Atheism is a religion [W:1586,2242]

[Hatuey]

Your bias is showing, as well as your atrocious reading comprehension...when you can stick to the subject or can even understand what I said, let me know...

Bias? Is there anything about Jehovas Witnesses having a headquarters in upstate NY that is in the bible? What about the move to upstate NY? Is that mentioned anywhere?

Don't worry, I'll wait for your prodigious powers of reading comprehension to point out which bible passage doesn't mention anything about JWs or their upstate NY headquarters.

Lmao, probably got skipped over like dinosaurs, bacteria, evolution, polyester clothing, jet propulsion and everything else sheep herders in the 1st and 2nd century had never heard of.

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

 

[Daisy]

Bias? Is there anything about Jehovas Witnesses having a headquarters in upstate NY that is in the bible? What about the move to upstate NY? Is that mentioned anywhere?

Don't worry, I'll wait for your prodigious powers of reading comprehension to point out which bible passage doesn't mention anything about JWs or their upstate NY headquarters.

Lmao, probably got skipped over like dinosaurs, bacteria, evolution, polyester clothing, jet propulsion and everything else sheep herders in the 1st and 2nd century had never heard of.

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

I could ask the same of every nomination on earth so again, major fail...lol...

And knock it off with your dumb political quote...I could not care less...

 

[Pedestrian]

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. Use of the negative results in the same and is purely semantic.

No it is not. In other words atheists 'believe' God does not exist is merely believing in the facts.Well of course, if you change the meanings of words. Religion is defined as a set of beliefs...NOT disbelief. Atheists are defined as those who disbelieve...in gods.

Imagine if one will, to believe in anything...is a religion and I want to see everybody's tithe on the plate when I pass it around.

 

[Hatuey]

I could ask the same of every nomination on earth so again, major fail...lol...

And knock it off with your dumb political quote...I could not care less...

I think the word you are looking for is denomination.

Oh don't worry, I think all religions are equally full of **** and don't expect yours to have any more answers than the rest.

I am just laughing at how silly a defense that is for people claiming to actually believe that theirs is the true religion.



Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

 

[Daisy]

I think the word you are looking for is denomination.

Oh don't worry, I think all religions are equally full of **** and don't expect yours to have any more answers than the rest.

I am just laughing at how silly a defense that is for people claiming to actually believe that theirs is the true religion.



Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

Then we're even because I think you're full of it...

 

[Hatuey]

Then we're even because I think you're full of it...

Knowing that you also believe in 2500 year old ramblings from the Middle East, I think we have established that the bar for getting you to believe something untrue just isn't that high.

I'll wait for you to come up with some of those bible quotes on upstate New York AND the JW headquarters.

Oh wait...

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

 

[Daisy]

Knowing that you also believe in 2500 year old ramblings from the Middle East, I think we have established that the bar for getting you to believe something untrue just isn't that high.

I'll wait for you to come up with some of those bible quotes on upstate New York AND the JW headquarters.

Oh wait...

Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

I rest my case...point proven...lol...

 

[Hatuey]

I rest my case...point proven...lol...

You mean you've found biblical references to the JW headquarters in upstate NY?

No? Lol, okie dokie - a group of scientists just sent another satellite into space using their understanding of the universe.



Sent from a memo written by Nunes and edited by Trump.

 

[Into the Night]

But it IS possible to prove the existence of the universe.

Yes. By proof of identity.

It isn't possible to disprove the existence of unicorns. Doesn't mean we should believe they're out there.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of unicorns either.

The argument of ignorance is not a valid argument.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no logical proof that the universe exists.

Yes there is. The proof of identity.

What I know is that I exist,

Also by the proof of identity.

and while I get sensations that can be explained by the existence of a universe, they can also be explained as simply products of my super imagination.

But you still call it the Universe. Proof by identity.

So what works for me is that I just assume the universe exists outside of me because the idea feels right and it works well for handling my 'universe sensations'.

And because you call it the Universe, it exists.

This is the same formula that many use for assuming God.

As far as any god or gods are concerned, they DO exist (at least in name and concept).

Whether they exist as a personage or special creature is not provable one way or the other.

 

[Into the Night]

Nor did I claim otherwise.

But you did. You claimed the Bible is wrong, therefore the gods it describes do not exist. That is not a proof.

 

[Into the Night]

A logical fallacy based on a misinterpretation does not count for much.

A logical fallacy doesn't count for anything. It is not an argument.

Because no evidence has been produced for a god. Not one good reason has been given for why a god should exist. Therefore i have no good reason to consider gods to be anything but a fiction.

Argument of ignorance.

No, starting from the position of a god might be possible without any reason given as to why is trickery.

No trick. Logic.

I am not asking for something that i have no reason to consider even exists. However if a theist demands their god exists then the onus on them is to provide evidence or a good reason for such.

No need. The mere possibility is sufficient in and of itself.

Trickery again. First tell me why i am even bothering to consider the possibility.

It is the only way to avoid fallacy.

No, not an argument of error.

True. It is an argument of ignorance. That is a logical error.

Yours is the logical fallacy of believing evidence or reason exists without providing an example of such.

None needed. The mere possibility is sufficient.

For example i could say that somewhere out there is good reason to consider that Into the night is full of crap.

Argument of the Stone...another fallacy.

By your standard we just given the possibility to consider this as a truth.

Fallacies are not valid arguments.

 

[Into the Night]

I prefer to put my faith in education and science over the belief in some imaginary guy in the sky.

Science has nothing to say about the existence of any god or gods. It is not proof either way. False dichotomy (a fallacy).

I was raised as a non believer, brought my son up the same way. now my Grandson is the third generation of Atheist.

Nothing wrong with that.

All three generations have been taught to respect all faiths and those that practice those faiths.

Yet you seem to not respect certain faiths.

I rarely come on to these types of threads, but as of late, there is an effort from some on these boards to vilify Atheist by classing us all as militant.

Such a classification is a compositional error (a fallacy), involving people as the class. In other words, bigotry. While many atheists are 'militant' and take a fundamentalist view to try to prove no god or gods exist, not all atheists do so. Some (rarely, but correctly), allow for the possibility, but don't accept any god or gods as a given.

I have no problem with CHRISTMAS displays, it is now a cultural holiday as much as it is a religious one. We are all free to pray, or not too, some folks on these boards need reminding of that fact. As long as their is separation of Church and State to prevent a religious fundamentalist from taking away my Right not to practice a faith I am good.

Agreed. I have no problem with leaving it at that.

 

[Into the Night]

People 'observe' things every day that turn out to be not there,

They ARE there, at least the name and concept of what is observed. Proof by identity.

As far as whether it is true for someone else, now you have brought up a valid point. This is what the branch of philosophy known as phenomenology is all about.

Observation is more than just a sensory stimulus. It is also interpretation of that stimulus. We each interpret according to our own personal model of the Universe (proved to exist by identity). That personal model is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint. It is what defines 'reality' for each of us, which is different for each of us.

Four people see the same sunrise. To one, it is a god hauling the Sun across the sky. To another, it is the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth. To yet another, it is the Earth spinning relative to a stationary Sun. To still another, it is the Earth spinning relative to a moving Sun, the Sun and the Earth orbit each other, and the whole mess is 'speeding' through the universe. In other words, what we call 'stationary' is purely our own choosing for any given moment.

Four people, same sunrise, four completely different opinions about what they just observed.

--but knowing we exist is different.

Indeed it is. It is also different to know the concept of something exists vs the object, person, or animal actually existing. The concept of anything exists by proof of identity. That does not mean a god or gods exist, but it does mean the concept of them exist.

All I have to do is ask if I exist and presto the question exists.

Which is where the proof of identity starts.

When I ask where the question came from then the question proves that I existed to raise it.

True.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually you have misunderstood the argument put forth by descartes.
He was not attempting to prove that he existed. He was attempting to prove god existed.


The line,"I think, therefore i am." is a cliche often misunderstood. You could also say, "i am not therefore i am." It makes as much sense.
At 2.36 the presenter makes the claim he is skipping over some thing he "Thinks" is unnecessary to his dialogue.
The thing he is missing out is that descartes was actually using that cliche to prove the existence of god, not himself.

A very simplified version of what descartes was arguing goes like this.

I think therefore i am
therefore if something can think it must exist
god thought up the universe and all within it
so god must be able to think
Therefore god must exist.

This is quite correct. Ole' Rene committed the fallacy known as colloquially as jumping to a conclusion. It is an attempted proof by a four term argument. It is a fallacy.

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not (except as a concept).

 

[Critter7r]

Yes. By proof of identity.

It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of unicorns either.

The argument of ignorance is not a valid argument.

Of course it would be possible to prove unicorns exist ... if they actually did exist.

 

[Critter7r]

A logical fallacy doesn't count for anything. It is not an argument.

...

None needed. The mere possibility is sufficient.

How does the former ^^^ coexist with your response to the following?

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

By your standard we just [need to be] given the possibility to consider this as a truth.

Fallacies are not valid arguments.

In the first breath, the mere possibility of God's existence is enough to prove God exists, and in the next, citing possibility as truth is a fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

How does the former ^^^ coexist with your response to the following?



In the first breath, the mere possibility of God's existence is enough to prove God exists, and in the next, citing possibility as truth is a fallacy.

WRONG. The mere possibility of God's existence is NOT enough to prove God exists. A possibility is not a proof. You are still trying to conduct a proof. It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods.

 

[Critter7r]

Four people see the same sunrise. To one, it is a god hauling the Sun across the sky. To another, it is the Sun orbiting a stationary Earth. To yet another, it is the Earth spinning relative to a stationary Sun. To still another, it is the Earth spinning relative to a moving Sun, the Sun and the Earth orbit each other, and the whole mess is 'speeding' through the universe. In other words, what we call 'stationary' is purely our own choosing for any given moment.

Four people, same sunrise, four completely different opinions about what they just observed.

But all four, and virtually the rest of humanity, agree that they, the sun, and the earth, exist.

 

[Critter7r]

WRONG. The mere possibility of God's existence is NOT enough to prove God exists. A possibility is not a proof. You are still trying to conduct a proof. It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods.

Then I misinterpreted this exchange ...

Originally Posted by soylentgreen

What nonsense . You simply assume there might be a god without one good reason as to why.

I don't need a reason. The mere possibility is enough.

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

... to mean that you didn't need proof of God's existence, because the mere possibility of his existence was enough for you to believe that He does in fact exist.

Did you really mean to say that the "mere possibility of His existence is enough [for me to know it's possible that He exists]"?



Also, I disagree with your statement that "It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods." Because it might be possible to prove their existence, if they exist. We cannot say that ANYthing is not possible.

And that goes for my position as well. I don't say that it's impossible that there is a God, just that there is no reason for me to believe that there is one, knowing full well that 5,000 years ago, there was no reason (yet known to mankind) to believe that the earth rotated around the sun.

 

[Into the Night]

But all four, and virtually the rest of humanity, agree that they, the sun, and the earth, exist.

Correct. The difference is believing what the Sun and the Earth are and where they are and how they move.

 

[Into the Night]

Then I misinterpreted this exchange ...




... to mean that you didn't need proof of God's existence, because the mere possibility of his existence was enough for you to believe that He does in fact exist.

No.

Did you really mean to say that the "mere possibility of His existence is enough [for me to know it's possible that He exists]"?

Yes.

Also, I disagree with your statement that "It is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of any god or gods." Because it might be possible to prove their existence, if they exist. We cannot say that ANYthing is not possible.

Logic is a closed system, like mathematics. Ignoring the axioms and proofs of that system takes you out of the boundaries of what logic is.

And that goes for my position as well. I don't say that it's impossible that there is a God,

But you do.

just that there is no reason for me to believe that there is one, knowing full well that 5,000 years ago, there was no reason (yet known to mankind) to believe that the earth rotated around the sun.

The doesn't rotate around the Sun. It orbits the Sun. The Sun is not at the center of the Earth.

 

[Critter7r]

No.

Yes.

ok.

Logic is a closed system, like mathematics. Ignoring the axioms and proofs of that system takes you out of the boundaries of what logic is.

Logically, it cannot be ruled out that God, or a god, exists. Because logically, one cannot prove a negative.

But you do.

But I don't. I allow that I don't know everything there is to know, and so it may be possible that God, or a god, exists. There's just no proof that stands up to scientific scrutiny to support that position at this time.

The doesn't rotate around the Sun. It orbits the Sun. The Sun is not at the center of the Earth.

My bad, my brain thinks faster than my fingers type. I should have said, "there was no reason (yet known to mankind) to believe that the earth rotated [as it orbited] around the sun." Even still, you're being a little petty by pointing out a grammatical error in a philosophical discussion. You got the gist of it.

 

[pinqy]

It is not possible to prove whether any god or gods exist or not.

That depends on the god claim. If I were to claim that a 9 foot tall god lives on top of Mount Olympus for anyone to see, and can perform specific miracles that pass the most rigorous of tests, then that claim could be proven, if true, or disproven, if not.

 

[Into the Night]

That depends on the god claim. If I were to claim that a 9 foot tall god lives on top of Mount Olympus for anyone to see, and can perform specific miracles that pass the most rigorous of tests, then that claim could be proven, if true, or disproven, if not.

No, it could not. Even if Jesus Christ walked up to you, shook your hand, and told who He was, there is no proof that He is who He says He is. Even then, you STILL have to take it on faith to believe Him. It is the same for Zeus.