Atheism Is Not A Religion!!!

[Tuatara]

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.

Post # 1636 Page 82, Please reread carefully what I just stated in post #1814. You are having a comprehension problem.

 

[Tuatara]

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.

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.

Steven Hales is taking this in the wrong direction at every turn. Here is one false example he portrays.


1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.

2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.

3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

It should be
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Post # 1636 Page 82, Please reread carefully what I just stated in post #1814. You are having a comprehension problem.

I am not the one with a problem. You want to limit the stuff I can talk about to a single post, even though the link I refereed to was not in that post, and I am not playing along.

Comprehend now?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Steven Hales is taking this in the wrong direction at every turn. Here is one false example he portrays.


1. If unicorns had existed, then there is evidence
in the fossil record.

2. There is no evidence of unicorns in the fossil
record.

3. Therefore, unicorns never existed.

It should be
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"

Why do you get to define the parameters of logic when they were already defined before you came along? Proving a negative is pretty easy, if you know how to think.

For example, I can prove that the universe is not deterministic, even though cause and effect exist. This can easily be demonstrated by the various experiments regarding the evolution of single celled organisms and how they adapt to new environments.

You are 100% wrong about this, you should just shut up.

 

[PostmodernProph]

It should be
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 1 States "Then prove they don't exist"

then how about....
Person 1 states "Unicorns exist"
Person 2 states "Unicorns do not exist"
Person 3 states "Both of you prove your claims"

 

[Carla_Danger]

Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.

Boy, that is rich! And no, atheism does not have some attributes of a cult.

 

[dblack]

Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.

Boy, that is rich! And no, atheism does not have some attributes of a cult.

It's simple logic:

Some atheists started a cult. => Therefore, atheism is a cult.

We can apply this 'logic' in different contexts:

Some Christians committed murder. => Therefore, Christians are murderers.
Some Republicans are racists. => Therefore, Republicans are racists.

Try it yourself, it's great fun!

 

[Carla_Danger]

Hey, I didn't start this thread. I do not care who does or does not believe in God. I am a live-and-let-live person. Just don't try to push your beliefs on me with no factual evidence to support them...and don't belittle me for having whatever beliefs I do. I don't push my beliefs on others except maybe in scientific matters where I try to teach them proven facts about science, nature or how to craft physical things from steel shapes, wood, building materials and hardware. When it comes to believing in God, not believing in God or believing that God does not exist, you are totally on your on. The modern day Atheists have turned Atheism into a religion, with human idols and an agenda juxtaposed to long established religions. But you do make a good point. I suppose it does have some attributes of a cult.

Boy, that is rich! And no, atheism does not have some attributes of a cult.

It's simple logic:

Some atheists started a cult. => Therefore, atheism is a cult.

We can apply this 'logic' in different contexts:

Some Christians committed murder. => Therefore, Christians are murderers.
Some Republicans are racists. => Therefore, Republicans are racists.

Try it yourself, it's great fun!

There's more than just "some" racist Republican's.

 

[DriftingSand]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

 

[dblack]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

 

[Trinnity]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

I miss you.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?

 

[DriftingSand]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?

Some may very well do just that. The world is full of religions. Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist. It's an obsession with many. For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?

Some may very well do just that. The world is full of religions. Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist. It's an obsession with many. For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.

There may be many religions, but atheism isn't one of them.

Who are these "many" people you speak of?

 

[asaratis]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?

There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins. Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God. They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.

 

[DriftingSand]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?

There you go again with silly analogies, likely generated by your observance of the dogma of the Atheist Pope Dawkins. Not one of the things you use in the silly analogies has any significant resemblance to God. They are just imaginary physical creatures and things that exist in individual minds only.

Sounds to me like you're a religious atheist. Thanks for making my point.

 

[DriftingSand]

Atheism CAN be a religion if the tenets of atheism are followed religiously.

Well no, atheism cannot be a religion. There are no specific tenets for atheists.

I think the point is, atheism can become the focus of a religion - you can build tenets, dogma and a belief system around rejection of theism. But that doesn't make the general concept of atheism a religion, any more than building a religion around sex would make all sexual activity a religion.

So, people actually build tenets, dogma and a belief system around the rejection of Bigfoot?

Some may very well do just that. The world is full of religions. Some spend their entire life diligently trying to prove that God doesn't exist. It's an obsession with many. For them, the rejection of God IS a religion. They read anti-God books; they think anti-God thoughts; the preach anti-God messages; and some even go so far as to purposely live in a manner that's diametrically opposed to the written Word of God.

There may be many religions, but atheism isn't one of them.

Who are these "many" people you speak of?

Read Humanist Manifesto 1. They refer to themselves as "religious Humanists." Yup ... it's a fact.

 

[DriftingSand]

Quote:
"FIRST: Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created."

Quote:
"EIGHTH: Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man's life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist's social passion."

Humanist Manifesto I

Sorry you religious atheists. If you don't want to be seen as a religion then stop defining yourselves as such.

 

[DriftingSand]

Wish I could still wrap quotes around quotes like the old days.