Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Quantum Windbag]

This is the one I quoted and responded to. Michael Faraday would find Richard Dawkins terrifying CatholicHerald.co.uk

Which is not one of my links.

Interesting that you think that is a response to my actual post, isn't it?

 

[sealybobo]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

How old are you gramma.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".

that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......

Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"

you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....

 

[Tuatara]

No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist. I believe Zeus doesn't exist.

Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.

And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it. If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.

You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk. I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there. Very easy.

In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)" A better example of this is Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

I do not feel an absence of belief is the same as belief. I am just fascinated that people who clearly have belief are so adamant that it is something else

Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.

 

[Tuatara]

Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".

that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......

Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"

you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....

If someone says "I believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "I know for a fact god exists" then yes they have to prove it.

 

[asaratis]

Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".

that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......

Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"

you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....

If someone says "I believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "I know for a fact god exists" then yes they have to prove it.

By the same token, if someone says, "I believe Zeus does not exist", they don't have to prove it. If they said, "I know for a fact that Zeus does not exist", then I would ask for proof.

 

[asaratis]

No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist. I believe Zeus doesn't exist.

Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.

And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it. If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.

You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk. I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there. Very easy.

In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)" A better example of this is Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

I do not feel an absence of belief is the same as belief. I am just fascinated that people who clearly have belief are so adamant that it is something else

Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.

By the way, Bertrand Russell's tea pot analogy is hogwash. For an analogy to be legitimate, there must be some similarity between the things being compared. A tiny teapot (whether detectable or not) is in no way similar to anything supernatural.

 

[asaratis]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

How old are you gramma.

That would be granpa.

I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist. I believe Zeus doesn't exist.

Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.

And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it. If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.

You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.

I have no proof. That is why I called it a belief. Not a lack of belief, not a non-belief... a belief.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk. I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there. Very easy.

In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)" A better example of this is Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

No. I need only claim it is not there. That is a negative claim and I can easily prove it. The person making the claim, whether it is negative or positive, has the burden of supporting the claim. You can't make a claim, declare it to be negative, and then act as of that claim is proven based upon your in ability to prove it. If you can't prove a negative claim, don't make a negative claim.

Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.

I'm not. That is the point. A lack of belief in the total absence of evidence is neutrality. You are not neutral. Therefore, you do not lack belief.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Also one of your comrades PostmoderProph, already stated correctly " I don't have to prove a negative".

that is not an accurate quote.....I stated I didn't have to prove anything......

Post 1716 page 86, your exact words " I don't have to prove a negative"

you misunderstood my point....nobody needs to prove anything to anyone.....people just have to make their choices of what they want to believe.....

If someone says "I believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "I know for a fact god exists" then yes they have to prove it.

If someone says "I do not believe in god", they don't have to prove it, but if someone said "there is no god" then yes they have to prove it.

 

[PostmodernProph]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

How old are you gramma.

That would be granpa.

I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...

when God created grass we argued about what color it should be......he wanted green.....

 

[PratchettFan]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

How old are you gramma.

That would be granpa.

I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...

The Many Loves of Dobbie Gillis - on prime time.

 

[PratchettFan]

No, I can't prove Zeus does not exist. I believe Zeus doesn't exist.

Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.

And you are wrong, if you claim a negative you have to prove it. If you can't prove something, then you shouldn't make the claim at all.

You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.

I have no proof. That is why I called it a belief. Not a lack of belief, not a non-belief... a belief.

It is perfectly possible to prove a negative. I claim there is not a bottle of soda on my desk. I have looked at my desk, felt around it, brought people in to confirm it and have demonstrated objectively there is not a bottle of soda there. Very easy.

In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)" A better example of this is Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

No. I need only claim it is not there. That is a negative claim and I can easily prove it. The person making the claim, whether it is negative or positive, has the burden of supporting the claim. You can't make a claim, declare it to be negative, and then act as of that claim is proven based upon your in ability to prove it. If you can't prove a negative claim, don't make a negative claim.

Do not confuse belief with lack of belief.

I'm not. That is the point. A lack of belief in the total absence of evidence is neutrality. You are not neutral. Therefore, you do not lack belief.

Well, that didn't work out well. Sorry about the formatting on the reply. I tried to get clever.

 

[Tuatara]

This is the one I quoted and responded to. Michael Faraday would find Richard Dawkins terrifying CatholicHerald.co.uk

Which is not one of my links.

Interesting that you think that is a response to my actual post, isn't it?

Here is your actual post I was responding too.
Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True

This is a reply to the criticsm directed at Dawkins. There are 2 main pieces this author is referring to. One is a criticism from the Telegraph by Charles Moore who is not an atheist but an Anglican and the other piece is from the Catholic website also written by a non-atheist. My original point is the criticism directed at Dawkins was not from an atheist and the piece you put up was criticizing those who criticized Dawkins.

 

[Carla_Danger]

I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"

Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.

Of course Atheists identify as a group. Atheists join in groups all of the time. Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution. People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.

Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.

I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion. I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma. Without dogma, you don't have religion.

Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion. They just seem to be the three basics to me. However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion.

For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile? We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle. Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.? Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.

What dogma is that? You're still making up your own definitions. I can treat a pet rock like a puppy, but it's still not a puppy, it's a pet rock.

 

[sealybobo]

Actually your website was a Catholic website.

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

How old are you gramma.

That would be granpa.

I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...

Yea but I remember those things too. I just remember them in syndication. I'm 43 so I guess technically I could be a granpa.

 

[asaratis]

I love it when idiots say stupid things.

FYI, Oxford is about as far from being Catholic as it is possible to get.

Dawkins Debunked

Want tot ell me again how smart Dawkins is?

No one Is missing the sheer terror that Dawkins causes you fundies. What's remarkable is just how much time you and others spend out of your day hating, obsessing and agonizing over his every word.

None of you actually challenge his arguments with counter claims. The fact is, there are no counter claims that fundies can employ in terms of demonstrable, peer-reviewed arguments in favor of magic and supernaturalism. You fundies are left to your usual tactics of frantic, sweaty cutting and pasting from someone's personal blog.

You'd make a good sci-fi writer...maybe get on the staff at Twilight Zone...

How old are you gramma.

That would be granpa.

I remember Snooky Lanson (from Hit Parade), Buck Rogers, Sky King, The $64,000 Question, The Price is Right, Lassie...

Yea but I remember those things too. I just remember them in syndication. I'm 43 so I guess technically I could be a granpa.

I was born in '43...have children older than you.

 

[PratchettFan]

I originally suggested three attributes of religion and no one ever argued they were wrong or more were needed. These are them:

A group to which members identify themselves. "I am an Atheist along with my fellow Atheists"

Then the idea that atheism is a religion fails on your first criteria. 'Atheists' doesn't describe a cohesive group, any more than 'pessimists' does. It just identifies people who share a single trait.

Of course Atheists identify as a group. Atheists join in groups all of the time. Here is just one web site of many that will tell you how you can join a group How to Find an Atheist Support Group Atheist Revolution. People put up billboards, organize holiday displays, etc.

Yep. Some do. That's been addressed. If you want to point to some atheist groups, and show how they are operating as religions, go for it. I might agree with you. But that doesn't mean that the general concept of atheism represents a religion.

I have said that Atheism is not in and of itself a religion. I have already indicated how some Atheists are treating Atheism as a religion is through the application of dogma. Without dogma, you don't have religion.

Of course, if someone wants to disagree with the attributes of religion I have used I am certainly open to that discussion. They just seem to be the three basics to me. However, without determining what those attributes are in advance you really can't determine if something is or is not religion.

For example, if I put an electric motor on a unicycle, is it an automobile? We can't answer that without first identifying what the attributes of an automobile are and comparing that to the unicycle. Does the number of wheels matter, does it require a particular power plant, does the method of steering matter, etc.? Simply stating that it isn't by definition without that comparison is not an investigation, it's dogma.

What dogma is that? You're still making up your own definitions. I can treat a pet rock like a puppy, but it's still not a puppy, it's a pet rock.

I just said it. Stating that something is a particular way by definition without regard to reality is dogma. A doctrine which is to be accepted without question is dogma. And yes, your example is apt.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exactly, as that would be proving a negative.

Which, despite the idiots who don't understand anything claiming otherwise, can be done.

You just claimed a negative by saying you don't believe in Zeus. Where is your proof that he doesn't exist.

In order for that to be a negative someone would first have to claim that there is a bottle of soda on your desk and it would be up to them to provide the evidence. Since we are clearly talking about supernatural phenomenoms James Randle said it best with this "When James Randle coined the phrase "you can't prove a negative". He claims that he cannot prove a negative (such that telepathy does not exist), but he also argues that an individual who claims telepathy exists must prove so. He discusses that induction is often used as a mode of proving a thesis, but if an individual assumes that something is or is not, then the person must prove so. Further, as he says, he does not take an advocacy position, as a lawyer would. He says that he cannot prove that a negative is true, but he could attempt to use evidence and induction to support a claim that he is biased toward, such as a claim that something does not exist (ex. flying reindeer)" A better example of this is Russell's Teapot

Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claims that a teapot orbits the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it is nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they cannot prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God.

Randi said you can't prove a negative? No wonder I always thought he was an idiot.

http://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

Negative Proof Fallacy and Burden of Proof

Negatives are proved every single day, you just have to know how to think.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here is your actual post I was responding too.
Dawkins criticized again for arrogance and evangelical militancy Why Evolution Is True

This is a reply to the criticsm directed at Dawkins. There are 2 main pieces this author is referring to. One is a criticism from the Telegraph by Charles Moore who is not an atheist but an Anglican and the other piece is from the Catholic website also written by a non-atheist. My original point is the criticism directed at Dawkins was not from an atheist and the piece you put up was criticizing those who criticized Dawkins.

No, the post you were responding to was the one where I said I posted a link detailing all of the fallacies that Dawkins uses, and you claimed my source was a Catholic website.