad accusations that would result in innocent people going to prison. How is it possible that point could go over your head?

Click to expand...

Because that's fine for a court of law, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're not in a court of law, and nobody's guilt or innocence is being challenged.

In your analogy, why am I the prosecution, or vv? This is just a really bad analogy, sorry.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Because that's fine for a court of law, but that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. We're not in a court of law, and nobody's guilt or innocence is being challenged.

Click to expand...

The consequences are somewhat different but the systems and their requirements are much the same. When a prosecution fails to present evidence the defendant is released for lack of evidence (whether that's good or bad depends on the situation). When religious people refuse to present evidence in a debate they strengthen the perception that their claims are baseless, which is exactly the impact you've made throughout this thread. You think you've been placing the onus on atheism for proving their case or at least equating the positions of atheism and religion. But any observer can come in here and conclude that you have nothing, you know you have nothing, and are just scrambling to hide that fact (badly) as much as possible.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cardinal said:

The consequences are somewhat different but the systems and their requirements are much the same. When a prosecution fails to present evidence the defendant is released for lack of evidence (whether that's good or bad depends on the situation). When religious people refuse to present evidence in a debate they strengthen the perception that their claims are baseless, which is exactly the impact you've made throughout this thread. You think you've been placing the onus on atheism for proving their case or at least equating the positions of atheism and religion. But any observer can come in here and conclude that you have nothing, you know you have nothing, and are just scrambling to hide that fact (badly) as much as possible.

Click to expand...

Whose perception?

At the end of the day, we know the truth to be one of two things: A.) God/s exist/s or B.) There is no god.

Both cannot be true, neither cannot be true.

We cannot prove either one. Thus, it becomes a matter of belief.

It's pretty clear what you believe. I know what I believe. As for everyone else, they're free to believe what they want.

I happen to believe God chooses his own flock. If you've heard the word of God and you believe in Him, it's because He wants you in his flock. If you've heard the Word but chosen not to believe, it's in God's hands.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Are you going to actually respond to my post, or what is this nonsense? You haven't addressed a single point I've made.

You were to disprove the God of the Bible. Get crackin' at it, time is wasting away.

Click to expand...

The bible is folklore. It has never been claimed that a god directly wrote the bible. The claim has always been that men wrote the bible. Men can and do make mistakes and lie outright, or are just delusional enough to believe crazy things. By crazy things I mean at the very least Genesis and Revelations (theres much more but those two will suffice).

By historical examples of every culture as far back as we can go, the bible does not stand out as anything different than localized folklore. Each culture only mentions the part of the world that they know of. This is true with the bible there isnt any mention of anywhere outside of the immediate local areas. The content of the stories that are told in the bible entirely are about localized cultures or neighboring cultures. The concepts in the bible are concepts that were shared by the locals and/or their neighbors.

The bible is text book folklore. The bible has no more meaning than any other cultures folklore. The bible is just a book of written words. The bible has no power to define itself as the truth. As you said for anyone to believe in a god takes faith (not a book). So a biblical god translates to just folklore. The only time that a biblical god has any worth is to those that have faith in the god described in that bible.

There I disproved the biblical god. So if you want to claim that your folklore god in the bible is real then you must show the evidence that supports your claim. Until then the bible shall be treated just like all folklore is treated, just as a tall tale with minimal historical content that isnt important to the claims of the stories inside.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

I happen to believe God chooses his own flock. If you've heard the word of God and you believe in Him, it's because He wants you in his flock. If you've heard the Word but chosen not to believe, it's in God's hands.

Click to expand...

SO much for a caring loving god.

Re: Is atheism a religion

FreedomFromAll said:

The bible is folklore. It has never been claimed that a god directly wrote the bible. The claim has always been that men wrote the bible. Men can and do make mistakes and lie outright, or are just delusional enough to believe crazy things. By crazy things I mean at the very least Genesis and Revelations (theres much more but those two will suffice).

By historical examples of every culture as far back as we can go, the bible does not stand out as anything different than localized folklore. Each culture only mentions the part of the world that they know of. This is true with the bible there isnt any mention of anywhere outside of the immediate local areas. The content of the stories that are told in the bible entirely are about localized cultures or neighboring cultures. The concepts in the bible are concepts that were shared by the locals and/or their neighbors.

The bible is text book folklore. The bible has no more meaning than any other cultures folklore. The bible is just a book of written words. The bible has no power to define itself as the truth. As you said for anyone to believe in a god takes faith (not a book). So a biblical god translates to just folklore. The only time that a biblical god has any worth is to those that have faith in the god described in that bible.

There I disproved the biblical god. So if you want to claim that your folklore god in the bible is real then you must show the evidence that supports your claim. Until then the bible shall be treated just like all folklore is treated, just as a tall tale with minimal historical content that isnt important to the claims of the stories inside.

Click to expand...

FFA...it works like the following:

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Are you suggesting that people are incapable of choosing what to believe?

Click to expand...

Most of them never make that decision, they adopt whatever religion that their parents hold, or the dominant religion in whatever culture they grow up in. It's rarely ever a choice because most people never do any kind of research on various religions. They pick the first one they're taught.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Peter Grimm said:

Are you suggesting that people are incapable of choosing what to believe?

Click to expand...

Cephus said:

Most of them never make that decision, they adopt whatever religion that their parents hold, or the dominant religion in whatever culture they grow up in. It's rarely ever a choice because most people never do any kind of research on various religions. They pick the first one they're taught.

Click to expand...

Yet, you've got to understand that religious people still believe they chose their religion or belief system. For Christianity, that is exactly how the religion is structured. A pastor, parent or friend sits a child down and says, "You've got a choice to make. Do you want to follow Jesus Christ? Do you want to be saved? It's up to you!" Obviously it's an incredibly loaded question to ask because of the high consequences and expectations, but it gives the impression to a Christian that they've purposefully chosen the path that they are in now. It takes a substantial amount of explanation and self-reflection for a Christian to actually "get" that they were led into it by their family, community or dominant culture.

/exchristian

Re: Is atheism a religion

FreedomFromAll said:

The bible is folklore. It has never been claimed that a god directly wrote the bible. The claim has always been that men wrote the bible. Men can and do make mistakes and lie outright, or are just delusional enough to believe crazy things. By crazy things I mean at the very least Genesis and Revelations (theres much more but those two will suffice).

By historical examples of every culture as far back as we can go, the bible does not stand out as anything different than localized folklore. Each culture only mentions the part of the world that they know of. This is true with the bible there isnt any mention of anywhere outside of the immediate local areas. The content of the stories that are told in the bible entirely are about localized cultures or neighboring cultures. The concepts in the bible are concepts that were shared by the locals and/or their neighbors.

The bible is text book folklore. The bible has no more meaning than any other cultures folklore. The bible is just a book of written words. The bible has no power to define itself as the truth. As you said for anyone to believe in a god takes faith (not a book). So a biblical god translates to just folklore. The only time that a biblical god has any worth is to those that have faith in the god described in that bible.

There I disproved the biblical god. So if you want to claim that your folklore god in the bible is real then you must show the evidence that supports your claim. Until then the bible shall be treated just like all folklore is treated, just as a tall tale with minimal historical content that isnt important to the claims of the stories inside.

Click to expand...

The bible is folklore, why? Because you say so? You make a claim, and don't provide a single strand of supporting evidence for your claim.

I know that human beings wrote the Bible. Not a Christian around will dispute that. So what?

Re: Is atheism a religion

FreedomFromAll said:

SO much for a caring loving god.

Click to expand...

I thought you didn't believe in God?

Re: Is atheism a religion

Cephus said:

Most of them never make that decision, they adopt whatever religion that their parents hold, or the dominant religion in whatever culture they grow up in. It's rarely ever a choice because most people never do any kind of research on various religions. They pick the first one they're taught.

Click to expand...

You don't think religion is a big enough part of people's lives that they would take the time, in adulthood, to examine their beliefs?

Re: Is atheism a religion

brothern said:

Yet, you've got to understand that religious people still believe they chose their religion or belief system. For Christianity, that is exactly how the religion is structured. A pastor, parent or friend sits a child down and says, "You've got a choice to make. Do you want to follow Jesus Christ? Do you want to be saved? It's up to you!" Obviously it's an incredibly loaded question to ask because of the high consequences and expectations, but it gives the impression to a Christian that they've purposefully chosen the path that they are in now. It takes a substantial amount of explanation and self-reflection for a Christian to actually "get" that they were led into it by their family, community or dominant culture.

/exchristian

Click to expand...

My parents wanted me to do a lot of things that I ended up rejecting later in life. I'm not buying this at all, just speculation and anecdotal nonsense. Provide some evidence.

Re: Is atheism a religion

Actually, atheism could be a religion if it were presented in such a way as to be consistent with religious indoctrination, and if those who subscribed to it did so with that all-too-familiar zeal, particularly if it were ardently antagonistic (even zealously hostile) towards all deistic beliefs, or at least those assumed in the present context.