Atheism is a RELIGION

[URAVIP2ME]

The bible is not a history book.
You have it wrong way round which is what happens when you take the word of a bronze age book.
The universe, .in its plasma state was quite orderly, then gravity began to impose its influence. Since then it has become more and more chaotic.
As the universe ages so entropy increases

'More and more chaotic' in what way to the universe declining.
As far as Earth, I read that simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long.
For bacterial to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on Earth. That is not decline.
Even when Earth is polluted, once the pollution stops, Earth is resilient and always bounces back.
As far the universe ages so does its expansion increase.

 

[Tiberius]

Some people 'look in the mirror and see their god' as evidence.
What ever a person puts first in life is their belief, their faith.

Stop it. You know perfectly well that I'm talking about "faith" in the sense of religious belief.

P.S. what you described above for the most part describes 'Christendom' (so-called Christian but mostly in name only)

Seems to me it describes just about every organized religion...

 

[Tiberius]

By what reasoning do you assume that evidence for the existence of "God" should exist, and would be recognizable by humans?

1. The reasoning that one specific set of ancient religious myths be taken as the definitive material reality of God?

2. The reasoning that the cognitive mechanisms of a human being be taken as defining the limits of all that does or could possibly exist?

Since God did all sorts of miracles according to the Bible, and there's no actual evidence of them anywhere. There's no evidence for a single flood event that covered the whole planet, for example, no matter how much creationists will tell you otherwise.

And there's a great deal of evidence to counter claims made in the Bible, such as the creation account in Genesis.

In other words, evidence from the real world is not compatible with the claims made in the Bible, and vice versa.

 

[Tiberius]

We are all born with a capacity for spirituality. The world's religions show that.
If Not taught the right concept then another concept will take it's place.

It strikes me that it shows that if there is a question we do not know the answer to, we will turn to anything that provides an answer, even if it is wrong, even if it is not based on actual evidence. Hence religion. And hence religion constantly retreating as science answers the question that once only religion could answer. It was only a few centuries ago that a literal interpretation of Genesis was considered normal, because science was unable to provide a more accurate answer. Nowe the science is able to provide such an answer, religion has backpedaled and now it is common to hear religious leaders say that religion's explanation is simply a metaphor, not meant to be taken literally.

Religion exists to provide answers where we can't otherwise get them (because we want answers and any answer will do if we can't get something better), it exists to provide reassurance in the face of death (because we fear the unknown), it provides instructions on how to live (based on superstition) and it is used by those in power to control the general population.

 

[ChristineM]

'More and more chaotic' in what way to the universe declining.
As far as Earth, I read that simple bacteria can divide about every 20 minutes and have many hundreds of different proteins, each containing 20 types of amino acids arranged in chains that might be several hundred long.
For bacterial to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years, the time that many scientists believe life has existed on Earth. That is not decline.
Even when Earth is polluted, once the pollution stops, Earth is resilient and always bounces back.
As far the universe ages so does its expansion increase.

Entropy : a thermodynamic quantity representing the unavailability of a system's thermal energy for conversion into mechanical work, often interpreted as the degree of disorder or randomness in the system.

As the universe gets older entropy increases as per the second law of thermodynamics.

Nope, for a start mutations do not need to be beneficial to drive evolution and have you any idea how long 3.5 billion years is? Consider just 65 million years ago this ball of rock was ruled by dinosaurs. Then consider that science is currently studying observable evolution in several species of animal

You also need do understand that entropy predicts life.

Yes the universe is expanding, think of the consequences should it continue to expand for say 15 trillion years.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Lack of belief in some proposition(s), does not require evidence, it just requires that the evidence or arguments offered for the proposition are insufficient.

Burden of proof (philosophy)
Russell's teapot

True! But you haven't weighed the evidence for God, merely the evidence you claim against God's existence.

The arguments, particularly the biblical arguments, are compelling, documented, verified outside the Bible and in prophecy, and are extraordinary.

 

[ChristineM]

True! But you haven't weighed the evidence for God, merely the evidence you claim against God's existence.

The arguments, particularly the biblical arguments, are compelling, documented, verified outside the Bible and in prophecy, and are extraordinary.

What evidence? Opinion is pretty light.

The biblical arguments amount to nothing and are most certainly not "vetified" outside the bible.

Far more prophecies have failed to materialise and those that have tend to be of the general ambiguous kind

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

If an atheist thinks there might be a God, then how can that person be an atheist ?
That sounds to me more like the definition of an agnostic person.
If something seems improvable that does Not necessarily mean impossible.
I do wonder what teaching of Jesus is too contradictory and absurd to consider.

Why do you do this? Why is it necessary to change my words so that they seem to no longer say what I mean. For me to say that "while I cannot state categorically that no gods exist," and then later go on to give the good and solid reasons why I do not, in any case, think that there are any -- you do not then get to translate that into "I think there might be a God." I do not think that at all. I simply cannot make a categorical claim.

Is it really, really important to you to classify my beliefs to better suit your own thoughts? Aren't I allowed to think for myself?

 

[LuisDantas]

It is beyond ironical how deeply confused and misguided the conceptions about atheism are among the very group that has the most interest has in atheism, namely Muslims and Christians.

Those conceptions are often so divorced from reality that I can't help but wonder how intriguing a fictional tale based on them would be, if someone can ever manage to build a coherent fictional world around them.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I've heard it said that atheism is a religion in that it adheres to the dogmatic view that there is No God.

Atheism requires no belief other than that the evidence for gods is insufficient to the atheist to justify the belief that a god or gods exist. There is no dogma. Furthermore, even if there were dogma, that alone is not sufficient to call atheism a religion.

Can't prove God does Not exist

I can't, unless you are referring to gods described as having mutually exclusive properties at the same time. Those I can rule out, like married bachelors. There's no such thing, and one needn't search the world to know that.

If an atheist thinks there might be a God, then how can that person be an atheist ? That sounds to me more like the definition of an agnostic person.

It's both. Most atheists are also agnostics. They are atheists because they do not believe in gods, and agnostics because the acknowledge that they have no way to rule the possibility out, and are willing to change their position to theist if given a rational reason to do so.

I do wonder what teaching of Jesus is too contradictory and absurd to consider.

None too contradictory or absurd to consider, but some that are too contradictory or absurd to believe. For example, claiming that meekness is a virtue.

For bacterial to evolve by beneficial mutations one at a time would take much, much longer than three or four billion years

How did you determine that?

 

[PureX]

Since God did all sorts of miracles according to the Bible, and there's no actual evidence of them anywhere. There's no evidence for a single flood event that covered the whole planet, for example, no matter how much creationists will tell you otherwise.

Why would you, and why should anyone, assume that there would be any physical evidence for a mythical event?

And there's a great deal of evidence to counter claims made in the Bible, such as the creation account in Genesis.

Myths don't make any claims. They use symbols, and metaphors, and analogues to illuminate conceptual ideals.

In other words, evidence from the real world is not compatible with the claims made in the Bible, and vice versa.

Myths are not reality. They are artificial depictions of reality intended to help us see reality more fully, and as something more that just a collection of meaningless molecules. So why should anyone presume them to be 'compatible' with reality? Why are you?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

A Christian lacks belief in all gods except Yahweh. Likewise for a Jew. A Muslim lacks belief in all gods except Allah. Hindus lack belief in all gods save for the ones in their religion. Likewise for ANY person who has a religious belief. They all lack belief in Gods that are not in their religion.

And since an atheist has no religion at all, they will not believe in any gods.

A Christian is an atheist when it comes to Shiva.

No, they are a theist who doesn't believe in Shiva. To label a theist as an atheist is abusing the word atheist and stretching its definition beyond what it includes.
Throwing labels on people doesn't make it accurate. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, they are theist. The word atheist does not apply to them, because an atheist is "without god," and theist are "with god."

So when we are born, we lack a belief in God. After all, you can't have a belief in something if you have no concept of it.

We don't have an idea of anything when we are born. Infants don't even understand the permanence of an object. Trying to say they are theist or atheist is just absurd. They are outside of that rigid dichotomy, and remain so until they are able to decide.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

True! But you haven't weighed the evidence for God, merely the evidence you claim against God's existence..

Except that there isn't any. Evidence, that is. You cannot use your claim as your evidence.

The arguments, particularly the biblical arguments, are compelling, documented, verified outside the Bible and in prophecy, and are extraordinary.

All-- repeat-- all the so-called prophecies have been debunked, quite completely too.

Nothing--repeat-- nothing in the bible has been verified by anything beyond the bible itself.

Again: Logical Fallacy-- Bootstrapping.

 

[Matheist]

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Whereas God = Nature's God, God of the Universe, The Designer/Architect etc.

United States Declaration of Independence: "...When in the course of human events [ie. ALL GODS], it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [ie. ALL GODS] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."​

Premise 1: Disbelief in the existence of Nature's God(s).

Assumption 1. refusal to accept that Nature's God(s) is true or real.

Hidden 1: Is a belief, Atheist's set of belief
Hidden 2: Is a faith (no proof to counter #255)
Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.​

​

Assumption 2. Counterargument against Nature's God(s) #255​

Premise 2: Lack of belief in the existence of Nature's God(s).

Assumption 1. Without belief in Nature's Gods, or <- Strawman

Assumption 2. Both belief and disbelief in Nature's God(s).​

Hidden 1: Pure Agnostic/Equiprobable
Hidden 2: Weak Atheist/Skeptic
Hidden 3: De-facto Atheist/Improbable​

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEREFORE: Atheism is a Religion [with 320,000,000 God(s)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[Tiberius]

Why would you, and why should anyone, assume that there would be any physical evidence for a mythical event?

Isn't it funny how mythical events and ficticious events both leave the exact same type of evidence? NONE.

If someone claims there was an event, and there is no evidence of that event when it should have reasonably left evidence behind, what is the most rational conclusion? That magic sky man came and removed all the evidence because of reasons, or the event never actually happened?

Myths don't make any claims. They use symbols, and metaphors, and analogues to illuminate conceptual ideals.

And thus can't be assumed to be factual accounts. So a mythical story about an event does not mean that the event actually happened - juts like what is in the Bible.

Myths are not reality. They are artificial depictions of reality intended to help us see reality more fully, and as something more that just a collection of meaningless molecules. So why should anyone presume them to be 'compatible' with reality? Why are you?

I'm not. I'm saying that the entire Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories that probably have little to no bearing on reality at all. I'm an atheist.

 

[Tiberius]

No, they are a theist who doesn't believe in Shiva. To label a theist as an atheist is abusing the word atheist and stretching its definition beyond what it includes.
Throwing labels on people doesn't make it accurate. Christians, Muslims, Hindus, they are theist. The word atheist does not apply to them, because an atheist is "without god," and theist are "with god."

I disagree with you there, I take "atheist" to mean "lacking a belief in God," so a Christian is an atheist with regards to Shiva since the Christian lacks a belief in Shiva.

But even if I grant you your position, that would still indicate that atheism is not a religion, since a religious belief involves believing in a god of some description, and atheists lack that.

We don't have an idea of anything when we are born. Infants don't even understand the permanence of an object. Trying to say they are theist or atheist is just absurd. They are outside of that rigid dichotomy, and remain so until they are able to decide.

As I've said, I take atheist to mean a lack of belief in God. According to this definition, if a baby lacks a belief in a god - for whatever reason - then they are an atheist. Lacking a belief in God because you can't comprehend the concept of a god is still lacking a belief in God.

 

[PureX]

Isn't it funny how mythical events and ficticious events both leave the exact same type of evidence? NONE.

Why do you think people write those stories, just to entertain you? Or perhaps they are trying to convey to you a view of reality that is new to you. That is different from yours, and that you may find more useful and truthful than the one you now hold. You seem to be implying that fiction is a lie of some sort. But in many ways fiction can reveal the truth better than reality does. How can you not see this?

If someone claims there was an event, and there is no evidence of that event when it should have reasonably left evidence behind, what is the most rational conclusion? That magic sky man came and removed all the evidence because of reasons, or the event never actually happened?

The Star Wars Trilogy claimed events happened that have no substantiating evidence, whatever. And yet those stories revealed some truths about life and reality to a lot of people that they hadn't been able to recognize and appreciate, before reading them. Why can't you afford the same credit to religious myths, when so many people tell you that they derived similar life lessons from them? Are you just that prejudiced against anything religious?

And thus can't be assumed to be factual accounts. So a mythical story about an event does not mean that the event actually happened - juts like what is in the Bible.

One can assume them to be factual if they want to when there is no way of proving them otherwise. Maybe those events in the Star Wars Trilogy really did happen in that galaxy far, far away. Or maybe those events happened, but not exactly as the story tells of them. There is no way for you or I to determine this. So why are you spouting off so adamantly about how the Bible stories are absolutely not true, when they certainly could be at least partly true, and when you and I weren't there, and so can't know what really happened and what didn't? Again, this looks to me like pure bias on your part, based on the fact that these specific stories are part of a religious agenda.

I'm saying that the entire Bible is nothing more than a collection of stories that probably have little to no bearing on reality at all.

But what you don't seem to understand is that you don't get to decide how they 'bear on reality' because you have no way of actually knowing this. You wouldn't presume to tell everyone else that they can't find any significant meaning and truth in the Star Wars Trilogy, would you? So why are you spouting off about how outrageous you think it is that anyone would find such meaning or truth in biblical mythology? Especially when religious mythology is designed and intended to do exactly that for people.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Forced Justice (Religion) vs. Natural Justice (No Religion)

Christian Animism… earth-based, creation-focussed spirituality, God's living prescence within all matter

I'm sure you think that this makes sense.

BTW: you never responded to my point at the start of the thread. If you think that atheism is a religion, then you agree that it should get all the rights, benefits, and privileges of a religion, right?

 

[LuisDantas]

1. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
2. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.

Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:

1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. It does not mean without belief in God(s)

---------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
---------------------------------------------------------------

atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Whereas God = Nature's God, God of the Universe, The Designer/Architect etc.

United States Declaration of Independence: "...When in the course of human events [ie. ALL GODS], it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God [ie. ALL GODS] entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation..."​

Premise 1: Disbelief in the existence of Nature's God(s).

Assumption 1. refusal to accept that Nature's God(s) is true or real.

Hidden 1: Is a belief, Atheist's set of belief
Hidden 2: Is a faith (no proof to counter #255)
Argumentum ad lapidem is a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity.​

​

Assumption 2. Counterargument against Nature's God(s) #255​

Premise 2: Lack of belief in the existence of Nature's God(s).

Assumption 1. Without belief in Nature's Gods, or <- Strawman

Assumption 2. Both belief and disbelief in Nature's God(s).​

Hidden 1: Pure Agnostic/Equiprobable
Hidden 2: Weak Atheist/Skeptic
Hidden 3: De-facto Atheist/Improbable​

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THEREFORE: Atheism is a Religion [with 320,000,000 God(s)]
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am so sorry, but this really does not make sense.

 

[Matheist]

I am so sorry, but this really does not make sense.

God is Nature's God... that's what all religious people; all MANKIND.. AGREE with.

Atheist disbelief in the Nature's God.