The Gospel of Unbelief

[MissileMan]

What a complete dumbass.

Let's see your definition of faith.

 

[CrimsonWhite]

I still maintain that you cannot have faith in the lack of something. You cannot have faith that there is no God. Religion being dependant on faith disqualifies Atheism as a religion, IMO. Religion requires two key elements, faith and worship. What do Athiests worship and what do they have faith in? Again, you cannot have faith pursuant to the lack thereof. This is what I got out of semester of Religious Studies. Which was taught by an Atheist. Go figure.

 

[LOki]

Let's see your definition of faith.

This is going to get rich...I'm just betting you're just dumb enough to see your little plan right through to the last.

Here you go ...<blockquote>Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.</blockquote>Please hurry back and ask me for my definition of "super-natural. :dev1:

 

[Nuc]

I still maintain that you cannot have faith in the lack of something. You cannot have faith that there is no God. Religion being dependant on faith disqualifies Atheism as a religion, IMO. Religion requires two key elements, faith and worship. What do Athiests worship and what do they have faith in? Again, you cannot have faith pursuant to the lack thereof. This is what I got out of semester of Religious Studies. Which was taught by an Atheist. Go figure.

Kind of have to agree with this for the most part. Atheism is more like the absence of religion. Although in the case of Buddhism some are atheists and some are not.

 

[MissileMan]

I still maintain that you cannot have faith in the lack of something. You cannot have faith that there is no God. Religion being dependant on faith disqualifies Atheism as a religion, IMO. Religion requires two key elements, faith and worship. What do Athiests worship and what do they have faith in? Again, you cannot have faith pursuant to the lack thereof. This is what I got out of semester of Religious Studies. Which was taught by an Atheist. Go figure.

Give it just a minute. Loki is about to redefine faith so that it can be construed as disbelief and therefore be used in his redefinition of religion that would include atheism.

His tactics are reminiscent of the Kansas Board of Education that redefined science so that ID could be included.

 

[MissileMan]

This is going to get rich...I'm just betting you're just dumb enough to see your little plan right through to the last.

Here you go ...<blockquote>Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.</blockquote>Please hurry back and ask me for my definition of "super-natural. :dev1:

Does your definition include dis-belief in something for which there is no proof?

 

[MissileMan]

This is going to get rich...I'm just betting you're just dumb enough to see your little plan right through to the last.

Here you go ...<blockquote>Faith: Firm belief in something for which there is no proof.</blockquote>Please hurry back and ask me for my definition of "super-natural. :dev1:

Also, in the context of religion, the something for which there is no proof is of course the supernatural, right?

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

Does your definition include dis-belief in something for which there is no proof?

Why does it have to?
If one believes there is no God, then there certainly isn't proof of
that either.

 

[LOki]

I still maintain that you cannot have faith in the lack of something. You cannot have faith that there is no God.

Sure you can. There's no proof or evidence that there is no God. Making the positive assertion that there is no God, is an assertion founded, without proof or evidence, on faith.

Show me the logical proof, the empirical evidence, the objective rationale that demonstrates there is no God, and I will concede that Atheism is not religion as I understand the term.

Just please don't start in with "absence of evidience." Absence of evidence is not proof of absence. I'm telling right now, it's not worth going down that road. I know MissileMan won't understand it, but I expect just about everyone else can parse out that failing to observe, or measure something does not neccessarily negate its existence.

Religion being dependant on faith disqualifies Atheism as a religion, IMO. Religion requires two key elements, faith and worship.

Ooooooh! Worship! That's cool. I hope you can make this work!

What do Athiests worship and what do they have faith in?

Worship is so broadly inclusive of behavior ... how about, they pester Christians, and heckle Pro-Life rallys. And they have faith that here is no God.

Derailed already. Sorry.

Again, you cannot have faith pursuant to the lack thereof.

I wouldn't engage in such self referential argument--certainly not with the King of Tautology looking over my shoulder.

This is what I got out of semester of Religious Studies. Which was taught by an Atheist. Go figure.

I've discovered that atheists fall victim to the frim inner conviction that their truth, unsupported by evidence or proof, is fact, just as often as theists fall victim to the same.

 

[LOki]

Does your definition include dis-belief in something for which there is no proof?

My definition does not need that particular clause to remain valid.

Please continue.

 

[LOki]

Also, in the context of religion, the something for which there is no proof is of course the supernatural, right?

My understanding of what "supernatural" means is not limited to, or contingent upon, the context of religion. If we disregard that which was once deemed supernatural, having since been proved natural; and also that which now is considered supernatural, but will be discovered to be natural by mutually agreed upon means; I will stipulate that the supernatural consists of those things for which there is no proof.

Continue. :dev1:

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

"a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and
practices."

"a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith"

I find both of these definitions for religion perfectly acceptable on both ends.
I also do not see why it matters to christians if Atheism is a religion or not.

Now, considering this definition of faith
"Something that is believed especially with strong conviction"
I think Atheism is a religion.

 

[LOki]

I also do not see why it matters to christians if Atheism is a religion or not.

It really matters much, much more to atheists than it does to Christians--they at least understand what faith is.

 

[JOKER96BRAVO]

It really matters much, much more to atheists than it does to Christians--they at least understand what faith is.

I understand that, but fail to see why they would even argue the point.

 

[MissileMan]

My understanding of what "supernatural" means is not limited to, or contingent upon, the context of religion. If we disregard that which was once deemed supernatural, having since been proved natural; and also that which now is considered supernatural, but will be discovered to be natural by mutually agreed upon means; I will stipulate that the supernatural consists of those things for which there is no proof.

Continue. :dev1:

Will you agree then, based on your own stipulation, that as it relates to religion, faith is the belief in the supernatural?

 

[LOki]

Will you agree then, based on your own stipulation, that as it relates to religion, faith is the belief in the supernatural?

No.

See? That didn't work at all for you. Did it?

The question is, can you figure out where you went wrong, and rephrase the question so that "YES" does not neccessarily lead to a tautology?

 

[MissileMan]

Why does it have to?
If one believes there is no God, then there certainly isn't proof of
that either.

To dis-believe in something that has no evidence to support its existence would be to reach a logical conclusion, IMO. Faith doesn't play in it at all. It doesn't take faith to not believe in Santa Claus, it doesn't take faith to not believe in god.

 

[MissileMan]

No.

See? That didn't work at all for you. Did it?

The question is, can you figure out where you went wrong, and rephrase the question so that "YES" does not neccessarily lead to a tautology?

So you aren't willing to assign a more precise meaning to the terms religion, faith, or supernatural as they pertain to Christianity, Islam, Judaism, etc. so you can continue to assert that atheism is a religion. I'd say we're done.

 

[LOki]

I understand that, but fail to see why they would even argue the point.

From my experience of them only, they are by and large vehemently certain that those who believe in God are monumental idiots for doing so, because there is no proof of logic, or evidence, of God's existence. Consequently they become rabidly opposed to the notion that they too adhere to beliefs unfounded on proof of logic, or evidence, making them monumental idiots in their own faith and their own right, just as they assert of those who subscribe to other faith.

 

[MissileMan]

It really matters much, much more to atheists than it does to Christians--they at least understand what faith is.

On the contrary, it's Christians, particularly those who want to have more government sponsored Christian indoctrination who claim atheism is a religion so they can whine about non-religious teachings of science, math, etc.