Official ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC THREAD
Options
Comments
-
Fazeem Blackall wrote: »So do you deny that most athiest believe that without a doubt there is no way that a ? or Higher supernatural power exists? I ask because they are devoted to a belief and thus you come to a logical paradox either way you answer that one based on your postion on whaat a religion is...
Here so we can bypass the spins you are putting on my words in your attempt at avoiding directly answering the questions posed I will ask this and state I never said you said that. But by defintion and admission though would you not say that Most Atheists definitively believe that there is no ? /Higher Power???fiat_money wrote: »I haven't said that most atheists don't "believe that without a doubt there is no way that a ? or Higher supernatural power exists".
Saying that someone having a belief qualifies as devoting themselves to that same belief merely because they have it as a belief is a logical paradox. -
I wouldn't make that statement, because I can't support and I avoid stating conjecture as fact.Fazeem Blackall wrote: »Here so we can bypass the spins you are putting on my words in your attempt to avoiding directly answerin the questions posed I will ask this and state I never said you said that. But by defintion and admission though would you not say that Most Athiest definitively believe that there is no ? /Higher Power???
What I would say, is that atheists either believe "there is no ? /Higher Power" or they lack belief in a "? /Higher Power". -
Fazeem Blackall wrote: »re·li·gion
Origin:
1150–1200; Middle English religioun (< Old French religion ) < Latin religiōn- (stem of religiō ) conscientiousness, piety, equivalent to relig ( āre ) to tie, fasten ( re- re- + ligāre to bind, tie; compare ligament) + -iōn- -ion; compare rely
–noun
1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
—Idiom 9. get religion, Informal . a. to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b. to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products.
So running further on this does Atheism adhere to these more accurrate and encompassing definitions of Religion???
Atheists, as far as I know, believe there isn't a ? and that's it. They don't deny the possibility, they just deny the whole 'religious' aspect of it and it's ? (s). I don't adhere to any practices, I don't pray, fast, sacrifice, praise, worship, attend a function such as a church, I don't do any practices that religious people do. It seems here the religion = a belief which would require a practice. I haven't heard of any atheist that has a practice that would = a religion.
That's how I see it and base it off the definition. Make sense or not I dunno, never been the greatest at wording ? lol -
I agree with Fiat, and I'm not atheist. I lost 500 dollars at a casino this week, so I am very tempted to be atheist right now.
-
its over: 2012! wrote: »I think the first 2 vids at VIBES's link, alone, dispel everything that you've posted here...and it can easily be laid out here if you like. Concluding with your own mea culpa, if you dare quantify why even Einstein's knowledge which far exceeds yours...brought him to conclude that their is indeed a supreme creator, although he refused to call him ? .
Plus, I'll keep praying for you to, at some point, just simply accept that ALL ENERGY & MASS in the universe, is ? . Picture This as if It's like, the inside of his mouth. Really.
The whole universe.
..chaos!....in which at anytime he can do one thing different change one order of his operations for the universe, and we perish.
So instead we continue, on this Earth, in his process called the big bang by which ? exploded outward. Yep. He is each particle and each of its energy's inertia.... until it reaches it's limit, in space/exhausts its enrgy and starts propelling backward and acquiring energy until ? morphs it all back into that colossal mass, and...popsoff another big bang for the next stage of/or a new, Mankind
LOL. You are all over the place and ended up nowhere.
? get out of here with that warmed over Spinoza ? . Your confusing your self. You describe him as He then you describe an it. You say he has limits but your Bible says he doesn't.
And your summation that changing an order of the universe means we perish is outloud laughable. The Universe is constantly changing and we are still here. Sounding deep is not the equivalent of having intelligence or knowledge. LOL
Early nominee for Singapore Award. LOL -
Ive asked this question before on this forum and never got a complete, satisfactory, or logical answer, so i'll ask again. Isnt the mere discussion or acknowledgement, (of ? ) a confirmation of existence on some level?
-
Hyde Parke wrote: »Ive asked this question before on this forum and never got a complete, satisfactory, or logical answer, so i'll ask again. Isnt the mere discussion or acknowledgement, (of ? ) a confirmation of existence on some level?
Saying that ? exists doesn't mean that He exists. However if ? does exists, denying Him isn't going to make Him "disappear" either. If ? exists, He does so apart man's belief or disbelief in Him. -
No it isn't. That's just something religious people like to tell themselves so they can write off the criticisms of their childish fairy tale beliefs.
-
alissowack wrote: »Saying that ? exists doesn't mean that He exists. However if ? does exists, denying Him isn't going to make Him "disappear" either. If ? exists, He does so apart man's belief or disbelief in Him.
but thats what we are all doing right? Saying, thats all we have,no? the bible even states "in the beginning was the "word" and the "word" was with ? . so we have words, bridged by concepts. -
Atheists and religious folk hold the same amount of conviction in their belief and non-belief. Both are 100% sure that there is/isn't a ? . An agnostic falls inbetween and is willing to accept either possibility.
-
Atheists and religious folk hold the same amount of conviction in their belief and non-belief. Both are 100% sure that there is/isn't a ? ..
ive been saying this for some time, but people dont want to hear that, refuse to understand it for some reason. -
so Far 2 atheists have said no they do not feel atheism is a religion unto itself but have also defaulted on points of argument on what actual atheism is which is a belief that people hold to a level of conviction and faithfull self assurity that there is no ? /higher spiritual power but these same 2 also seem to appear more agnostic then atheistic in the traditional sense. Very interesting...
-
Religion has practices that are devoted to it's belief, prayers, attendance of a church/get together/function/mass etc, reading/studying of religious texts, healing, fasting etc. Then the obvious, a belief in a higher power.
Does Atheism hold any practices that would make it a religion? That's how I look at at, that's how it's explained. Unless I'm wrong and I'm just seeing it the way I want to. I dunno... -
I would say you are just seeing it how you want to as many religions are based soley upon common belief and conviction of that belief, now level of devotion and conviction can sometimes be assessed to measure how relgious they are.Religion has practices that are devoted to it's belief, prayers, attendance of a church/get together/function/mass etc, reading/studying of religious texts, healing, fasting etc. Then the obvious, a belief in a higher power.
Does Atheism hold any practices that would make it a religion? That's how I look at at, that's how it's explained. Unless I'm wrong and I'm just seeing it the way I want to. I dunno...
Example a catholic that attends Mass Every week and a catholic that does not go to church, are they both not still catholic because they call themselves so based on similar/same belief sets?
The same application can be applied to atheism as there are publications meetings and social gatherings based on that shared belief for the strongly convicted but those that do not participate in those activites are considered just as much athiest because they share the same set of beliefs... -
Hyde Parke wrote: »but thats what we are all doing right? Saying, thats all we have,no? the bible even states "in the beginning was the "word" and the "word" was with ? . so we have words, bridged by concepts.
Well, there is a difference between "the word" being with ? and "the word" being with man. I can say whatever words I want to say to who ? is. But, it doesn't mean that I am the final say in who ? is and that where more of the problem lies...too many people are saying they know and not just from different religions, but also within the same religion...which probably says more about our confusion that people can look at the same texts and come to different perspectives. -
alissowack wrote: »Well, there is a difference between "the word" being with ? and "the word" being with man. I can say whatever words I want to say to who ? is. But, it doesn't mean that I am the final say in who ? is and that where more of the problem lies...too many people are saying they know and not just from different religions, but also within the same religion...which probably says more about our confusion that people can look at the same texts and come to different perspectives.
yeah, i guess i am confused. isnt the whole premise of the bible to "know ? " ? So isnt it logical for people to even hold the assumption that they do? that is what it teaches.
.
i -
soul rattler wrote: »Yes, yes it does. Atheists just have a superiority complex towards theistic religions because they're a more logical bunch.
Not all of them. Some just mouth the theories of their leading thinkers just because such and such said so. They suspend critical thinking just like religious people if it validates their world view. If you were to corner some of them and ask them to explain what they mean they would be found wanting. Atheist have develped their own little cottage industry and cult following themselves, where the elite minority disseminate what they want to their adherants who gobble it up. -
Religious people believe nonsensical foolishness for no reason, and they'll tell you that themselves altho not in so many words. Atheists reject that nonsensical foolishness because there is no reason to believe it.
A religious person who refuses to acknowledge the obvious difference is being disingenuous imo, but at the end of the day it doesn't matter because all the serious people in the world have basically the same position on religion:
-
What does it matter to put Atheism into a category of religion? What does it change if it is or isn't?
-
IS the classification offending you? You seem a bit defensive about it, but on the same note why not clarify whether atheism as whole can be categorized as a religion. It has already been established that some religions which are recognised as such incorprate atheism into the belief system used, so much like in christianity or ISlam or even Judism or Hindu it has smaller offshoots incorporating a base premise, atheism appears to have the same level of denominations as other religions...What does it matter to put Atheism into a category of religion? What does it change if it is or isn't? -
I dont consider it a religion they just dont believe in a ? or whatever and thats it..Of course you have the fringe element of those whose take there atheist beleives to the extreme but its rare I dont consider it a relgion
-
Fazeem Blackall wrote: »IS the classification offending you? You seem a bit defensive about it, but on the same note why not clarify whether atheism as whole can be categorized as a religion. It has already been established that some religions which are recognised as such incorprate atheism into the belief system used, so much like in christianity or ISlam or even Judism or Hindu it has smaller offshoots incorporating a base premise, atheism appears to have the same level of denominations as other religions...
Offensive? Nah, I just don't see the point in trying so hard to elaborate on Atheism and try to classify it. If it was a religion, then it would've already been considered it. The fact that we cannot decided whether it is or not just means it's not. I'm just trying now to see what's the point in trying to say it is a religion, does it change something or what? -
Offensive? Nah, I just don't see the point in trying so hard to elaborate on Atheism and try to classify it. If it was a religion, then it would've already been considered it. The fact that we cannot decided whether it is or not just means it's not. I'm just trying now to see what's the point in trying to say it is a religion, does it change something or what?
Well that premise is not true either as some obviously do consider it a religion or cult, in some established religions it is a prime prinicple, my point in discussing was to spark conversation and debate on the matter which is why I thought we are all here. And agreement on status does not make or negat3e something from being what it is so the lack of uniformity on even what atheism is or stands for leave tons of room for interpretation. Let me ask this if you do not like a subject or the basis why bother discussing it? The classification and religious status holds even more significane when we are discussing it here in this forum because if it is not a type of religion and defintely not a race then why is it even discussed in this forum??? -
Hyde Parke wrote: »yeah, i guess i am confused. isnt the whole premise of the bible to "know ? " ? So isnt it logical for people to even hold the assumption that they do? that is what it teaches.
.
i
Yes, the premise is to know ? . However, in what way? Is knowing ? like knowing facts; getting a detailed profile and statistics on what He does and His Success Rate in doing the things He says...or is knowing ? like knowing a person...a relational commitment to the possibility that He is what He says He is? -
how confident are you that there is no ? /godsI'm told I'm not an "atheist" but "agnostic", but yet I don't believe in a ? yet I think it's "possible" for there to be one.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT3MH8876YI
This discussion has been closed.