Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[sealybobo]

The generic god that most people on USMB argue for, it really doesn't matter if there is or isn't a god.

The only people that argue for a generic god are the atheists who have to define god their way so that no one else can offer any evidence that such a god can exist. Most believers believe in a god that is very much the opposite of generic.

So really the only god that I argue against is the one you say will send me to hell if I don't believe in him or the Muslim one that says kill anyone who isn't a muslim. And I'm sure you have to be a Mormon or Jehova to go to heaven right?

Then why the fuck do you keep arguing with me? I have actually pointed out that Hell isn't real, yet you insist the god I think might be real does not exist. Perhaps you have had your head up your ass, or perhaps you are a lying sack of shit. Either way, you end up looking like a fool.

All other gods are harmless.

Ever here of Shiva? Pretty sure the nickname the Destroyer isn't an indication of harmlessness. Then we have gods like Ares and Guan Yu, neither of which are noted for being harmless.

So if not believing in YOUR GOD is a religion, where do I join?

In your ignorant excuse for a brain, where else?

If I'm obsessed about your god it's because your stories are so god damn stupid and you were clearly brainwashed to believe such stupid stories. The more I hear the less I believe. The other day am radio they were talking about ancient revelations that came true. First off, so fucking what and second off, prove it? Or show me a new proficy fulfilled. Tell me one that has yet to be fullfilled and that is coming up, besides the end of the world. The mark of the beast? You freaking kooks crack me up.

You really should study some comparative mythology.

Better yet, read all those fairy tales you think are suitable for children in their original forms.

Why not instead I should just call that preacher on my tv and give him my credit card so he can bless me after 10 easy payments of $77.

Do you argue with boss? He believes in a generic god. Oh,and so do you if you don't believe in hell.

Now I'm confused. Are you a christian? Which sect? Presby, Luteran, Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Jehova, Born again, non denom, greek orthodox, etc?

Now you have to tell us if you take the Adam, Moses & Noah stories literally or are they just allegories? And if they are, maybe the Jesus miracles didn't happen either. I mean those stories were all written 80 years or more after the fact.

Truth? I don't think so.

 

[PratchettFan]

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up. I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.[/QUOTE]

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain. Was Dawkins wrong? Because either he is wrong or you are.

I do try to clean it up but it seems every time I think I've figured it out the damn thing changes.[/QUOTE]

Ok.... I just give up. If anyone wants to talk with me they are just going to have to accept I'm incompetent and cut me some slack.

 

[alpine]

Because ATHEISM;

1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe
2. And especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies

So the conclusion; you may not be as much religious as other people are on this planet, but after all, you are religious by definition...

You continue to conflate "religion" and "theism". If you're asking about me personally, yes I am religious and no I am not a theist. You have to understand the distinction first and stop ramming them into the same thing like a Certs breath mint.

This:
1. Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Is still not a set of beliefs, which is essential to the definition. You can't make a religion out of an adjectival phrase. Can't do it. Again, if you don't articulate a reference, no one knows what the hell you're talking about. One cannot describe oneself as an "a-ican'tsaywhatitis-ist".

This is your definition, you put it out here btw.

Atheism Is concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe. Atheists are not bunch of people who just said "Meeeeh, I will just reject god today" one day out of nothing. They were concerned with the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe and especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, and they came to the conclusion of atheism. So you are defining atheism in here, just like any other religious person.

What is so hard here, I don't get....



Ahhhhhh, of course, how could I forget; religious people have beliefs, but yours are, what you call it, oh, right, FACTS.

Than let me apologize and make things straight; You are right, I am wrong. Atheism is not a religion.

But the only difference between a religion and atheism is; the naming of the perception.

Religious people have beliefs (what a disgusting word)

Atheists have FACTS (wohooo, look at the fanciness of this people, FACT!!! unfallible bitch...)




That makes ATHEISM the SMUG brother of the religion family.

...

No, you don't get to put your un-reason on the same shelf as my reason. (thank you, Bill Maher)

I am not saying they are the same. They are no where close being the same. But something being retared doesnt qualify you to ignore it, regret it, claim to be any less retarded when it comes to being retarded.

Just be real. Yes, I am an atheist. I have my beliefs that I call facts, because, I spent more time on them to understand.

Just say this, rather than to be a smug about it. Thats all I am saying. Because at the end, nothing is FACT when it comes to our perception of the world, no matter how educated it is....

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Why do you hate our Constitution? What part of "Separation of Church and State" do you not understand?

The part you think exist but really doesn't.

AKA, the part where you have the right to tell other people what they can say.

 

[Pogo]

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up. I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.[/QUOTE]

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain. Was Dawkins wrong? Because either he is wrong or you are..[/QUOTE]

Where does it say a "strong atheist" actually exists in the real world?

 

[PratchettFan]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".

If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...

This just in: Atheism is not a religion. Breaking news.
Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions. And that's three religions --- not four.

Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong. I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them. But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?

 

[sealybobo]

No. I don't see how that follows.

How can you reject a theory without referencing the theory you're rejecting?

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

Let me get this straight. You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe. We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?

I could tell you 100 fake stories. If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?

For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories. But you need to realize, we don't.

I say I'm a god. If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?

 

[PratchettFan]

As we said back at the beginning, there's no evidence that a number 7 actually exists; at least not in this thread. I think that's put there simply to establish the abstract extreme. Obviously one cannot "prove" a negative, but then we speak of beliefs, not facts.

Dude, you have got to clean these up. I don't know who quoted what at this point so I'm putting the entire thing in a quote box.

We don't need an example, we have Dawkins saying that a strong Atheist is 100% certain. Was Dawkins wrong? Because either he is wrong or you are..[/QUOTE]

Where does it say a "strong atheist" actually exists in the real world?[/QUOTE]

Where does it way any of them exist? What has that got to do with it? Dawkins says someone who is 100% certain there is no God is an Atheist. Is he wrong or not?

 

[PratchettFan]

You can not, therefore, you are bound to it, like atheism being bound to theism, religion...

Religions are real, gods are real, they are the production of our brain (just like other real thoughts we have) and a specific setup in our brain too. But this same specific setup also produce the atheistic view.

As a result, you either produce your christianity, islam, buddhism,... or atheism. Atheism is your own production just like the other views in religion. Your religious view is an atheistic one. You don't believe in gods, nor supernatural being, but some other things that make the universe as we know it, if you are an atheist.

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

Let me get this straight. You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe. We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?

I could tell you 100 fake stories. If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?

For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories. But you need to realize, we don't.

I say I'm a god. If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?

No. I never said that. But thank you for playing.

 

[Pogo]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".

If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...

This just in: Atheism is not a religion. Breaking news.
Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions. And that's three religions --- not four.

Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong. I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them. But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

Are you actually suggesting that religion requires theism?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Where is this "set of beliefs" in atheism addressing any of these questions at all? Where is a set of beliefs about anything?

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?" -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on. In a Catholic school.

Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!

 

[alpine]

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?" -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on. In a Catholic school.

Change "religion" with "love", you will see how your arguments not make sense at all.

Religion is a feeling, a very real one. Claiming otherwise is 1. would be silly, 2. against science and human evolutional psychology as we know it today...

I am just saying, you don;t have to believe me. You can go check it out and come back.

That doesn't make any sense. I didn't even use the word "religion" there.

"You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world."

This is what you quoted.

And claimed a lot of people feeling religion don't prove religion, right? Yes you did.

And I said religion and love, you can interchange, ad you will get a different conclusion.

A lot of people feeling love, well, magically proves it to be a reality, because, ah, right, it is not called religion..... Maybe even love is not real to you, you could be a hopeless one after all

But anyways, anything human beings experience, is real, because it has a projection in the brain itself. It is very physical, it is very real, just like any other emotions, thoughts, ideas you have.

 

[sealybobo]

Atheism is not a "production"; it's a rejection --- a void. What you DO believe (a positive) is irrelevant to the definition, as "atheist" tells us nothing about that belief. It only tells us one theory that is not present.

If I tell you "I am not wearing a kimono", I have not told you what I am wearing. I haven't even told you if I'm wearing clothes at all.

And no, you're certainly in no way "bound" to a concept you've dismissed. That's the whole point in dismissing it.

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

Let me get this straight. You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe. We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?

I could tell you 100 fake stories. If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?

For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories. But you need to realize, we don't.

I say I'm a god. If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?

No. I never said that. But thank you for playing.

You said you "think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent."

And I tried to explain to you belief has nothing to do with it. We simply don't believe your fairy tales. Takes no faith or belief.

And we don't "reject" your god. That too has been explained. If I told you to fly to Michigan and I have a perfect 10 millionaire woman waiting for you, are you rejecting her if you don't show up? No. You simply don't believe me.

 

[PratchettFan]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

I didn't say "in their religion", I said "in religion".

If religious people do exist, guess what also exists alongside; "religion". Because these people have one! Maybe you do not, but statistically, you most likely have one, in a different shape, like atheism...

This just in: Atheism is not a religion. Breaking news.
Buddhists and Jainists and Taoists are all atheists; yet they are all different religions. And that's three religions --- not four.

Speaking as a Buddhist, you have that one wrong. I'm not a Jainist or Taoist so I don't feel I should speak for them. But aren't you just arguing that you can not believe in gods and still be in a religion?

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

You have it wrong for Buddhism. It is not Atheistic.

I am saying pretty much the same thing. What you believe really doesn't matter. What matters is how you believe and how you act. Religion is an action.

 

[PratchettFan]

This is from one of Carla's first posts:

"
Here is the well-known Dawkins scale of belief (though I disagree with the title of (4) - see above):

1. Strong Theist: I do not question the existence of God, I KNOW he exists.
2. De-facto Theist: I cannot know for certain but I strongly believe in God and I live my life on the assumption that he is there.
3. Weak Theist: I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
4. Pure Agnostic: God’s existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.
5. Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists but I’m inclined to be skeptical.
6. De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable and I live my life under the assumption that he is not there.
7. Strong Atheist: I am 100% sure that there is no God.

I'm a number 6."

There is no objective evidence to support this position. A conclusion arrived at in the absence of evidence is a belief. It can't be anything but a belief. So the claim that Carla is just rejecting, that it is a "void", is just not true. Which means that either, according to your definition, Carla is not an Atheist or your definition of Atheism is wrong.

To use your analogy, what if when you are telling us you are not wearing a kimono you are standing in front of us wearing one?

Sorry, that analogy is inoperative. In order to see what I'm wearing, the cognate would require that we see into the atheist's mind to determine if his words match his thoughts. Not only can't we do that, it's irrelevant.

And more to the point of the thread, none of this is an argument that "atheism is a religion".

If the analogy is inappropriate you shouldn't have used it.

I stated earlier that religion is not just a word, it is action. I identified attributes of religion and I saw no disputes to those attributes. One of those attributes is that religion is based in belief. I think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent.

Let me get this straight. You say an imaginary man rules us and will send us to hell if we don't believe. We don't believe you and you want to claim our doubt in your story is a belief?

I could tell you 100 fake stories. If you doubt each one, does that mean your doubt in my stories are your "beliefs"?

For me to believe that, I would have to put a lot of importance on my stories, much like you theists do your stories. But you need to realize, we don't.

I say I'm a god. If you don't believe that, is this your new faith?

No. I never said that. But thank you for playing.

You said you "think the question of whether belief is involved in Atheism is certainly pertinent."

And I tried to explain to you belief has nothing to do with it. We simply don't believe your fairy tales. Takes no faith or belief.

And we don't "reject" your god. That too has been explained. If I told you to fly to Michigan and I have a perfect 10 millionaire woman waiting for you, are you rejecting her if you don't show up? No. You simply don't believe me.

Yes, I did say what you quoted. Thank you for demonstrating my point.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Beavers build dams instinctively. Men learned to build dams from seeing the results of what beavers did naturally (by instinct). Concrete dams do not exist in nature. They are man made after a learning process.

I learned to build dams by throwing rocks into the path of the rain water than ran down the hill behind the house I grew up in, I have never actually seen a beaver build a dam. I guess that makes you wrong, not to mention incredibly stupid.

How do you explain the existence of dams in places that have no beavers to teach humans about them, like China? Did they learn through ESP?

Huts and houses did not occur until man learned to build them. The first humans had no houses. Many lived in caves. Many learned that getting under a tree of a pile of leaves gave them some shelter. Man's building of homes was a learned practice, not a natural instinct.

Seriously? How do you know that? After all, apes are known to build shelters, and we have a common ancestor. Is this another example of your incredible stupidity?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Have you ever seen a Bigfoot?

If you did, would you believe the reality of a Bigfoot?

Have you ever seen a "religious" person?..................



The evidence to religion, is the religious people you see all around you, every day, multiple times.

Now that's some serious indoctrination going on. I only have the strength to address your post in small doses.

First, to answer your first two questions...

1. No, I have never seen Bigfoot

2. If I were to see Bigfoot, yes, I would believe in Bigfoot, but only if I knew for certain that my mind was in tact. For example, If I had been drinking wine, I would question my sobriety. If I dropped a hit of acid, I would probably blame it on the acid. See what I'm saying?

I think both of us know I'm never going to actually see Bigfoot, and just because others say it's so, doesn't make it so.

Now your next question and statement is totally mind boggling to me. It appears that you base your religious beliefs on mob mentality.

3. Yes, I've seen religious people, and yes, I do believe religious people do exist.

That doesn't automatically mean that I have to believe in their religion.

There are over one billion people in this world who believe in Allah. Does that make you a Muslim? Does that mean they are correct, just because they are out there, with billions of examples?

Wait, you just wrote "Allah". That makes you "bound to Islam".
According to the same logic...

I guess we all are! LOL!

.

 

[PratchettFan]

[

Speaking as a Taoist/Jainist, no I have that one right.
Poorly constructed but yes I am saying you can not-believe in gods (i.e. not subscribe to theism) and still be in a religion.

Just as you can not-believe (not subscribe to) the concept of reincarnation and still be in a religion. Which does not make not-subscribing to reincarnation a "religion".

Same thing.

Are you actually suggesting that religion requires theism?[/QUOTE]

Trying again, let's see what nightmare of formatting this creates.

Tell me about Jainism. My ignorance is almost total. Consider this a side bar.

 

[sealybobo]

It is in your reasoning. Your "facts" are your beliefs, no matter how solid they are.

Even math, the mother of solid thinking, sterile from all human presumptions, is a belief after all, is a perception. Claiming "atheism" is apart from all this, standing as a fact, as a void, that just doesn't make sense.

Atheism is your religious point of view. When someone asks you: "What is your religious view?", you could answer "I am a christian" or you could say "I am an atheist".

You know why? Because you can not reject "religion". It is as hard fact as any fact you rely on during your reasoning. That is the reason why you can not ignore or simply dismiss religion as a whole, but forced to create your own point of view in it, based on your beliefs.

concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Oh my, you most certainly can reject religion.

You can not reject the reality of something, that has billions of examples all around the world.

That would be silly, innit?

More mob mentality...

As they used to tell me in elementary school, "if everybody else jumped in the lake would you jump in too?" -- always in response to a kid that explained his reasoning that he did something "because everybody else did it".

I have to thank the for teaching that fallacy early on. In a Catholic school.

Well, I gotta say, I really, really, like the new Pope!

Which Popes didn't you like? And why did you stay with the church through those times? So it really doesn't matter if you like the pope or not, right?

There were some really evil Popes. The Catholic church lost its way a long time ago. Anyone who knows history knows we had corrupt popes. So, knowing this to be true, why would anyone follow a church that sometimes is corrupt and has lost its way and sometimes is good? If I'm going to put my faith into something, I want to believe it is always good and right. Unfortunately if you are born at the wrong time you have to wait for an evil pope to die before you MIGHT get a good one.

The 6 Most Awful Popes

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Science is not a religion. Science is a process, a methodology for discovery. Science postulates nothing, it merely offers the tools for people to test what they postulate.

I never said science is a religion, I pointed out that it fits the definition of religion that Pogo insists is the only possible definition because he is always right. I did so to point out that he is wrong.