Do you believe in a god?

[Absinthe]

you just denied the validity of standard definitions. congratulations, you've reached a new low. me and my friends are getting a laugh out of it though.

The only definition I've denied is yours, which is horribly misconstrued. If you and your buddies get humor out of it though, kudos to you. Idiocy loves company.

how about this. absinthe do you believe that there are no gods out there at the moment, but that you would change your mind if proof was presented to you? yes or no.

I accept the possibility of gods existing as much as I accept the possibility of many ridiculous, unlikely, and stretching concepts, but that doesn't mean I need to posit credence into any of them. If there was evidence not of the circumstantial nature presented to me, then yes I would find the concept of deities to be more credible and worthy of belief.

If this is your attempt to say "Oh, well you aren't an atheist, so why are you arguing?", then you're resting on the same flawed premises as you always have.

I keep telling you to read the link I gave, but all indications point to you mostly ignoring it. So instead of bleating "Read the site" ad nauseum, I'm going to ask you a simple question: Have you read it at all, specifically the sections pertaining to what atheism is, what it isn't, and what it entails?
A response in the negative or a failure to answer will result in a forfeit of all your credibility and cement the ever-supported notion that you're a simple fool that couldn't recognize a coherent logical argument if it bit you in the ass. All you're seemingly capable of is poor point construction and blanket statements, demonstrating a deep-rooted inability to actually make an argument. If I'm denying standard definitions, then show exactly how this is so.

Little FYI...Atheism is considered a religion. My anthropolgy teacher told me.

Your anthropology teacher doesn't know what he's talking about. Is theism a religion? No, so why should atheism be one?

 

[poseyjmac]

The only definition I've denied is yours, which is horribly misconstrued. If you and your buddies get humor out of it though, kudos to you. Idiocy loves company.

uhh, hello? the only definitions ive been posting are straight from webster.com and dictionary.com. you know, the invalid ones :|

I accept the possibility of gods existing as much as I accept the possibility of many ridiculous, unlikely, and stretching concepts, but that doesn't mean I need to posit credence into any of them. If there was evidence not of the circumstantial nature presented to me, then yes I would find the concept of deities to be more credible and worthy of belief.

you didn't answer my simple question. now yes or no?

If this is your attempt to say "Oh, well you aren't an atheist, so why are you arguing?", then you're resting on the same flawed premises as you always have.

False assumption there. I don't really care what you believe.

I keep telling you to read the link I gave, but all indications point to you mostly ignoring it. So instead of bleating "Read the site" ad nauseum, I'm going to ask you a simple question: Have you read it at all, specifically the sections pertaining to what atheism is, what it isn't, and what it entails?
A response in the negative or a failure to answer will result in a forfeit of all your credibility and cement the ever-supported notion that you're a simple fool that couldn't recognize a coherent logical argument if it bit you in the ass. All you're seemingly capable of is poor point construction and blanket statements, demonstrating a deep-rooted inability to actually make an argument. If I'm denying standard definitions, then show exactly how this is so.

you are making this more complex than it really is. ive read the site, and i understand what it says, but that is irrelevant to the point im trying to make. and it doesn't not invalidate the definitions ive presented.

forget about the whole closeminded bit, thats way past..well its just not the focus right now. I have proven deductively in my prior post that according to these accepted definitions of atheism and religion, atheism is a religion. for me to make this point, it is irrelevant what any other site says. until you can digest this small sliver of truth and level with me, then we aren't going to move on.

so again, yes or no to my prior question?

 

[Absinthe]

uhh, hello? the only definitions ive been posting are straight from webster.com and dictionary.com. you know, the invalid ones :|

I have no issue with the definitions they provide, as they are sufficiently accurate. You, however, misreprsent them entirely.

you didn't answer my simple question. now yes or no?

Wow, issues with reading comprehension as well. Can't handle a paragraph? If you read my response, you'd know that I answered your question in full.

False assumption there. I don't really care what you believe.

Oh, that's readily apparent since you obviously haven't given the proper time and effort into researching the subject. But in the context of this debate, you certainly rely on a lot of faulty questions in some stupid attempt to "trick" me.

you are making this more complex than it really is. ive read the site, and i understand what it says, but that is irrelevant to the point im trying to make. and it doesn't not invalidate the definitions ive presented.

forget about the whole closeminded bit, thats way past..well its just not the focus right now. I have proven deductively in my prior post that according to these accepted definitions of atheism and religion, atheism is a religion. for me to make this point, it is irrelevant what any other site says. until you can digest this small sliver of truth and level with me, then we aren't going to move on.

If you read the site and comprehended it (or did the same for any argument in this topic), then you'd know that this has been addressed and refuted multiple times. That you claim to have read the site and then dismiss it as irrelevant only goes to show that you either lied about doing so or didn't bother to actually understand the material.
You have utterly failed to make a coherent and logical case for atheism being a religion. You have pointed at a definition and expected it to make your case for you and have made zero attempt to apply that material to an argument of your own. So if you have any aces up your sleeve, I suggest you use them pretty soon.

----------------

Nice, simple, and easy.

Explain in full how atheism is a religion.

 

[poseyjmac]

Wow, issues with reading comprehension as well. Can't handle a paragraph? If you read my response, you'd know that I answered your question in full.

i didn't ask for a paragraph. its not that i can't comprehend it, its that i don't really care for your paragraph. i asked for a simple answer, not a paragraph. i will humor you and answer questions straight up if theres some point you want to prove, i expect the same courtesy. you are being very rude and know nothing of how debate works.

Oh, that's readily apparent since you obviously haven't given the proper time and effort into researching the subject. But in the context of this debate, you certainly rely on a lot of faulty questions in some stupid attempt to "trick" me.

these questions are simple questions. you read a question, and then you simply don't answer the question because you don't like what its going to spell out. yes ill admit they are traps, but refusing to answer them is a sign of DEFEAT in a debate. so don't think you are somehow avoiding being proven wrong. you've already made yourself look stupid multiple times. again, in case you didn't catch that, avoiding a question is a sign of DEFEAT.

but ill give you another chance. its a trap question, as im satisfied either way, but if you don't answer it, then you'll just prove yet again that you are defeated. deflate your ego for a second, and open your mind. very simple question..

Theoretically, assuming for a moment you were an atheist, if i asked you "Do you believe that gods do not exist?", what would your answer be? Yes or No?

 

[poseyjmac]

Explain in full how atheism is a religion.

i already did, but i asked you to answer my question first. once you do, it will make everything more clearer to you, i guarantee.

 

[Absinthe]

Your question was answered, clear as day. If you can't wade through a few more words explaining my position (since you clearly never understood it to begin with), then perhaps you shouldn't be doing this in the first place. Ain't that a novel idea?

I've answered your questions fully unless they made BS assumptions or misrepresented things, in which case the problem is not with my responses but your ignorance in crafting the question. I'm not going to run in circles for you, and you certainly don't deserve any courtesy from me.

 

[poseyjmac]

no not that question, i have a new question 2 posts up. and i asked it before you edited your post to tell me to explain in full how atheism is a religion.

there are no assumptions with this question, its a simple question. yes or no

 

[Kyorisu]

Religion
1
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As far as I can see atheism is not a religion.

 

[poseyjmac]

Religion
1
A. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
B. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
4. A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

As far as I can see atheism is not a religion.

according to that definition you are correct. but according to webster.com, the authority on dictionaries, and others it indeed is. thats the only point im trying to make.

 

[Absinthe]

Theoretically, assuming for a moment you were an atheist, if i asked you "Do you believe that gods do not exist?", what would your answer be? Yes or No?

1.) I am an atheist.

2.) See, your wording is already ****ing things up. I do not take a pro-active stance in asserting that gods do not exist. This here is a fine example of you misrepresenting atheism. Your question would be more relevant if asked to a strong atheist, which I am not and have explained numerous times. I can't answer the question without you pigeonholing me into a yes or no answer, both of which do not accurately reflect my atheism.

3.) What would this have to do with atheism being a religion?

according to that definition you are correct. but according to webster.com, the authority on dictionaries, and others it indeed is. thats the only point im trying to make.

The Webster definition is identical in its meaning that of the one found on dictionary.com.

 

[ComradeBadger]

Atheism is believing that there is no higher power, in that respect, it is therefore a religion.

Agnostic is what you probaly are.

 

[Absinthe]

Atheism is believing that there is no higher power, in that respect, it is therefore a religion.

A belief or lack of belief in something does not constitute a religion.

Agnostic is what you probaly are.

No, as I lack belief in gods I am an atheist. As a person that claims no certainty about the existence of gods, I am an agnostic atheist. I've already ripped my hair out trying to explain the relationship between (a)theism and agnosticism on this forum, so I'm not doing it again. :|

 

[ComradeBadger]

I honestly don't care [no offence meant but the argument has devated into semantics etc - I was brought up to believe in whatever I felt like, and my father told me there was no scientific proof there was a god/higher power (which confused me as this was contrary to what my school was teaching me) - but he always taught me to make my own mind up. I'm agnostic - never even baptised, but I can see the positives in religious/religious life

 

[poseyjmac]

1.) I am an atheist.

2.) See, your wording is already ****ing things up. I do not take a pro-active stance in asserting that gods do not exist. This here is a fine example of you misrepresenting atheism. Your question would be more relevant if asked to a strong atheist, which I am not and have explained numerous times. I can't answer the question without you pigeonholing me into a yes or no answer, both of which do not accurately reflect my atheism.

3.) What would this have to do with atheism being a religion?

ill be happy to answer your questions once you have answered mine. the funny thing is, you think im trapping you for a different point than i really am. i find that hilarious.

The Webster definition is identical in its meaning that of the one found on dictionary.com.

actually no they are slightly different technically. but lets not open that can of worms.

 

[Absinthe]

ill be happy to answer your questions once you have answered mine. the funny thing is, you think im trapping you for a different point than i really am. i find that hilarious.

You've created a straw man and an inapplicable dichotomy. Atheism in and of itself makes no positive assertions. Again, I can't answer yours because you rest them on false premises.

actually no they are slightly different technically. but lets not open that can of worms.

No, they are in essence the same sans some different minute wording.

 

[poseyjmac]

there is no straw man argument here, as nothing is distorted.

anyway ive had enough fun with you. you are a PRIME specimen of someone who does not want to see the truth for fear of what it might do. hence why you don't answer the straightforward questions that you know inevitably lead to the uncomfortable truth.

i once was like you. i believed what i wanted to believe, and it meant to me exactly what i wanted it to. ignorance is bliss.

but really, i wouldn't recommend pulling these kind of avoidance tactics in a real world debate where you can be humiliated and exposed far more easily than on a forum. its a true sign of weakness.

 

[Absinthe]

i once was like you. i believed what i wanted to believe, and it meant to me exactly what i wanted it to.

Thanks for the enlightening personal anecdote.

-You have misrepresented atheism.
-You have confined your arguments to the most narrow and fallacious definition of atheism possible.
-You have ignorantly labelled atheism as a religion without any substantiation.
-You have employed cheap trick questions based on the aforementioned misrepresentations.
-You have completely ignored any form of external sourcing other than your own (and even then you've certifiably sucked at making sense of them).
-You have failed to incorporate the aforementioned sources into any coherent case.
-You have made a host of blanket statements without any underlying argument.

Quite an impressive resume. I won't lose any sleep over this little debacle. I can accept that the world deals with intellectual dwarves like you on a daily basis.

G'day!

 

[Nat Turner]

lol @ Absinthe.

I can't believe he's been arguing for 20 pages about a single definition.

 

[Absinthe]

I said I was going to exit the debate earlier but then I rejoined because I thought I had seen a glimmer of sense take root in his posts. I was sadly mistaken.

 

[Nat Turner]

Yeah he just kind of ignores all rational argument only to repeat himself with more zeal.

 

[poseyjmac]

misrepresented atheism? if by misrepresenting you mean quoting word for word a defintion out of webster. then yes im guilty of that.

haha. i think a total of 17 people ive shared this thread with on different forums have laughed at your replies today on the forum. oh man, its entertaining thats for sure. you attained 'complete joke' status.

by the way, this is nat turners idea of a 'rational argument'

poseyjmac:

Why do you like wearing your mom's underwear?

its quite possible that you are less intelligent and less mature than absinthe. although im not certain.

 

[spookymooky]

Niether Theism nor Atheism is a religion. They are philosophies.

Also, I gotta say, Posey, while I don't quite agree with Absinthe (and certainly not you), I despise it when people bring personal insults into philosphical/religions/political arguments or just discussion in general.

[Bah, had to edit twice, To add second paragraph, and then spelling...and this, for whatever reason]

 

[poseyjmac]

Niether Theism nor Atheism is a relgion. They are philosophies.

not according to websters dictionary.

atheism is the disbelief in gods. disbelief in gods is an assumption, correct? well a principle is 1 a : a comprehensive and fundamental law, doctrine, or assumption.

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

atheism is a principle held to with faith(as an assumption is involved). its a religion.

-

me and absinthe both brought personal insults into this debate. so we are both at fault there.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Your anthropology teacher doesn't know what he's talking about. Is theism a religion? No, so why should atheism be one?

It's "considered" a religion. Like on the census and stuff.

And don't even try and tell me you think you know more about religion than an anthropologist. I know that's not what you were implying, but unless you have a degree in theology, I'm gonna go on what he says over what you say.

Sure, Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, and a few other beliefs are philosophies, but they are considered religions.

 

[Absinthe]

haha. i think a total of 17 people ive shared this thread with on different forums have laughed at your replies today on the forum. oh man, its entertaining thats for sure. you attained 'complete joke' status.

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.

Sure, Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, and a few other beliefs are philosophies, but they are considered religions.

Atheism is neither a religion or a philosophy.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Really? It seems to fit the definition of a philosophy What do you live by? You believe there isn't a God. That is your philosophy. Buddhists believe we are reincarnated and good things lead to good karma. That is their philosophy. Both you and the Buddhist live your life by these philosophies.

 

[spookymooky]

It's "considered" a religion. Like on the census and stuff.

And don't even try and tell me you think you know more about religion than an anthropologist. I know that's not what you were implying, but unless you have a degree in theology, I'm gonna go on what he says over what you say.

Sure, Atheism, Agnosticism, Buddhism, and a few other beliefs are philosophies, but they are considered religions.

I actually imagine the definition varies. Yes, I'm going back on my previous statement a bit. After all, There's Buddhism, then there's Zen Buddhism and so forth. It's the same with Hinduism, Christianity, Judeaism, Islam, and pretty much all major religion. In this way I dont really see why all those cant be just a subset of Theism. Just like Nihilism, etc, may just be an example of Atheism.

That said, my Bioethics teacher, whom I rather respect, with degrees in philosophy and theology claims Theism and Atheism are philosophies, and I am inclined to assume he's correct over even dictionaries, as those just list the possible usages. If I remember, I'll see if he agrees with you on Agnostocism tomorrow.

All in all, lets just move past the semantics argument, and back onto God. Exists? I say no, but there are some very compelling arguments against me: Thomas Aquinas had a few, the big bang provides evidence for oneas does the 2nd law of thermodnamics, and there are quite a few more.

 

[Jintor]

*sigh*

Look at it this way: From your/our (delete whichever is inappropriate) view Aethism is a religion. From your/our (delete whichever is inappropriate) view Aethism is not a religion.

Looking at this large, flaming thread of hatred, i can now quite clearly see why there are people who blow themselves up for matters of faith. If you people are prepared to argue until you are red in the face, citing references left right and centre, over wheter or not aethism is a religion, i quite clearly see why there are decades, ye, centuries, of misery and suffering caused because the Other Guys don't believe in Him, or possibly Her.

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

 

[DeusExMachina]

I actually imagine the definition varies. Yes, I'm going back on my previous statement a bit. After all, There's Buddhism, then there's Zen Buddhism and so forth. It's the same with Hinduism, Christianity, Judeaism, Islam, and pretty much all major religion. In this way I dont really see why all those cant be just a subset of Theism. Just like Nihilism, etc, may just be an example of Atheism.

That said, my Bioethics teacher, whom I rather respect, with degrees in philosophy and theology claims Theism and Atheism are philosophies, and I am inclined to assume he's correct over even dictionaries, as those just list the possible usages. If I remember, I'll see if he agrees with you on Agnostocism tomorrow.

All in all, lets just move past the semantics argument, and back onto God. Exists? I say no, but there are some very compelling arguments against me: Thomas Aquinas had a few, the big bang provides evidence for oneas does the 2nd law of thermodnamics, and there are quite a few more.

Alright cool. I'd like to know about that with your bioethics teacher.

Jintor: Absinthe's just defending his say because everyone's trying to tell him otherwise. If someone was trying to tell me otherwise, I'd do the same thing. Its called defending your beliefs.

And I don't know where the dying and death came from....

 

[Absinthe]

Really? It seems to fit the definition of a philosophy What do you live by? You believe there isn't a God. That is your philosophy. Buddhists believe we are reincarnated and good things lead to good karma. That is their philosophy. Both you and the Buddhist live your life by these philosophies.

1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.

Nope.

2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.

Nope.

3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.

Nope.

4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.

Nope.

5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.

Nope.

6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.

Nope.

7. A set of ideas or beliefs relating to a particular field or activity; an underlying theory: an original philosophy of advertising.

Nope.

8. A system of values by which one lives: has an unusual philosophy of life.

Nope.

Atheism is not a set, a system, a value, a faith, an assertion, an inquiry, a worldview, a lifestyle, or any of such things. It is the absence of belief in deities and nothing more. Atheism would be more of a byproduct or result of a philosophy as opposed to a philosophy itself.

The same goes for theism as well. If I believe in bovine, what does that make it? The philosophy of cattle? The religion of veal? No.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Well your quite grounded in your beliefs so you keep believing whatever you want. I'm not gonna bother anymore.

 

[spookymooky]

A could easily see 23,6,7,8 fitting (A)Theism. But come one, God guys! What are your arguments for/against!

 

[Absinthe]

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

How about a harmless online debate/sludgefest?

Although I think such discussion pertains to the real world as well.

IRT DeusEx
If I sound like a persistent stubborn prick then you'll have to forgive me, but it seems as if nobody here has a clear concise idea as to what atheism is except for a few select people. A lot of you are tagging on additional attributes that are not a part of atheism itself.

 

[Jintor]

I see no evidence.

Or at least, i consider the evidence, not to be evidence. You guys probably see it another way. Or not.

It's just that standards of logic, standards of arguement, standards of proof that apply to, say, history don't seem to apply to Religion. At least, not properly. *shrug* I don't know why I am conviced there is no god. I'm not (wishy-washy) agnostic, I am convinced there is no god...

Bah, humbug.

 

[DeusExMachina]

Of course, I understand. Like I said, your defending your beliefs. Its all good.

 

[xcellerate]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that none of the atheists on this board have ever read the bible in its entirety. Of course you're all going to tell me you have not only read the bible, but undergone a multiple year study into the validity of its message. And as long as we are on the internet and you have google.com i can not disprove any of what you tell me you have done.

My point is that 99% of 'atheists' have never put forth any REAL effort to understand Christianity.

"If God didn't exist, then it would be necessary for man to invent him" –Voltaire



and jintor, could you tell me or message me, as to what has convinced you 100% that there is no God?

 

[DeusExMachina]

Voltaire wasn't talking about Christianity buddy. He was talking about a little thing called "Deism."

 

[spookymooky]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that none of the atheists on this board have ever read the bible in its entirety. Of course you're all going to tell me you have not only read the bible, but undergone a multiple year study into the validity of its message. And as long as we are on the internet and you have google.com i can not disprove any of what you tell me you have done.

My point is that 99% of 'atheists' have never put forth any REAL effort to understand Christianity.

"If God didn't exist, then it would be necessary for man to invent him" –Voltaire



and jintor, could you tell me or message me, as to what has convinced you 100% that there is no God?

I am an Atheist.

I haven't read the bible cover to cover, actually meant to this summer. Genesis-Leviticus (the law-books I just looked through), a few of the prophets, mainly Isiah, Elijah, a bit of Jonah just for fun. A few of the histories, Kings, Maccabees, etc. Ive looked through Proverbs and Psalms. Read Job, Song of Songs :naughty:, Ive read most of the New Testament, though Ive probably missed a few epistles.

I mean to start on the Koran sometime. Tell me, what holy books not of your religion have you read?

 

[xcellerate]

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

 

[Absinthe]

My point is that 99% of 'atheists' have never put forth any REAL effort to understand Christianity.

You can back this up how?

I have read the Bible as I used to be a Christian. And so what if many atheists didn't make an effort to really understand Christianity? While I would prefer it to be such, it's really only pertinent in regards to the specifics of a singular god. The basic tenets of all faiths are still the same. If those aren't worthy of belief, how is studying the Bible going to change any of that?