Do you believe in a god?

[DeusExMachina]

Deism still relies on the existence of a God, and you're condescending tone is unwanted and uncalled for.

Yes, but Deism's God is a LOT more different than the Christian's God.

Oh and, I apologize for the condescending tone . I thought you were trying to say Voltaire was talking about Christianity.

 

[poseyjmac]

O noes! People are saying hurtful things about me over teh internets!

Yeah sure, buddy. Keep circulating this around to your imaginary internet buddies. It's actually more pathetic if you think this passes as comedy worth passing about.

i agree, you are quite pathetic. which is why you are so easy to laugh at. also, keep talking, as you entertain me.

 

[poseyjmac]

In what context, exactly, does it matter whether or not Aethism is a religion?

in the context that...its fun to hear atheists' illogical response when you tell them atheism can be considered a religion.

 

[Absinthe]

Out of curiosity, could you supply some links to these other forums you've posted this conversation on? It would be a real hoot.

 

[Max35]

IMO Atheism is illogical; Agnosticism is more appropriate to the situation. Do some research on Immanual Kant, I believe he has some words for you. To sum it up, there is no way we can find proof of a God; if he chose to bestow a flawed perception upon us, then we will never find proof.

Intelligent Design is just as believable (to us humans) as Evolution.

 

[Kyorisu]

A thread about God turns into the stupidest debate around.

I know, I'll start a new religion. It's only purpose to destroy all other Religions of low credibility.

Why stop there? lets take over the world why we are at it.

It shall be called......WGADA or Who gives a damn anymore.

 

[Absinthe]

IMO Atheism is illogical; Agnosticism is more appropriate to the situation.

The two positions are not mutually exclusive. How atheism is illogical is something nobody in this topic has managed to explain.

 

[poseyjmac]

one lesser known reason it is illogical is because atheism focuses on deities to disbelieve.

now why do people choose to call themselves atheists, and disbelieve in deities, and not everything supernatural, or everything that is not supported by some kind of evidence?
are atheists more inclined to believe in unicorns or fairies than gods? if not then why are atheists atheists?

 

[Absinthe]

Atheism pertains only to deities. It is not an all-encompassing philosophy.

The only qualifier for atheism is a disbelief in deities. You can believe in whatever else you want, regardless of rationality, and you'd still be an atheist. But most atheists come to their positions through rational means and an atheist often will hold similar disbelief in other supernatural and unsubstantiated concepts. This is a commonality.

Atheism regards a single concept: gods. Just like "amorality" pertains to morality, "agnosticism" pertains to knowledge, and "asexual" pertains to sex. These are not mutually exclusive to each other. They are not singular philosophies that you pick and choose. No sane person would ever claim such a thing. Only the ill-informed treat atheism any differently.

My god, a definition with a defined scope and focus! How crazy!

ADDED: It's funny you never answered the first question I ever posed to you in this topic.

"Am I close-minded for not believing in pink ponies with popcorn wings? Or leprechauns? Or that the Earth is actually an eyeball belonging to a cosmic alien?"

Extreme, I know, but you shouldn't be accusing others of avoidance when yourself never did so from the beginning.

 

[poseyjmac]

Atheism pertains only to deities. It is not an all-encompassing philosophy.

yes, but are most atheists more likely to believe in unicorns than gods? more than likely they do disbelieve in any other things such as fairies and elves, just as much as they disbelieve in gods. thats pretty logical right?

so then why are these ones labeled atheists, ones who disbelief in the existence of deities? the truth is, atheism does not describe many of these people adequately, it doesn't account for anything besides one entity out of infinity. its so limited.

a more logical religion could be made encompassing the disbelief in every supernatural thing. and an even more logical religion would be no disbelief at all.

 

[Absinthe]

yes, but are most atheists more likely to believe in unicorns than gods? more than likely they do disbelieve in any other things such as fairies and elves, just as much as they disbelieve in gods. thats pretty logical right?

so then why are these ones labeled atheists, ones who disbelief in the existence of deities? the truth is, atheism does not describe many of these people adequately, it doesn't account for anything besides one entity out of infinity. its so limited.

Now you are making things too complex. You are attributing so many things to atheism that are superfluous and unnecessary. You are making it out to be something that it isn't. An atheist is not the same as a Christian. Atheism has no code or doctrine that it follows. You're trying to treat it like a religion but it isn't. Now you are railing against definitions. If you find the definition so narrow that it's pretty much an irrelevant descriptor, then take your case to whoever coined the term. But do not misguide your fire onto the people that fall under it.

You ask why the definition of atheism doesn't extend to other supernatural concepts. I ask "Why should it?". It has no reason to because the concept itself only applies to gods. And from a more grounded and practical standpoint, there's not much purpose in extending its definition to other magical figures. Nobody argues for the existence of unicorns, elves, witches, or other such things. But people do argue for the existence of gods. Theism is the only relevant context.

 

[Skaadi]

Oh, here we go.

 

[Sloth]

Holy (pun) Cow, this thread has gone 25 pages...
But they still haven't agreed.

The only 2 cents that i'll put on the table:

Atheism becomes when a culture or person is educated, but has their feet dipped in every field.

Religon was a way of only dipping in one field but getting the goodness of all fields.

Both are right, both work. One is harder to fill, but is more rewarding. The other is quick to fill but can still give the person purpose. They both work.

 

[Skaadi]

Time for a killing spree.

 

[Jintor]

I was sorta on-off Christian until about year 5. Drifted into agnosticism until year 8. Then my parents invited a Buddhist friend over and he explained the basics. I liked it. The basic overall message was not 'Kill those who do not believe in me' [1] but the very basics of the universe. (I.e. everything that happens, happens; everything that in happening, causes something to happen, causes something to happen; everything that in happening, causes something itself to happen again, happens again) or, alternatively, 'cause and effect'.

I am convinced there is no god, or, at least, no benevolant god (A malicious one is a demon, yes? I don't believe in them either... although, confusingly enough, certain branches of Buddhism do...) because of the things that happen, all over the world. Pestilence. Death. War. Famine.

Maybe they are facts of life?

Kyo, join the flying spagetti monster movement. They have a place for everyone.

[1] Yes, i know this is not any religions message [2]. I know it was never meant to be that message. But most religions get mis-interpreted alot, so...

[2] Unless you play alot of Black and White.

 

[Kmack]

I'm not sure if I believe in a God yet, but I do believe that there is a potential (scientifically) for higher powers to be involved in the course of our species (and worlds) existance. I do not believe that the path to it lies in any of the major religions (christianity, judaism, and islam) and I think that the greatest threats and problems faced int he world stem from religious fundamentalism, it is no way to experience or worship a God. Based on that I think I am skeptically agnostic :thumbs:

 

[poseyjmac]

Now you are making things too complex. You are attributing so many things to atheism that are superfluous and unnecessary. You are making it out to be something that it isn't. An atheist is not the same as a Christian. Atheism has no code or doctrine that it follows. You're trying to treat it like a religion but it isn't. Now you are railing against definitions. If you find the definition so narrow that it's pretty much an irrelevant descriptor, then take your case to whoever coined the term. But do not misguide your fire onto the people that fall under it.

listen, forget that im calling it a religion, im going to call it a religion, because according to webster it is. im not going to try and convince you of that anymore, so move on.

is it too complex to imagine a religion that encompasses more than 1 simple entity? its like saying someone that recommends a group of vegetable eaters be called vegans is thinking too complex, and that instead each vegetable should dictate a different title, giving these people over 30 titles. is that logical?

You ask why the definition of atheism doesn't extend to other supernatural concepts. I ask "Why should it?". It has no reason to because the concept itself only applies to gods. And from a more grounded and practical standpoint, there's not much purpose in extending its definition to other magical figures.

no I don't, that's false.. atheism can only mean what it means now, otherwise it wouldn't be called atheism. what i AM saying is that why do atheists such as yourself subscribe to it and not make your own label, when you deny many more things than just gods?

Nobody argues for the existence of unicorns, elves, witches, or other such things. But people do argue for the existence of gods. Theism is the only relevant context.

and thats exactly why atheism is closeminded. oh, we'll only argue for the existence of entities that are dictated by religions like christianity. as i said before, atheism is a product of religions like christianity, so its inherently weak. if there was a famous book on unicorns instead of god, atheism wouldn't exist and the disbelief in unicorns would.

 

[Sulkdodds]

listen, forget that im calling it a religion, im going to call it a religion, because according to webster it is. im not going to try and convince you of that anymore, so move on.

So you've never heard of Smart's Seven Dimensions, universally used to classify religion?

 

[poseyjmac]

So you've never heard of Smart's Seven Dimensions, universally used to classify religion?

not until a couple days ago, no. at first i thought you were kidding and that it was from some comedy space movie or something.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Well now you have. Atheism is not a religion (and I'm not even an atheist).

 

[poseyjmac]

Well now you have. Atheism is not a religion (and I'm not even an atheist).

according to webster.com it is. see there is no universal definition. but since webster.com is standard, it would be considered ok to call atheism a religion. just as it would be ok to not call it a religion based on your seven stars of the apocalyptic dimension or whatever it is

 

[Sulkdodds]

They're not 'mine'. It's not just some bullshit, you know. It's what's used to determine whether something is a religion or not.

 

[poseyjmac]

They're not 'mine'. It's not just some bullshit, you know. It's what's used to determine whether something is a religion or not.

neither is webster mine, but it is used to determine meanings of words.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Except...the Seven Dimensions are used by scholars studying religion. Meanwhile Webster is used by you, and everyone else on the internet.

Plus, this:

4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Is extremely loose. As in 'Half-Life is my religion.' Actually, it isn't (probably) but you can use the term in that way.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Boner.

 

[Ennui]

atheism is a religious philosophy. not technically a religion since it's kind of the antithesis, but it's a philosophical belief related to religion.

i am atheist by the way. i find no reason for a god to exist and thus it's very safe to assume he doesn't.

 

[poseyjmac]

Except...the Seven Dimensions are used by scholars studying religion. Meanwhile Webster is used by you, and everyone else on the internet.

Plus, this:



Is extremely loose. As in 'Half-Life is my religion.' Actually, it isn't (probably) but you can use the term in that way.

so being that its used by scholars somehow invalidates the whole webster dictionary and makes whatever they say the ultimate truth?

i really wish i could argue with you about this, but you're basically denying the credibility the most well-known english dictionary. so ill just scratch my head and say, ok go for it, but i don't know what you expect to accomplish.

 

[Sulkdodds]

I'm not going to argue the point any further. What are you trying to accomplish by saying Atheism is a religion, anyway?

And I'm not denying Webster's credibility. I'm simply saying that:

A. I think scholars probably know more about what religion is or isn't than Webster (for instance, searching Wikipedia for 'smart's seven dimensions' brings up nothing, but asking every single philosophy or religion teacher in my college would).

B. The only definition that applies possibly to atheism is the fourth, which is very loose like I said and refers to a slightly different meaning of the word 'religion' (slightly different from an actual religion if you see what I mean.

I could say 'Absinthe argues with religious fervour' - in this case, 'religious' isn't meant literally, is it? It's simply attempting to convey the passion and zeal of his debating.

 

[kirovman]

Yes, I have found on many occasion dictionaries to have inaccuracies, they are mainly to get the gist of the point. However accurate they attempt to be, they don't compare with the professionals when it comes to defining specialist things.

As a physicist, I'm sure I can pick a few holes in their definition of "Physics" in the dictionary.

 

[poseyjmac]

I'm not going to argue the point any further. What are you trying to accomplish by saying Atheism is a religion, anyway?

its fun to hear people's responses. atheists generally freak out when i present this and reply irrationally(ie absinthe)

And I'm not denying Webster's credibility. I'm simply saying that:

A. I think scholars probably know more about what religion is or isn't than Webster (for instance, searching Wikipedia for 'smart's seven dimensions' brings up nothing, but asking every single philosophy or religion teacher in my college would).

B. The only definition that applies possibly to atheism is the fourth, which is very loose like I said and refers to a slightly different meaning of the word 'religion' (slightly different from an actual religion if you see what I mean.

the 4th is the only one ive been bringing to the thread.

I could say 'Absinthe argues with religious fervour' - in this case, 'religious' isn't meant literally, is it? It's simply attempting to convey the passion and zeal of his debating.

you could

 

[DeusExMachina]

How has he replied irrationally? Your the one attacking him.

 

[poseyjmac]

How has he replied irrationally? Your the one attacking him.

itll take about 3 minutes to gather them all, but do you want me to quote the many times absinthe has attacked me verbally with personal attacks?

 

[DeusExMachina]

That would be a gigantic waste of your time and mine.

But, if you feel so inclined to, I'm not gonna stop you.

 

[poseyjmac]

That would be a gigantic waste of your time and mine.

But, if you feel so inclined to, I'm not gonna stop you.

so you ask a question, and then you say it would be a waste of time for me to answer it? so then you already wasted your time asking me the question. n1.

 

[kirovman]

Come on guys, what is this, a pissing contest?

 

[Sulkdodds]

/me pisses on kirovman

 

[Ennui]

/me pees on thread.

 

[kirovman]

/me pisses on kirovman

You evil godless bastard

/me urinates on Sulkdodds

 

[Sulkdodds]

Stoopid religionist crazythinker.

/me urinates on kirovman

 

[kirovman]

And so forth.