Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Carla_Danger]

Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck....must be a duck!

You just described your own religion. You walk into the same building, preach from the same Bible, and look alike.

You're projecting your own indoctrination onto others, because you can't fathom it any other way.

 

[sealybobo]

Hi Emily

I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.

To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
Ideally never the twain shall meet.

I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.

Ah but that's a false relationship -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool. Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.

It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state. It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest. That's what I meant by "ideally".

Are you dumb or trying to play stupid? We all know how the GOP used racism to win over the south and it is well documented how Reagan made an unholy alliance with the moral majority/bible belt, religious right and Reagan paid them back for their support. Bush 2 did too, big time! I even saw what I thought was a liberal or at least moderate/neutral church say vote to the right because of abortion.

So religion is another wedge issue that the rich use to divide the middle class or the not rich voters. Guns, Gays, Abortion & Racism.

 

[sealybobo]

"Dawkins likely made up those definitions to keep his pet, Atheism from being defined as a religion" doesn't make any sense anyway --- atheism doesn't need to "keep from being defined as a religion" any more than grapefruit or a piano bench does. They simply fail to possess the characteristics of a religion.

Basically what the revisionistas are doing is:

Actually, we need to change the perception and debunk the myths about atheism. When I was growing up I thought atheism was evil or devil worship. No one explained to me it simply means people who don't believe in god. That's bullshit. Why do you have to lie to your kids about the alternative? I would think you would want to present both sides but instead you just tell them a million stories about how god punished the non believers and will punish you in hell if you don't believe. That's bullshit.

Last night I was flippin channels and the theist show said something like, "faith is walking with you eyes closed"

I agree.

 

[sealybobo]

......<snip>

I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.

It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.

1. Atheism takes faith / is a religion.
   Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
   
   Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
   
   Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
   
   “To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

I think 99% of atheists will admit they can not say 100% they know but I bet they would say they are 99.99999% sure there is no god because they see no proof and the only proof we claim to have are books filled with impossible stories and then if we ask to many questions ultimately we are told that we just have to have blind faith.

To an atheist, it is just so obvious there is no god. But we can't claim to know so the actual best position to have is to say you are an agnostic atheist. Can't say for sure but pretty sure god is all made up.

An agnostic is too wishy washy. They aren't sure. Not convinced. Don't lean either way.

Am I right atheists? Does any atheist here say they know 100% for sure nothing made us?

The whole intelligent design stuff, adam, god, eve, moses, mohammad, jesus, this we are certain is bullshit. 100% sure.

 

[sealybobo]

Zeus is made up too.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

 

[Pogo]

Hi Emily

I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.

To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
Ideally never the twain shall meet.

I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.

Ah but that's a false relationship -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool. Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.

It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state. It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest. That's what I meant by "ideally".

Are you dumb or trying to play stupid? We all know how the GOP used racism to win over the south and it is well documented how Reagan made an unholy alliance with the moral majority/bible belt, religious right and Reagan paid them back for their support. Bush 2 did too, big time! I even saw what I thought was a liberal or at least moderate/neutral church say vote to the right because of abortion.

So religion is another wedge issue that the rich use to divide the middle class or the not rich voters. Guns, Gays, Abortion & Racism.

Of course they did. And as noted above it's an illegitimate relationship. They have no business being conflated. And they really weren't conflated before the "moral majority" bullshit came along, which was simple political (not religious) demagoguery -- using religion as a tool for politics.

No I'm not stupid. I see all too well what's been going on. When I grew up there was no such thing as an association between religion and politics; association with one particular party or religion simply had nothing to do with one's religion or party. That's what I mean by a "false relationship". Which is exactly what I said up there -- a wedge issue.

And the term I believe is "God, Guns and Gays". Three easy emotional hooks used for hoodwinking in the naked quest for votes. Rationale based on divisive emotional cheap hooks is bullshit rationale.

And I'll repeat without hesitation, it has no place in a nation founded exactly to get away from that bullshit. What part of that do you disagree with?

 

[sealybobo]

......<snip>

I wish it was so I could go to services and get the tax write offs.

It probably upsets some of us because it is simply not true.

1. Atheism takes faith / is a religion.
   Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color, or not collecting stamps a hobby.
   
   Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a god or gods, nothing more. It is the default position of doubt, uncertainty and skepticism one may have regarding claims made by theists. Just as it takes no faith to lack belief or remain uncertain concerning any other imaginable claim, it takes none to doubt the existence of a god or gods.
   
   Atheism has no sacred texts, objects, places or times, no rituals or creation stories, no positive beliefs, central tenants, modes of worship or supernatural claims, no implicit or derived moral codes, philosophies or world views and no central organization or church. It fulfills none of the criteria that define a religion.
   
   “To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

You have a desperate need to convince yourself of false premises that have been explained to you as being false.

You have a desperate need to use your religious belief like a bloody truncheon.

Absolutely not. I am desperate about nothing...except maybe about having my next meal. The premises I stated are not false. The explanations in the rebuttal thereof are.

Don't expect me to trust you.

I don't push my religious beliefs on anyone. Atheists do in their incessant attacks on all religions except their godless Atheism.

You must have faith in the belief that gods do not exist because you cannot prove it....just as I have faith that God exists because I cannot prove it.

Why don't you switch to Agnosticism? Then you can safely claim there is no religion that describes what you think about gods and such.

But I guess it is repugnant for you know-it-all Atheists to say something as hideous as, "I don't know!"

We see no sign that gods exist. And lets separate the herd here. So like Jews, Muslims, Mormons, Greek Gods, etc. So you believe in one of these versions of God or a generic version altogether? Kind of important here because I want to ask you if you are not a Mormon, Jehova or Muslim are these three different "faiths" of yours? Because we are all atheists. You just happen to believe in one more god than I do.

“Science adjusts it’s understanding based on what’s observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved.” – Tim Minchin

To say that atheism requires faith is as dim-witted as saying that disbelief in pixies or leprechauns takes faith. Even if Einstein himself told me there was an elf on my shoulder, I would still ask for proof and I wouldn’t be wrong to ask.” – Geoff Mather

Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

Faith is absolute trust or confidence in a belief. Conversely, scientific theories are inherently falsifiable – meaning they can be proven wrong. No claims of absolute truth are believed or need to be taken ‘on faith’ in science because none are made. True scientists say, “We are aware that our theories and conclusions are not perfect, just the best fit for the available evidence”.

Scientific knowledge is a form of justified belief grounded in empirical evidence and the demonstrable reliability of the scientific method. Faith is an unjustified belief based on fantasy, superstition and wishful thinking.

 

[sealybobo]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Nope. Only that a belief is a belief. If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief. It can't be anything else. So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Science converges on the truth via questioning. Its solutions and explanations do not differ between nations or cultures because they can be tested by anyone, anywhere, anytime. Whatever knowledge science produces is valid everywhere. Religion, on the other hand, diverges into a myriad of forms and beliefs based on individual experiences and interpretations which cannot be tested against reality.

Science is the pursuit of truth, not the presumption of it.

 

[sealybobo]

Hi Emily

I'm still going to insist that "politics" and "religion" have nothing to do with each other and that conflating them only serves to muddy the waters as long as we grope for definitions of either.

To oversimplify to a nice sound bite: Politics addresses the machinations of the world; Religion addresses the machinations of the otherworld.
Ideally never the twain shall meet.

I think they do have a lot to do with each other especially since the GOP started using god as a wedge issue to divide poor and middle class voters.

Ah but that's a false relationship -- a misuse by one of the other as a tool. Anyone with half a brain should have seen/should see right through that false relationship.

It has no validity in a nation founded on the denial of the power of the First Estate, i.e. the divorce of church from state. It's naught but demagoguery and as such, dishonest. That's what I meant by "ideally".

Are you dumb or trying to play stupid? We all know how the GOP used racism to win over the south and it is well documented how Reagan made an unholy alliance with the moral majority/bible belt, religious right and Reagan paid them back for their support. Bush 2 did too, big time! I even saw what I thought was a liberal or at least moderate/neutral church say vote to the right because of abortion.

So religion is another wedge issue that the rich use to divide the middle class or the not rich voters. Guns, Gays, Abortion & Racism.

Of course they did. And as noted above it's an illegitimate relationship. They have no business being conflated. And they really weren't conflated before the "moral majority" bullshit came along, which was simple political (not religious) demagoguery -- using religion as a tool for politics.

No I'm not stupid. I see all too well what's been going on. When I grew up there was no such thing as an association between religion and politics; association with one particular party or religion simply had nothing to do with one's religion or party. That's what I mean by a "false relationship". Which is exactly what I said up there -- a wedge issue.

And the term I believe is "God, Guns and Gays". Three easy emotional hooks used for hoodwinking in the naked quest for votes. Rationale based on divisive emotional cheap hooks is bullshit rationale.

And I'll repeat without hesitation, it has no place in a nation founded exactly to get away from that bullshit. What part of that do you disagree with?

None of it.

 

[PratchettFan]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Nope. Only that a belief is a belief. If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief. It can't be anything else. So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist. It's a relative term - hence the scale. The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities. Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.

I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.

No. You said it, that doesn't make it true. I personally know people who say they are certain there are no gods, as well as people who are certain there is. I am quite certain that Jehovah in all of its incarnations does not exist. And it changes nothing. A belief is not an absence of belief. So if your definition is correct then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

I would also point out that unquestioning adherence to a definition even when presented with clear evidence that it is wrong is the essence of dogma. So we have group identity, belief and dogma. i.e.... religion.

 

[PratchettFan]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

 

[PratchettFan]

Atheism is not the lack of belief in a god or gods. That would be Agnosticism which is not a religion.

Atheism is the belief that a god or gods do not exist. That belief is held on faith as it cannot be proved. That faith is the doctrine of Atheism. Atheism is a religion....a religion without a god.

We've gone over this since page two...

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.

Which supports the claim that Atheism is not a lack of belief. Unless you have evidence to support your thinking God is very improbable, then that is a belief - not a lack of belief. And number 7 is entirely belief. So either that definition is wrong or you are not an Atheist.

What is the problem with number 4?

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

Then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

Maybe you're not really an agnostic. It's just a weasel-word for people afraid of confrontation. The vast majority of agnostics hasn't thought very hard, nor done any research. That doesn't seem to be the case with you.

Interesting. So you are saying my position is faulty because I'm not ignorant enough?

It really is simple. You hold a position you have no evidence to support. How is that not a belief?

 

[sealybobo]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Nope. Only that a belief is a belief. If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief. It can't be anything else. So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist. It's a relative term - hence the scale. The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities. Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.

I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.

No. You said it, that doesn't make it true. I personally know people who say they are certain there are no gods, as well as people who are certain there is. I am quite certain that Jehovah in all of its incarnations does not exist. And it changes nothing. A belief is not an absence of belief. So if your definition is correct then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

I would also point out that unquestioning adherence to a definition even when presented with clear evidence that it is wrong is the essence of dogma. So we have group identity, belief and dogma. i.e.... religion.

Seriously, ask the atheists again and be clear. You are not talking about the god that created earth and put adam here and flooded the earth. You are just talking about some thing, perhaps on the other side of a black hole that shit or jizzed into the black hole and his spunk or dukey is the stuff that made our universe. Who knows? Anything is possible. We might be inside a snow globe the kind you shake. An atheist has to admit he doesn't have all the answers. He never claimed to though. All he can say is based on the evidence, he sees no god(s) and the evidence he does see tells him man made up this idea of god a long time ago when we were very primitive curious superstitious and frightened animals.

Anyone who says they are SURE there is no god, is just telling you they are pretty sure. 99.999999% sure. That's where I am. I give god .000001% chance of being real.

And even if a god exists, he doesn't care about you. That comes from the ancient primitive superstitious and frightened ancestors and corrupt churches/rich/kings who used religion to control the masses. This god we are 100% sure doesn't exist even though we weren't there because all the stories are so stupid. From the Greek Gods to the Mormons, you guys are all silly.

 

[sealybobo]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

Ok it's a belief. Not only do I believe that, I believe it's bad for people. I know theists do a lot of good but they can keep on doing good long after they realize there is no god. Atheists do good things too you know. There is a whole thread on it. No god necessary to be good.

 

[Carla_Danger]

...<snip>...

It's an absence of belief in a particular theory --- obviously not a lack of belief in anything.
I believe it will not rain today. That doesn't make amateur meteorology a "religion".

Regardless what it's an absence of belief in, religion is never comprised of "beliefs that are not present". On the contrary, like any other belief system, it needs positive statements to build on. When we say someone's an "atheist" all we're saying is, "of the different modalities of religious belief systems, theism is not one that is present in this one."

It's really kind of shorter to say "atheist". Saves time.

You are again confusing agnosticism with atheism.

Atheists share the belief that that are no gods. That is a belief that is held by Atheists. It is not a "belief that is not present".

Actually, when we say someone's an Atheist, all we're saying is, "the person believes there is no god".

We do not share the belief that there are no Gods. You are incorrect. I have no evidence that there is a God, so I live my life under the assumption that there isn't.

You think God probably does not exist. You have said this yourself on more than one occasion. That is a belief. Calling it not a belief does not change what it is. Pogo posted a picture of a banana which is a very apt example of that.

Now, explain how I can build a Church on that foundation. You cannot define a religion with "probably not." Now lets go out and try to sell it.

knock, knock...

Who's there?

Probably no one

Who?

 

[sealybobo]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

 

[sealybobo]

And I don't need to know 100% for sure there is no god. 99.99% is good enough for me. The rest I guess I just have to have faith I'm right.

If god is playing marco polo with us he's going to have to be honest when he says marco and polo.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Ludicrous arguments. Like prevailing theories in cosmology, interesting food for thought but most can never be proven, thus we relegate all such arguments to the realm of "theology" or "faith". Atheism is a faith, because no atheist has yet been able to prove his counter-theological argument, yet they expend no small amount of energy trying to browbeat people into believing there's is the only true faith. He accepts on faith that there is no God, just as others accept on faith that there is.

I don't have faith that there is no God. I cannot be 100% sure of what happens when we die.. As a matter of fact, I miss the comfort I got out of religion back when I was a believer. I just don't see any evidence that there is a God, so I don't live my life as if a God exists. (that's lack of faith)

When I became convinced that the universe was natural, that all the ghosts and gods were myths, there entered into my brain, into my soul, into every drop of my blood, the sense, the feeling, the joy of freedom. The walls of my prison crumbled and fell. The dungeon was flooded with light and all the bolts and bars and manacles turned to dust. I was no longer a servant, a serf, or a slave. There was for me no master in all the wide world, not even in infinite space.

I was free to think. Free to express my thoughts, free to live in my own ideal. Free to live for myself and those I loved. Free to use all my faculties, all my senses. Free to spread imagination’s wings, free to investigate, to guess, and dream and hope. Free to judge and determine for myself. Free to reject all ignorant and cruel creeds, all the inspired books that savages have produced, and the barbarous legends of the past. Free from sanctified mistakes and “holy” lies. Free from the fear of eternal pain, free from the winged monsters of the night. Free from devils, ghosts and gods. For the first time I was free.

There were no prohibited places in all of the realm of thought. No error, no space where fancy could not spread her painted wings. No chains for my limbs. No lashes for my back. No flames for my flesh. No Master’s frown or threat, no following in another’s steps. No need to bow or cringe or crawl, or utter lying words. I was free; I stood erect and fearlessly, joyously faced all worlds.

My heart was filled with gratitude, with thankfulness, and went out in love to all the heros, the thinkers who gave their lives for liberty of hand and brain, for the freedom of labor and thought to those who fell on the fierce fields of war. To those who died in dungeons, bound in chains, to those by fire consumed, to all the wise, the good, the brave of every land whose thoughts and deeds have given freedom to the sons of men. And then, I vowed to grasp the torch that they held, and hold it high, That light might conquer darkness still.

-Robert Green Ingersoll (1833-1899)

I think that many non-believers do not take life for granted. If this is all we've got, we had better make the most of it.

 

[Pogo]

It sounds like you guys are now trying to draw a distinction between:

(a) doesn't believe "god" exists, (absence/rejection of theism) and
(b) belief (positive belief) that "'god' absolutely does not exist"

?
(b) would be a positive belief of a negative. That's pretty much impossible.
We don't believe unicorns exist, because we have no such evidence. But if one suddenly crossed the road in front of us, we would then have evidence and would have to adopt the belief that they do exist. That's not the same as purporting to declare "unicorns absolutely do not exist". No one is in a position to say that.

Either way, it doesn't really matter -- one is the absence of a positive belief, the other is a positive belief in a negative. Even if the latter were possible, neither one, having no religious philosophy of its own, qualifies as a "religion". Just as a pedestrian walking on the street doesn't qualify as "automotive traffic".

Nope. Only that a belief is a belief. If a position is held without any objective evidence to support it, it is a belief. It can't be anything else. So if Atheism is an absence of belief, then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

We noted way back at the beginning of this thread that atheism as an absolute cannot exist. It's a relative term - hence the scale. The absolute has to be included in the scale to give it boundaries that include all possibilities. Just as the thermometer outside your window may read down to minus 50 -- doesn't mean that temperature is ever going to happen.

I've had many a car equipped with a speedometer that reads up to 120 mph, which cars were in no way capable of achieving that.

No. You said it, that doesn't make it true. I personally know people who say they are certain there are no gods, as well as people who are certain there is. I am quite certain that Jehovah in all of its incarnations does not exist. And it changes nothing. A belief is not an absence of belief. So if your definition is correct then Carla is not an Atheist and Dawkins is wrong.

I would also point out that unquestioning adherence to a definition even when presented with clear evidence that it is wrong is the essence of dogma. So we have group identity, belief and dogma. i.e.... religion.

Definitions are not "religions" -- those are called "the dictionary".

There is no "group" to have "identity" -- it's a term of exclusion, not inclusion. The set of "all people who do not have blue eyes" would be a similar "group" --- doesn't make them a "group" or give them anything "in common". Rather it gives them something "not in common".

Nor is there "dogma" -- there is the opposite, the absence of (one particular) dogma. Nor is there the otherworld-view that is necessary to constitute a religion -- none at all.

I don't know who the **** Dawkins is. It's irrelevant. Carla can speak for herself and already has. But it's always curious when some wag purports to tell a third party what their beliefs are.