Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[CynthiaZ]

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.

No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?

How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.

 

[Hollie]

Aww, you're angry.

It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.

You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.

Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.

I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.

If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?

I have provided such proof.

Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.

Do your gawds do tricks?

I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.

And no my God does not do tricks.

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.

So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?

I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.

If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?

I have provided such proof.

Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.

Do your gawds do tricks?

I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.

And no my God does not do tricks.

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.

So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?

If you did provide proof then surely you can reference where in this thread you provided them after I asked because I must have missed them or perhaps your proofs got lost in the mail.

You missed them. Try paying attention.

Now, let’s examine what religion proposes. When you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists-- I would say that qualifies as being under a delusion.

 

[sealybobo]

Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.

I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.

If you believe that your position is rational why do you refuse to provide any proof that it is?

I have provided such proof.

Why don't you entertain us with something to rationally assess your gawds as true and extent to the exclusion of all the other true and extant gawds.

Do your gawds do tricks?

I have asked more than a couple of times to provide some proof that your position is rational and you have yet to deliver.

And no my God does not do tricks.

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.

So tell us about the rational basis you have for your gawds, spirit realms, supernaturalism. Does your vision of heaven include fat, naked babies playing harps?

Dont explain it again. Or just go ahead and show her all around the universe but remember you have to be in all places at all times because while you are showing her one part of the galaxy god could be hiding on another. And god is outside of time and space so good luck debunking that hooey if someone is dumb enough to believe it.

I dont think as many people as we think really take the bible seriously. They know its a fairytale but they grew up to it or it saved them when they were low. Whatever. Knowledge is power.

 

[sealybobo]

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.

No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?

How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.

Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.

 

[Hollie]

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.

No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?

How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.

So, your argument is as important and profound as "what's for lunch"

 

[Hollie]

The only reason I spend so much time on religion is I think its not good for people and its holding us back in so many ways.

The reason why you spend your time disparaging religion and the adherents of religion and believe that religion is some sort of evil that is harming humankind and human progress is because you are simply a bigot. You are a bigot who is looking for a scapegoat to blame just because you can't for the life of you understand why the world isn't the way you want it to be. So you need someone to blame, and in your mind it all has to be the fault of religion. That is just irrational bigotry that makes you no better than racists who blame every problem that vexes civilization on what ever minority they hate the most.

Aww, you're angry.

It's just unfortunate for you angry fundamentalists that religion actually is the evil that is fomenting wars across the planet today, as it has historically.

You christian Taliban are really no different than the islamist Taliban.

Omg I called her out for being the only one who's angry too.

I just find it mind blowing how their lives are consumed with attaching religion to a rational position that rejects religious doctrines.

You don't reject having religious doctrines. You reject God. You're religious in your objection...just can't accept that because religion generally relates to God and you don't want to have any connection.

And your very existence is affected by that.

 

[CynthiaZ]

you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists

I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.

 

[sealybobo]

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.

No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?

How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.

What is the meaning of your life? I suspect you may want to leave your mark and hopefully leave the world a better place. I
What is the meaning of a dogs life? What is the meaning of gods existence? Its an unanswerable question unless you have the answer?

 

[sealybobo]

you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists

I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.

Then dont call it god.

 

[CynthiaZ]

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.

No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?

How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.

Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.

I am beginning to think the concept of non-overlapping magesteria in beyond your ken.

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.

Then simply point out where you provided those proofs.

 

[sealybobo]

you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists

I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.

This is where we make the mistake and ask what you believe. Just tell us the differences and what makes you believe what you do.

 

[sealybobo]

And your god isnt even a basic theory let alone a scientific one. God is only a hypothesis.

No, God is not a scientific hypothesis. God is a metaphysical concept and as such discussion about God is a discussion of metaphysics and not the physical sciences.

I said a scientific theory not scientific hypothesis. God is simply a hypothesis unless you really believe he visited or talks to you then you believe its a fact. Do you?

How does a metaphysical concept such as God or even "Meaning" fall under the purview of the physical sciences? They don't.

Then it doesnt exist in any meaningful way. If you want to teach right and wrong do it without the lies. Then I'll get it.

I am beginning to think the concept of non-overlapping magesteria in beyond your ken.

I have delivered to you more than a couple of times the proof you asked for.

Then simply point of where you provided those proofs.

Ashmuunchinnoweroo. "What?"

 

[CynthiaZ]

you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists

I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.

Then dont call it god.

Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.

 

[sealybobo]

you say you believe in an entity that cannot be seen, cannot be felt, exists outside of the natural realm in an asserted supernatural realm, that has attributes we need to worship but cannot understand or even describe, who lives in eternity in both directions, who can create existence from nothing and is uncreated himself and uses methods and means we can never know or hope to understand, that stands outside proof which is exactly why it's for certain he exists

I never said I believe in any of that. Not all theists believe that God is personal and nor do we all we God as some sort of supernatural extraterrestrial entity.

Then dont call it god.

Why not? Different religious traditions have different conceptions of God. I told you before that we do not all believe the same no matter how hard you try to lump us all together.

Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.

 

[Treeshepherd]

I'm afraid you're just a pointless spammer, not even one with a high EQ; Entertainment Quotient.

Just once, I would hope that you christian fundies would not attempt to spackle your gawds into every conceivable crack with the silly and tired "Argument of the uncaused cause". It long ago became tedious and it's no more valid, useful or interesting now than centuries ago. Even if we were to abandon every inquisitive brain cell and slouch into the stupor of religious fundamentalism, to mindlessly accept the intellectual dead end of your religious dogma that requires belief in polytheistic gawds who by magical means were responsible for the inception of the universe tells us nothing about the nature of that cause.

It doesn't tell us whether or not it is planned, intelligent, personal, conscious, arbitrary, loving, cruel, or even whether or not it has a "creator" of its own.

Bottom line is that your frail attempt, and that of the other self-hating, science-loathing fundie cranks who arbitrarily pick a point on some presumed chain of causality and call it "Gawds" is not an argument of any value to anybody. It helps no one's crank fundamentalist position, and in the armory of fundie christian apologetics, it doesn’t even qualify as a cap gun.

I'm one of the few persons here attempting to define the common postulations of atheists. That makes me one of the few non-spammers.

A fundamentalist tends to support socially conservative laws and a literal interpretation of the scripture. That isn't me. Your insistence on putting me in that box causes me to think you haven't much discernment. Maybe to you anyone who has metaphysical theories is a fundamentalist. That would be an awfully broad stereotype.

You call me a self-hating, and a crank. My response to that is that you don't exactly come across as the embodiment of mirth, Hollie. Anyway, you won't answer a simple question, so I'll move on to someone else.

Maybe sealybobo can help me.

 

[Treeshepherd]

sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.

You said,

The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.

I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?

 

[CynthiaZ]

Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.

How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.

 

[Treeshepherd]

How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.

Well said.

As I've always said, war is fought over territory, resources and political power. There's also the biological fact that genetic kindred compete violently against other genetic kindred from bacteria all the way up to humans. As you put it, it's in our human nature. Religion is merely a tool that has been often exploited, like nationalism/jingoism or the modern appeal to fight the 'humanitarian war'.

Clearly from the opinions of atheists/agnostics here, religion is viewed the primary cause of war and violence in the world. That doesn't seem to be an opinion derived from a science like sociology.

 

[sealybobo]

sealy, I'm making a list of common atheist postulations. The first atheist postulation is this; 1. the universe is uncaused.

You said,

The honest answer is we dont know. You claim to know, which is why science is discovering the real answers not theists. Theists claim to already know.

I don't know anything for sure, just for the record, but forget about me. We're talking about atheism. Do you say you don't know because you are agnostic rather than atheist? If so, would you agree that an atheist would say we live in an accidental universe?

Why does it have to be accidental?

 

[sealybobo]

Militant athiests in the future won't be so bad when religions stop saying non believers burn for eternity.

How optimistic of you. Very naive but we can't fault you for your optimism. I noticed something about some atheists. You have the tendency to ignore some basic facts about the nature of this world and in particular you ignore the basic facts about human nature. We are always going to have conflict. We will have conflict even if religion were to disappear tomorrow. It is in our nature to conflict with not only other human beings but with the natural world. To deny this very basic truth is to deny reality. We live in a hostile and violent world and we ourselves are hostile and violent by nature. Those are the facts of life.

We already hear many christians say they dont believe non christians go to hell. 300 years ago they burned non christians. We've come a long way.

Humans will always find things to argue and worry about. That doesnt mean we shouldnt try to eliminate things we argue and worry about.