If atheism is a religion...

[Necrosis]

do you beleive in zeus? if not your stance is atheistic,i dont have to accept your definition as is often the case in debates, there are many defintions and yours is useless as its to broad and nebulous.


you can have many definitions and your stance on all other gods is atheistic.



"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. "

ok then, whats your answer?

[MCWAY]

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

What the Nicene creed says is of little concern to me.

[Necrosis]

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)?

because your making up your own defintion of atheism with starting from the assumption that worship is central. atheists do not worship anything but insted lack belief your attempt to tell them they worship themselves is nonsensical as they worship nothing, hence your reference is useless.

[columbusdude82]

So our own MCWAY is more a pantheist than a monotheist?

Who woulda thunk it?!

[MCWAY]

do you beleive in zeus? if not your stance is atheistic,i dont have to accept your definition as is often the case in debates, there are many defintions and yours is useless as its to broad and nebulous.

"Mine" is useless? That's mighty mature of you!!

I used one definition for atheism, a neutral one found in a neutral source (therfore, it isn't mine).

you can have many definitions and your stance on all other gods is atheistic.

Now, what was that you were saying about posting the same blathering nonsense?

You can have many definitions or you can have one. I picked one, a neutral one. Again, if by Columbusdude's standard, I'm an atheist; then, by my standard of atheism, both you and he are NOT, because (by my terms) the "god" you worship is man (one of the dictionary's definition of "god" is "a person or thing of supreme value").

So, why are the two of you complaining? If you wish to use a standardized or neutral definition of terms, that's fine. If you want to apply your own standards and your own terms; don't blubber and cry, when I do the same.

"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."

ok then, whats your answer?

The question from Columbus was, "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?

My answer was and is that it can be PART of the evidence, just as the Gospels are PART of the evidence supporting its respective deities. That was never an issue.

BTW, since you're so big on questions being answered, perhaps you could persuade ColumbusDude to address whether or not he believes that man's logic and reason being the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or is man the highest sentient being in the universe).

Just a thought!!

[columbusdude82]

MCWAY, have you heard of Robinson Crusoe? Have you read the book?

[MCWAY]

because your making up your own defintion of atheism with starting from the assumption that worship is central. atheists do not worship anything but insted lack belief your attempt to tell them they worship themselves is nonsensical as they worship nothing, hence your reference is useless.

It's no more nonsensical than your claiming that Christians are atheists, because they believe in just one out of a large number of deities.

Atheists believe that there is no deity. As long as someone believes in ONE deity, he is not an atheist. And, for the nth time, the definition of atheism comes from the Webster's dictionary, not from me. I didn't invent the term.

[MCWAY]

So our own MCWAY is more a pantheist than a monotheist?

Who woulda thunk it?!

Yep. There's the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost....WAIT A MINUTE!!! Those three are one, according to Scripture. NEVER MIND!!!!

 

[columbusdude82]

Where does it say in Scripture that those three are one?

The only reference I can think of is some verses in John that are of dubious origin and were probably planted in there by later scribes.

[MCWAY]

Where does it say in Scripture that those three are one?

The only reference I can think of is some verses in John that are of dubious origin and were probably planted in there by later scribes.

At least one reference is 1 John 5:7. Furthermore, what's so dubious about the origin. Traditional Bible scholars hold that the disciple John is the author of that book, along with his Gospel and the book of Revelation.

Now, regarding the question I asked some time ago: do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, said another way, is man the highest sentient being in the universe)?

[columbusdude82]

At least one reference is 1 John 5:7. Furthermore, what's so dubious about the origin. Traditional Bible scholars hold that the disciple John is the author of that book, along with his Gospel and the book of Revelation.

I'll let you read up on that in Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus."

Now, regarding the question I asked some time ago: do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, said another way, is man the highest sentient being in the universe)?

How am I supposed to know if there are any "higher" sentient beings than man in the universe I'm not a space explorer!

[MCWAY]

I'll let you read up on that in Bart Ehrman's book "Misquoting Jesus."

How am I supposed to know if there are any "higher" sentient beings than man in the universe I'm not a space explorer!

I didn't ask you if you "know". I asked you if you BELIEVE that such is the case!!!!!!!!!!!! (I asked that earlier, but I should have put that in parentheses in my last post).

[columbusdude82]

Well I don't have any basis for comparison, so I have no ideas on the matter. I already did tell you what I believe about the scientific method, that it is the most reliable method we have for obtaining knowledge, thanks to all the safeguards built into it.

[MCWAY]

Well I don't have any basis for comparison, so I have no ideas on the matter. I already did tell you what I believe about the scientific method, that it is the most reliable method we have for obtaining knowledge, thanks to all the safeguards built into it.

I didn't ask about what you believe about the scientific method or if you had any basis of comparison.


My question was: Do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, that man is the highest sentient being in the universe)?

[columbusdude82]

I already answered you. I have nothing more to add to that.

Sorry if you were expecting something fancy ?!

[MCWAY]

I already answered you. I have nothing more to add to that.

Sorry if you were expecting something fancy ?!

Yep, how silly of me to expect something as fancy as.......YES or NO

How silly of me!

[columbusdude82]

Sorry man, I like to form informed opinions, not just make up opinions about stuff.

When I've done my homework and thought through the information, only then do I form an opinion about something..

Yeah yeah, I know...

[MCWAY]

Sorry man, I like to form informed opinions, not just make up opinions about stuff.

When I've done my homework and thought through the information, only then do I form an opinion about something..

Yeah yeah, I know...

I thought you had an informed opinion on the matter, one way or the other. What's with the assertion that a "YES" or "NO" answer implies that your view is just made up?

[columbusdude82]

Oh dear... Here is the last I will say on this matter.

You are asking me whether I think mankind is the "highest" sentient being in the universe.

I only have access to data from a sample of size n = 1, that sample point being mankind.

As they taught me in my intro stats class, it is very bad to do inference on samples of size n = 1.

Therefore, I cannot make any inference on the matter.

And that's that

[MCWAY]

Oh dear... Here is the last I will say on this matter.

You are asking me whether I think mankind is the "highest" sentient being in the universe.

I only have access to data from a sample of size n = 1, that sample point being mankind.

It appears you've just answered my question (unofficially). Your stating that the size n = 1 is an assumption that no other known entity is equal to (or sentient enough to lump with) mankind.

As they taught me in my intro stats class, it is very bad to do inference on samples of size n = 1.

Therefore, I cannot make any inference on the matter.

And that's that

You can, but (for the moment, at least) you won't. Leave it to an atheist to make a simple task difficult.

[Necrosis]

It appears you've just answered my question (unofficially). Your stating that the size n = 1 is an assumption that no other known entity is equal to (or sentient enough to lump with) mankind.

You can, but (for the moment, at least) you won't. Leave it to an atheist to make a simple task difficult.

as we know it man is the most intelligent sentient beings, but that isnt an absolute because we have travelled no where in the universe. it doesnt mean we worship ourselves and if it did it doesnt matter, as my definition of a god is a supernatural being.

[Deedee]

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.

Not to butt in, but these more esoteric comparisons are lost on me,  so am asking for clarification.

Worshiping logic and reasoning alone, because there is always an inflection of the subjective, would be flawed.  I'm assuming that the person who straps a bomb to his chest and goes into a cafe to blow it up, has come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do based on some kind of logic and reasoning. So no, I wouldn't say that most atheists hold logic and reasoning up as the highest arbitrator of truth unless empirical evidence is added to the equation. We don't stick our hands into bowls of burning embers because we know the result will definitely be bad.

When we say "God created man in his image," isn't that some form of self-worship? I think it was intended to be so. And when Christians pray (and many do) for the positive outcome of a baseball game, or for a better financial situation, or not to lose their hair, isn't that also self worship... in effect thinking that an omnipotent entity responsible for an entire universe micro-manages to the extent of living inside each individual and being wholly involved in that person's petty day-to-day issues? We're all self-worshipers to some extent.   

[Deicide]

Not to butt in, but these more esoteric comparisons are lost on me,  so am asking for clarification.

Worshiping logic and reasoning alone, because there is always an inflection of the subjective, would be flawed.  I'm assuming that the person who straps a bomb to his chest and goes into a cafe to blow it up, has come to the conclusion that this is the right thing to do based on some kind of logic and reasoning. So no, I wouldn't say that most atheists hold logic and reasoning up as the highest arbitrator of truth unless empirical evidence is added to the equation. We don't stick our hands into bowls of burning embers because we know the result will definitely be bad.

When we say "God created man in his image," isn't that some form of self-worship? I think it was intended to be so. And when Christians pray (and many do) for the positive outcome of a baseball game, or for a better financial situation, or not to lose their hair, isn't that also self worship... in effect thinking that an omnipotent entity responsible for an entire universe micro-manages to the extent of living inside each individual and being wholly involved in that person's petty day-to-day issues? We're all self-worshipers to some extent.   

Using reason and argument with MCWAY is a fairly futile exercise.

[MMC78]

I didn't ask about what you believe about the scientific method or if you had any basis of comparison.

My question was: Do you believe that man's logic and reason is the highest level of authority and arbitrator of truth (or, that man is the highest sentient being in the universe)?

Scientists and free thinkers know that truth is not a property of man.  The universe is governed by laws that were discovered by man.  Natural science is the process of discovery of these laws.  Our understanding of those laws is limited by human fallibility.

Established science is NOT an authority to be worshiped.  It is frequently refined or out right invalidated by later findings.  It is precisely science's SELF CRITICAL and REVISIONIST stance that separates it from superstition like religious faith.

Cognitive dissonance is a bitch ain't it?

[Hedgehog]

... then health is a disease.

Discuss.

 

It is not a religion.

It is the lack of religion.

You could see it as an uncharged battery.

Or an empty glass.

Or perhaps a neutral zone.

Today, we don't have much proof of any religions.

My guess is that if nothing dramatically changes (eg a Hindu or Christian God shows up), atheism will in a century or so become the norm.

Not so much that people will abandon religions.

But moreso that atheism will be the accepted foundation that we all stand on, and then make a choice, if we want to dwelve into a religion or stay non-religious.