• 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!

Does water have a taste? Is atheism a religion?

Does water have a taste?

  • Yes

    Votes: 17 68.0%
  • No

    Votes: 8 32.0%

  • Total voters
    25
Possibly because so many athiests go "There is no god" not "There may be a god/something divine, but until I have proof I don't think there is".

Most atheists state that they don't believe in a god.

I've rarely seen any athiest who routinely acknowledges that there's the potential that such exists but we don't have proof yet and thus that's why they don't think there is. Its almost always simply stated as an absolute, unquestionable fact, usually with uppity sarcastic condenscending tones and insults.

Probably because you're not paying attention and only looking for that which reinforces your preconcieved notions.
 
NO ONE is saying that. Who says that? Only completely delusional narcissists who think they're all powerful.

Possibly because so many athiests go "There is no god" not "There may be a god/something divine, but until I have proof I don't think there is".

The reason atheists don't say things like ""There may be a god/something divine, but until I have proof I don't think there is," is because that is what agnostics say/believe.

Atheist =/= Agnostic.

I've rarely seen any athiest who routinely acknowledges that there's the potential that such exists but we don't have proof yet and thus that's why they don't think there is.

The reason you haven't come across atheists who "routinely acknowledge that there's the potential that such exists but we don't have proof yet and thus that's why they don't think there is," is because that is what agnostics say/believe.

Atheist =/= Agnostic.

Sure seems to be what Glinda is implying
 
Again religion is not necessarily about belief in a supreme being.


You believe in evolution, the big bang theory and that God does does not exist?

There is measurable evidence for evolution and the big bang theory and both are theories which currently best fit the observed data.
 
Reposted for truth:

So... in china and north korea where they have no religion and have hardly heard of god to the point it doesnt qualify as a iota of consideration for their entire lifes. You imply that a thought occupying some sort of positive space in their minds exists that they purposefully choose to not believe in a concept theyve never been introduced to.

Seriously, foundations of logic here... not subscribing to your fantasy of some ungraspable thing in the sky makes us some sort of faithful believers. Talk about religionists grasping the dying end of the argument. You're just trying to even the ground.

Honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone even cares. SO WHAT if atheists don't believe in a god OR any gods? How does this even remotely affect anyone? Seriously, Zyph, why are you SO invested in this?

:roll:
 
Most atheists state that they don't believe in a god.

Right, which was my point.

Probably because you're not paying attention and only looking for that which reinforces your preconcieved notions.

I'd love to be proven wrong with what I've rarely seen. Maybe you could find me some on this forum you could point me to who routienly don't state that there may very well be a god but they just haven't seen proof so for now they don't believe in them. I can't think of many athiests but since apparently my biased self is just looking for things to reenforce my view perhaps you could help correct me.
 
If I believe that the Redskins are the best team in football that is a beleif. If I don't believe the Redskins are the best team in football that is still a belief.

That one can be backed up or disproven by data. And data says that the Redskins are not the best team in football.
 
Honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone even cares. SO WHAT if atheists don't believe in a god OR any gods? How does this even remotely affect anyone? Seriously, Zyph, why are you SO invested in this?

:roll:

"Invested in this"?

Its a topic I find interesting on a message board? WTF am I supposed to do.

"Hey, its a message board discussing a topic. I know, I should NOT post or say anything, because saying anything would mean I'm invested in it".

:roll:

I find it annoying when people run away from words that have actual meanings because they've (speaking they as a movement or overall group not an individual) diluted and twisted and manipulated a word so much that its got to the point where they can't, consiously or subconsiously, actually allow it to be used correctly.

You can look at my posts regarding nation/country/etc to see an example. You can see in other issues too when people start talking about "rights".

Its a pet peeve of mine. If there were more people arguing and ranting that Athiesm was definitely a religion I'd like to be focusing on that far more. Hell, my initial post pointed out BOTH my belief that it isn't a religion but it is a belief. From that point I responded to those that responded to me. If it was the "its a religion" crowd that was responding to me I'd be posting much the same in frequency stating why no, athiesm most definitely isn't a religion.
 
Sure seems to be what Glinda is implying

You infer incorrectly. My point was that you apparently have no understanding of what agnostics say/believe, and have attempted to lambaste atheists using agnostic tenets. As previously noted: Atheist =/= Agnostic.

Again, I must ask: Why does this matter SO MUCH to you? Just believe whatever the hell you want to and let others do the same.

Sheesh.
 
Reposted for truth:



Honestly, I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone even cares. SO WHAT if atheists don't believe in a god OR any gods? How does this even remotely affect anyone? Seriously, Zyph, why are you SO invested in this?

:roll:



hi two way street. ;)



You do know an athiest cared enough to start this thread right?


:failpail:
 
That one can be backed up or disproven by data. And data says that the Redskins are not the best team in football.

And yet is still a belief, as there is no clear cut indiciation of what the "best team in football" is. Its a subjective notion not an unquestionable truth. Stating a view either way, be it believing they are or not believing they are, is making a statement of personal truth in regards to your view on it. That's a belief. The fact that it is or isn't backed up with facts doesn't change it from being a belief.
 
You infer incorrectly. My point was that you apparently have no understanding of what agnostics say/believe, and have attempted to lambaste atheists using agnostic tenets. As previously noted: Atheist =/= Agnostic.

Glinda, go back and read my posts other than simply the one you posted.

What you're saying is WHAT I WAS SAYING ORIGINALLY.

Then Riv sat there and was telling me I was wrong, and that what I was saying was agnostic was essentially what she was.

Then marduc made a post stating that its simply the default position until its proven shown otherwise. HE was the one that was originally stating that its not "There is no god" but "there is no god until such point that there is evidence of such which is possible since I'm not stating this as an absolute truth" in his implied statements..

So my statement was not a statement of fact of what I believe is athiest or not, but was directly responding to her statements and comments.

As I already told you in my LAST post responding to yours. You're not enlightening me or showing me anything special, you're saying the same damn thing I was.

Again, I must ask: Why does this matter SO MUCH to you? Just believe whatever the hell you want to and let others do the same.

Again, I'm on a message board. I made a statement of my belief. Someone said "uh-uh, I disagree". A discussion ensued. Amazingly, this is what happens on message boards.
 
Last edited:
"Invested in this"?

Its a topic I find interesting on a message board? WTF am I supposed to do.

"Hey, its a message board discussing a topic. I know, I should NOT post or say anything, because saying anything would mean I'm invested in it".

:roll:

Its a pet peeve of mine.

So, you're just being peevish.

pee·vish
adj \ˈpē-vish\

1
: querulous in temperament or mood : fretful
2
: perversely obstinate <a peevish child>
3
: marked by ill temper
Got it.
 
Right, which was my point.
No, you said "Possibly because so many atheists go "There is no god" ". Your statement and my statement are very different. I said most atheists state that they do not believe in a god. That doesn't say "there is no god" it says that they do not believe in a god. See the difference?

I'd love to be proven wrong with what I've rarely seen. Maybe you could find me some on this forum you could point me to who routienly don't state that there may very well be a god but they just haven't seen proof so for now they don't believe in them. I can't think of many athiests but since apparently my biased self is just looking for things to reenforce my view perhaps you could help correct me.

I myself said this in this thread. And lots of people bias themselves. It's common for humans to do. It's a lot like this story Feynman used to tell:

I was sitting at home one evening, and I was feeling pretty uneasy, like something bad had happened. All of a sudden, the phone rang and I got this knot in the pit of my stomach just saying that something went wrong. I answered the phone. Nothing had happened."

See people rarely remember anti-coincidence in this manner. People will tell you all the times they had a bad feeling and then received bad news; but they will rarely remember all the times they had a bad feeling and didn't get bad news. Or didn't have a bad feeling and got bad news. Humans look for connections, we are drawn to symmetries and patterns, we are very good at assigning significance to coincidence. We are horrible at recognizing anti-coincidence. So when you say you've rarely seen this, but I personally know that many atheists do not talk in the way you describe, I think it highly likely that you have engaged in such behavior. You're not remembering the times the phone rang and nothing happened.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And yet is still a belief, as there is no clear cut indiciation of what the "best team in football" is. Its a subjective notion not an unquestionable truth. Stating a view either way, be it believing they are or not believing they are, is making a statement of personal truth in regards to your view on it. That's a belief. The fact that it is or isn't backed up with facts doesn't change it from being a belief.

There perhaps isn't a clear cut indication of what the best team in football is; but there is clear cut indication of what isn't the best team in football. The Lions are not the best team in football is not a statement of belief; it is a statement of measured reality.
 
I would actually say your agnostic types as being the closest to no taste. The people who simply don't know whether or not there is a god/supernatural/higher being/etc and simply don't care, holding no real belief in it existing or not existing.

Agnostics don't believe that there is or isn't something supernatural, they just think its unknowable so don't bother themselves with it either way. THAT is the closest to an absense of belief, not athiesm. Placing ones firm ground in a particular unknown is faith.

Here, I'll help you Glinda. Two posts earlier in the thread. I understand what Agnosticism. My confusion was in people seeming to claim to be Athiests but then stating that they don't believe its an absolute truth there is no god, but simply that they don't know of any proof that there is a god and as such until such time that proof presents itself they don't believe there are any. To me, the latter sounded like agnosticism but they suggested that no, its just a form of athiesm and its what athiests think. I was simply stating that if that's true then I RARELY see it stated that way from athiests, as I usually see it stated as if its some kind of truth. I was confused specifically for the reason you pointed out, to me that sounds a damn lot like agnosticism not athiesm.
 
So, you're just being peevish.

Got it.

Yes, generally when people are refusing to accept something that is an actual word based off of negative conotations the words have taken on rather than becaus of the actual definition, I tend to be obstinate to the notion that it should just be ignored and let go and that the definition doesn't matter. I tend to be be querulous in situations where such happens.

Belief is just beleif. Its not in and of itself a good or bad thing. Even if one things religion is not a good thing, Religion requires belief but belief does not equal religion. Running away from something being labeled "belief" when its clearly coming to the conclusion of something for ones self to me seems weird and thus interesting that people would do it and thus I enjoy discussing it fervently which is true of most things I find interesting.
 
No, you DO give a ****.
No, I don't give a **** if some god or goddess exists or not. It's rather irrelevant to my existence and daily life.

If you didn't give a **** you wouldn't make a claim for you personally either way about gods.
Someone asks me, I reply. I don't give a **** if the creature of the abyss exists or not either, but if you ask me if I think it does, I'll say no, that I don't believe it does.

But you DO make a claim as to what is true in regards to your views on it personally at this time, which means you DO give a ****, and is a belief.
Lacking a belief is not a belief. I make no claims whatsoever as to what's true, only about what I do not believe.

And that is a belief.
No, it is not. Words mean things. Saying 'I do not believe' /= 'I believe'. The word 'not' is there for a ****ing reason.

Yes, you are. I'm not suggesting intentionally. I'm saying that stating "I lack the belief in [x]" is the same as saying "I believe in [y]" where [x]=something and [y]=not something. Simply because you say it one way more often because it makes your mind feel better in convincing yourself that its not a belief doesn't mean its not one.
Incorrect.

There is an issue, whether or not gods exist, and you have a view on it one way or another, that they don't.
No, I do not hold such a view and I am getting sick of people trying to tell me what I believe. What you just stated is NOT my belief.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but explain to me what the difference between not believing there are gods and believing there are no gods?

So you cannot comprehend the difference between saying "I believe" and "I do not believe"? Seriously?
 
Last edited:
Yes, generally when people are refusing to accept something that is an actual word based off of negative conotations the words have taken on rather than becaus of the actual definition, I tend to be obstinate to the notion that it should just be ignored and let go and that the definition doesn't matter. I tend to be be querulous in situations where such happens.

Belief is just beleif. Its not in and of itself a good or bad thing. Even if one things religion is not a good thing, Religion requires belief but belief does not equal religion. Running away from something being labeled "belief" when its clearly coming to the conclusion of something for ones self to me seems weird and thus interesting that people would do it and thus I enjoy discussing it fervently which is true of most things I find interesting.

No one is running away from anything. If I actually held the beliefs you attribute to me, the beliefs you keep insisting that I have, I would ****ing say so. What I get pissed about are people trying to insist that I believe something I DO NOT BELIEVE. I have no qualms about my beliefs or lack thereof. I am not ashamed of them. But I'm not going sit by and let someone tell me that I believe something I don't.
 
And yet is still a belief, as there is no clear cut indiciation of what the "best team in football" is. Its a subjective notion not an unquestionable truth. Stating a view either way, be it believing they are or not believing they are, is making a statement of personal truth in regards to your view on it. That's a belief. The fact that it is or isn't backed up with facts doesn't change it from being a belief.

Atheism isn't stating which team is the best. It's not even having the discussion. That's what theists are doing.
 
My confusion was in people seeming to claim to be Athiests but then stating that they don't believe its an absolute truth there is no god, but simply that they don't know of any proof that there is a god and as such until such time that proof presents itself they don't believe there are any. To me, the latter sounded like agnosticism but they suggested that no, its just a form of athiesm and its what athiests think. I was simply stating that if that's true then I RARELY see it stated that way from athiests, as I usually see it stated as if its some kind of truth. I was confused specifically for the reason you pointed out, to me that sounds a damn lot like agnosticism not athiesm.

It is a form of atheism and one which is stated often by atheists. Here's the deal with that. Gods are by definition immeasurable systems. There's no way to measure a god and thus there is no way to fully quantitatively or qualitatively demonstrate the existence of a god. In the absence of data, the ability to even take data, one cannot conclusively say anything about the system. Gods are, in fact, a pure superposition of states composed of existing or not existing. We cannot collapse the wavefunction as we have no way to measure the system. So you cannot say anything about gods with 100% certainty. Can gods exist? Sure, why not? Since there is no conclusive evidence (and thanks to the way we've defined gods, can never be conclusive evidence...not in this existence) one must then operate off of probabilities. Well sure a god can exist, but how likely is it for a god to exist? Agnostics may put that more at a 50/50 shot. An atheist will say something more like "while gods can exist, given the observations of this current world it seems to me to be rather improbable and is much more likely that gods do not exist." It's not an absolute statement, but rather one based on probabilities of the superposition of states. Given that the is well more probable that gods do not exist than do exist, I do not believe in a god till there is concrete evidence of a god demonstrated to exist. But that evidence cannot be had due to the definition of gods as immeasurable states. I do not believe in a god.
 
Here, I'll help you Glinda. Two posts earlier in the thread. I understand what Agnosticism. My confusion was in people seeming to claim to be Athiests but then stating that they don't believe its an absolute truth there is no god, but simply that they don't know of any proof that there is a god and as such until such time that proof presents itself they don't believe there are any. To me, the latter sounded like agnosticism but they suggested that no, its just a form of athiesm and its what athiests think. I was simply stating that if that's true then I RARELY see it stated that way from athiests, as I usually see it stated as if its some kind of truth. I was confused specifically for the reason you pointed out, to me that sounds a damn lot like agnosticism not athiesm.

"there is no way to know for sure if there is a god, but to be safe I assume that there is"

there we now have an example of thinking from the standpoint of an agnostic theist. There is a huge difference between that and "I know there is a God"

it is the same difference between agnostic atheism and gnostic atheism. I do not know there is a god, and although you added qualifying words I do not particularly agree with earlier (there may very well be a God), I acknowledge a possibility that there may be a higher power; however for the sake of my personal life and this specific time and place of existence I see no way of knowing one way or another for a certainty,so I assume the default position that in all liklihood that there is not. I could be wrong...I like my odds though
 
Last edited:
Why did you edit my post and take out what I had posted there? I'll choose to believe it was on accident; but if not...poor show.
 
So you cannot comprehend the difference between saying "I believe" and "I do not believe"? Seriously?

I'm just going to come down to this because really that's where the conflict is.

No, I don't see a difference between "I believe there are no X" and "I do not believe in X". To me those are the same thing. To me that is the difference between going "0 - 1 = -1" and "0 + -1 = -1". In both cases your result is -1. In both cases, your stating a belief. Its just a change in how you're attempting to state it.
 
That's one flavor of atheism. However, many atheists believe that the existence of a deity or the supernatural is highly improbable and will not believe in it unless there is hard evidence shown to prove its existence.

diction fail :2razz:
 
Atheism isn't stating which team is the best. It's not even having the discussion. That's what theists are doing.

No its not, no its not at all.

Athiesm isn't stating which team is best....its stating that a team ISN'T the best.

Not even having the discussion would not be making a comment as to whether or not the team is the best or not. Agnostisism is closer to your "no taste", closer to your "not having the discussion", than athiesm is.

Athiesm IS coming down on one side, the side of disbelief.

Agnositicism is coming down on neither side, in being tasteless, in not having the discussion, in not making a statement of belief of or belief against.
 
Back
Top Bottom