If atheism is a religion...

[columbusdude82]

... then health is a disease.

Discuss.

 

[Necrosis]

if atheism is a religion then not beleiving in santa claus is a relgion also

[Deicide]

...then baldness is a hair colour.

[MMC78]

Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.

Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster.  The will undoubtedly reply no.  They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.

A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.

Christians and atheists are closer than you think.

[columbusdude82]

Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.

Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster.  The will undoubtedly reply no.  They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.

A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.

Christians and atheists are closer than you think.

"We are ALL atheists with respect to most of the gods that mankind has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further." Richard Dawkins

[MCWAY]

Show me a christians and I'll show you an atheist.

Ask the christian whether they believe in Zeus, Apollo, Mohamed, or Zoroaster.  The will undoubtedly reply no.  They are atheists to followers of these religions, they believe in just their one god.

A rational person can see one step further and believes in one fewer god.

Christians and atheists are closer than you think.

The only difference between a Christian and an atheist is the object of his worship, or who he holds as the highest sentient being in existence.

Christians worship God; atheists worship "logic and reason" (that is, man-made logic and reason). In effect, he is worshipping himself.

[columbusdude82]

Please explain our logic-and-reason-worshipping rituals, MCWAY

[MCWAY]

Please explain our logic-and-reason-worshipping rituals, MCWAY

Sure, as soon as you and MMC78 explain how Christians are atheists.

Atheism, by definition, is the "doctrine that there is NO deity".

Since Christians believe that there is a deity, it's pretty hard for them to be atheists.

But, if you or MMC78 have an idea of how that's possible, I'm all ears!!

[columbusdude82]

Sure. I'm glad you bring it up.

Many times, you, loco, and mightymouse operate under the presumption that atheism means "God does not exist." That's "God" with the capital G, ie your god.

Review mightymouse's posts if you want confirmation of that. There's a subtle distinction there, the fallacy being that if atheism is refuted, there "God" exists.

The true conclusion would be "if atheism is refuted, then a god exists." You have idea which one, and every other religion can lay just as much a claim to that being their own god as you can!

You do something very similar when you say things like "a universe governed by 'laws' points in the direction of a law giver."

The fallacy you commit there is to assume, allude, or imply in any way that that law giver bears any relation to your own god. For all you know, it could be Zeus, Allah, or no deity at all, just natural processes.

You are trying to score debate points on these fronts:

1. blurring the line between whether atheism is "not believing in any gods" or "not believing in God" (in the latter case, every non-Christian is an atheist.)

2. redefining "gods" outside the concept of "supernatural" and making it so that food is a god, reason is a god, sex is a god, anything you enjoy doing is a god, etc, while at other times saying that "god" is outside space and time and doesn't fall under our requirements for evidence.

3. You imply that refuting proposition A proves proposition B: e.g. if evolution doesn't have an answer to a certain point, therefore creationism wins by default.

Every believer implicitly thinks that atheists are those who do not believe in one's god(s). The Romans thought the first Christians were atheists for not worshiping the Roman gods.

Now go ahead and tell me what my reason-worshiping rituals are, and how we decorate the altar of logic

[MCWAY]

Sure. I'm glad you bring it up.

Many times, you, loco, and mightymouse operate under the presumption that atheism means "God does not exist." That's "God" with the capital G, ie your god.

Review mightymouse's posts if you want confirmation of that. There's a subtle distinction there, the fallacy being that if atheism is refuted, there "God" exists.

The true conclusion would be "if atheism is refuted, then a god exists." You have idea which one, and every other religion can lay just as much a claim to that being their own god as you can!

Try that again. I actually posted the definiton of atheism from Webster's dictionary, which looked something like: the "doctrine that there is NO deity".

You do something very similar when you say things like "a universe governed by 'laws' points in the direction of a law giver."

The reason I say that is because laws are crafted and drafted by sentient beings. They don't just pop up on their own with no cognizant guidance.

The fallacy you commit there is to assume, allude, or imply in any way that that law giver bears any relation to your own god. For all you know, it could be Zeus, Allah, or no deity at all, just natural processes.

Actually, the fallacy is on your part, assuming that Christians substitute "God" or a belief in God for lack of knowledge of a particular natural process in a certain area.

You are trying to score debate points on these fronts:

1. blurring the line between whether atheism is "not believing in any gods" or "not believing in God" (in the latter case, every non-Christian is an atheist.)

2. redefining "gods" outside the concept of "supernatural" and making it so that food is a god, reason is a god, sex is a god, anything you enjoy doing is a god, etc, while at other times saying that "god" is outside space and time and doesn't fall under our requirements for evidence.

3. You imply that refuting proposition A proves proposition B: e.g. if evolution doesn't have an answer to a certain point, therefore creationism wins by default.

1. No blurring necessary. Again, I posted the definition of atheism, as a frame of reference.

2. I didn't redefine anything. The definition I used is in black-and-white in Webster's dictionary (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, page 500), again as a frame of reference. As for "our requirements for evidence", I've stated that observation of a deity is done indirectly, if such a deity is beyond man's ability to detect with his senses.

3. I implied nothing of the sort. I have, on the other hand, cited quotes from evolutionists, who have stated that they believe in evolution (speficially its tenet of spontaneous generation) because without it, they must (by default) subscribe to some sort of supernatural creation.

Every believer implicitly thinks that atheists are those who do not believe in one's god(s). The Romans thought the first Christians were atheists for not worshiping the Roman gods.

That is incorrect. I don't implicity think that. And, I'll go out on a limb and say that some of the other believers here don't, either.

Now go ahead and tell me what my reason-worshiping rituals are, and how we decorate the altar of logic

I think I mentioned it earlier: That would be the assignment of man's logic and reason as the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.

Now, about that every Christian is an athiest thing. Recap: Atheism is the doctrine that there is NO deity. Since a Christian believes that there's at least ONE deity, again, that makes it awfully hard for a Christian to be an atheist. It doesn't matter how many other deities in which he doesn't believe (there's no percentage thing, contrary to your earlier posts). He believes in at least ONE. Hence, he ain't an atheist. It's an all-or-nothing deal.

[columbusdude82]

The reason I say that is because laws are crafted and drafted by sentient beings. They don't just pop up on their own with no cognizant guidance.

False. See: Evolution, the free-market economy, microeconomics, Newton's laws, osmosis, and the list goes on and on.

None of these need a "sentient being" or its "cognizant guidance"... God is no more needed for the laws of nature than a commissar is needed for an open-market economy.

Actually, the fallacy is on your part, assuming that Christians substitute "God" or a belief in God for lack of knowledge of a particular natural process in a certain area.

Whenever you attribute any aspect of creation to God, you are doing just that. You don't know how it came about. You attribute it to the deity of your choice on no evidence.

1. No blurring necessary. Again, I posted the definition of atheism, as a frame of reference.

While you're at it, look up "equivocation" in the dictionary, you do that a lot

2. I didn't redefine anything. The definition I used is in black-and-white in Webster's dictionary (Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 10th edition, page 500), again as a frame of reference. As for "our requirements for evidence", I've stated that observation of a deity is done indirectly, if such a deity is beyond man's ability to detect with his senses.

Observation of radiation, atoms, and black holes is also done indirectly, but that observation is open to verification by others. Is observation of the deity open to verification too?

I implied nothing of the sort. I have, on the other hand, cited quotes from evolutionists, who have stated that they believe in evolution (speficially its tenet of spontaneous generation) because without it, they must (by default) subscribe to some sort of supernatural creation.

You have in other threads, my friends: attacking one aspect of evolution and then positing your god as a creator. It's still a fallacy, whoever says it.

That is incorrect. I don't implicity think that. And, I'll go out on a limb and say that some of the other believers here don't, either.

Well, look again at mighty's posts. To him people are either believers, or atheists. And believers of course, like him, believe in Jesus.

That would be the assignment of man's logic and reason as the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.

What? What is that you said? Asking people to think? HOW DARE YOU!!! Heaven forbid folks should exercise their faculty of reason and evaluate evidence!!!

Are you sure that's what it's about, MCWAY? Are you absolutely sure?

Good heavens!!! People start thinking on their own today, the pews will be empty pretty soon!

Seriously now, as for man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth, you are the one introducing the superlatives, not I.

All I say is that the scientific method is a reliable, time-tested way of discovering facts, because it relies on evidence, on replication, fact-checking, double-checking, and peer review.

Man's "logic" is often flawed: as evidence, I present to you all the theologians I ever heard of.

[columbusdude82]

Oh, and another one:

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

[MCWAY]

False. See: Evolution, the free-market economy, microeconomics, Newton's laws, osmosis, and the list goes on and on.


None of these need a "sentient being" or its "cognizant guidance"... God is no more needed for the laws of nature than a commissar is needed for an open-market economy.

Exactly who starts any of the aforementioned processes? How do economies run without sentient beings (namely people) spending money? Newton's laws? He discovered them but they aren't his. Then again, finding something that was already there would indicate (or imply) that someone put those principles into motion. If they were "Newton's laws", the entity responsible for their being would be Newton himself.

Whenever you attribute any aspect of creation to God, you are doing just that. You don't know how it came about. You attribute it to the deity of your choice on no evidence.

Incorrect!! When a believer sees and learns about the intricacies of certain processes, he gets a better appreciation for the design of the Creator. The more he learns, the more he reveres God's power. That's a far cry from your alleged claims. Natural processes do not necessitate the absence of a supernatural source (except for the atheist, who philosophically doesn't wish to acknowledge one).

While you're at it, look up "equivocation" in the dictionary, you do that a lot

Observation of radiation, atoms, and black holes is also done indirectly, but that observation is open to verification by others. Is observation of the deity open to verification too?

It was and is, through history and archaeology.

You have in other threads, my friends: attacking one aspect of evolution and then positing your god as a creator. It's still a fallacy, whoever says it.

Well, look again at mighty's posts. To him people are either believers, or atheists. And believers of course, like him, believe in Jesus.

What part of the words, "SOME of the believers on this board........" did you not grasp?  As I didn't use the word, "all", your bringing up MightyMouse is rather pointless.

What? What is that you said? Asking people to think? HOW DARE YOU!!! Heaven forbid folks should exercise their faculty of reason and evaluate evidence!!!

Another silly assumption on your part, that reason and having people think gets suspended when one exercises faith or belief in God.

Are you sure that's what it's about, MCWAY? Are you absolutely sure?

Good heavens!!! People start thinking on their own today, the pews will be empty pretty soon!

Funny!!! Atheists have been saying that for nearly 200 years. Yet, churches are still running!! Once again, it's another erroneous quip on your part that people who think on their own reject their faith. Of course, that doesn't even take into account Christians who were once atheists.

Seriously now, as for man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth, you are the one introducing the superlatives, not I.

That goes back to what I said awhile back: Either you believe that man's logic and reason is such or you do not. If the latter applies to you, you're dangerously close to being bumped out of the "atheist" category.

All I say is that the scientific method is a reliable, time-tested way of discovering facts, because it relies on evidence, on replication, fact-checking, double-checking, and peer review.

Indeed it is.  And, that's one of the reason I do NOT believe in evolution.

Man's "logic" is often flawed: as evidence, I present to you all the theologians I ever heard of.

Agreed!!! I present to you all the evolutionists of which I've heard. But, I don't hold man's logic as the highest standard. Do you?

[columbusdude82]

Hold it right there... You said there is archaeological and historical evidence for events described in the Bible?

Yes, the Bible does talk about historical figures/events/places that have been independently verified. We don't need the Bible to know about the ancient Egyptians or Babylon.

But as for the Bible's magical claims, where is the historical or archaeological evidence for the following:

the resurrection, the virgin birth, all the miracles.

Please share this evidence if you have it. Thank you

[MCWAY]

Hold it right there... You said there is archaeological and historical evidence for events described in the Bible?

Yes, the Bible does talk about historical figures/events/places that have been independently verified. We don't need the Bible to know about the ancient Egyptians or Babylon.


But as for the Bible's magical claims, where is the historical or archaeological evidence for the following:

the resurrection, the virgin birth, all the miracles.

Please share this evidence if you have it. Thank you

"All the miracles" I can't provide. A number of them, however, the evidence supporting such have existed for decades, if not centuries.

In fact, I gave an example of one on the other thread, regarding the book of Daniel. Aside from the specific example I gave about Belshazzar, there are other events, depicted by that book that have been verified by historical and archaeological evidence. Of course, non-believers, unable to deny the evidence supporting such acts in Daniel did the usual "anonymous authorship/late-date" routine to explain away the prophetic aspects of this book. But, the further examination of this book tends to refute such a claim.

As far as the Resurrection and virgin birth goes, we discussed the historical evidence some time ago. Part of that would, of course, the Gospels themselves.

Now, I believe you were going to explain how a Christian is an "atheist", given that atheism is the doctrine that there is NO deity and Christians believe that there is ONE deity.

[columbusdude82]

Hold it right there again,
you say the Gospels are evidence in favor of their own claims?

So much for independent confirmation

If you allow the Gospels to be evidence for their own claims, then you have to allow every other "holy" book to be evidence of its own claims, right?

[MCWAY]

Hold it right there again,
you say the Gospels are evidence in favor of their own claims?

So much for independent confirmation

If you allow the Gospels to be evidence for their own claims, then you have to allow every other "holy" book to be evidence of its own claims, right?

Again, you missed the word, "Part". You have a habit of doing that.

And, as stated earlier, you have some explaining to do. In particular, how is a Christian an atheist? Of course, if you're done with the "Hold it" routine, perhaps you might answer the whole "do-you" or "don't-you" routine, with regards your believing that man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.

[beatmaster]

good thread


An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[columbusdude82]

I see. So every "holy" book is "part" of the evidence in favor of its own claims

Brilliant!

As for "how is a Christian an atheist," we talked about this at length in the other thread. But here goes, just for you buddy

If atheism is defined as "not believing in any gods," then obviously no, Christians are not atheists.

If atheism is defined in reference to a particular god, like many Christians implicitly think of atheists "not believing in God," then yes, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Minerva, et al, just as I am.

Under the latter definition, atheists believe in 0% of the set of gods, Christians believe in a minutely small percentage (0.001% from the other thread's example), and the numerical difference between 0.000% and 0.001% is, well, insignificant!

In that regard, you are as much of an atheist as I am.

[Necrosis]

Again, you missed the word, "Part". You have a habit of doing that.

And, as stated earlier, you have some explaining to do. In particular, how is a Christian an atheist? Of course, if you're done with the "Hold it" routine, perhaps you might answer the whole "do-you" or "don't-you" routine, with regards your believing that man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth.

you cant have god referring to both the supernatural creator of the universe and man in the same sentence. its contradictory as the terms are wholely different.

I see. So every "holy" book is "part" of the evidence in favor of its own claims

Brilliant!

As for "how is a Christian an atheist," we talked about this at length in the other thread. But here goes, just for you buddy

If atheism is defined as "not believing in any gods," then obviously no, Christians are not atheists.

If atheism is defined in reference to a particular god, like many Christians implicitly think of atheists "not believing in God," then yes, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Minerva, et al, just as I am.

Under the latter definition, atheists believe in 0% of the set of gods, Christians believe in a minutely small percentage (0.001% from the other thread's example), and the numerical difference between 0.000% and 0.001% is, well, insignificant!

In that regard, you are as much of an atheist as I am.

he wont get this point, he will just ignore it and post the same blathering non sense he has been posting about atheism beleiving in man or some shit. atheism worships nothing.

you avoid the question that if you accept the gospels as proof why dont you accept all other holy books as proof of their respective gods?

[MCWAY]

I see. So every "holy" book is "part" of the evidence in favor of its own claims

Brilliant!

As for "how is a Christian an atheist," we talked about this at length in the other thread. But here goes, just for you buddy

If atheism is defined as "not believing in any gods," then obviously no, Christians are not atheists.

If atheism is defined in reference to a particular god, like many Christians implicitly think of atheists "not believing in God," then yes, Christians are atheists with respect to Allah, Zeus, Jupiter, Minerva, et al, just as I am.

Under the latter definition, atheists believe in 0% of the set of gods, Christians believe in a minutely small percentage (0.001% from the other thread's example), and the numerical difference between 0.000% and 0.001% is, well, insignificant!

In that regard, you are as much of an atheist as I am.

That's why I gave the definition of atheism, found in Webster's dictionary. Many Christians "implicity" think of atheists no believing in God, because many atheists aim their less-than-stellar remarks at the God that the Christians serve.

You used a different definition for the term, atheism, when you made your statement. Think about that, before you accuse someone of being dishonest.

[columbusdude82]

usmokepole, he just proved you 100% right

[MCWAY]

good thread


An Atheist is a man who has no invisible means of support.
When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

First of all, I never claimed to dismiss any possible gods. In fact, I listed some of the gods that Israel's neighbors worshipped, the last time somebody accused me of doing that.

you cant have god referring to both the supernatural creator of the universe and man in the same sentence. its contradictory as the terms are wholely different.

Tell that to the Webster's dictionary. Again, it's on page 500, Webster's Dictionary, 10th edition. Among the definitions of "god" are "a person or thing of supreme value" and "a powerful ruler".

he wont get this point, he will just ignore it and post the same blathering non sense he has been posting about atheism beleiving in man or some shit. atheism worships nothing.

Unfortunately, YOU are the one who didn't get the point. I gave the definition of "atheism" as described in that same dictionary. In it, the term is coined as "the doctrine that there is no deity". Christians believe that there IS a diety; therefore, they aren't atheists. Columbusdude defined atheism as what he thinks many Christians believe it to be: the specific disbelief in their God. That's not the definition I used. And, as stated earlier, the percentage thing doesn't work. It's an either-or scenario: You either believe there is a deity or you don't. If you believe in one, you aren't an atheist, period.

you avoid the question that if you accept the gospels as proof why dont you accept all other holy books as proof of their respective gods?

Who says I didn't? That is the assertion of you and some of the other non-believers, here. That would be one of those nice strawman arguments about which Columbus was complaining.

 

[columbusdude82]

First of all, I never claimed to dismiss any possible gods.

So you're saying that you not "believe in one God," like the Nicene creed says?

[MCWAY]

usmokepole, he just proved you 100% right

If Christians can be atheists, by your terms, why are you getting upset, when I refer to atheism (by my terms) as man worshipping himself (i.e. his own logic and reason)?