Official ATHEIST/AGNOSTIC THREAD
Options
Comments
-
So then by your Argument it is not a religion and therefore has no place in this forum on Race and Religion since it does not corespond to either category Correct???fiat_money wrote: »No, the belief or position that there is nothing "supernatural" is metaphysical naturalism or just naturalism, atheism is the lack of belief or disbelief in gods/deities (which are also called "supreme beings", "the creator", etc). Because of this, atheism is not a "set of beliefs", since it is only a lack of belief or disbelief in one thing, the existence of ? (s); whether these proposed ? (s) are called "gods", "deities" "supreme beings" or "the creator".
So, since atheism doesn't fit the definition of "religion" and it is not exclusive to religion, atheism is not a religion. -
it's a set of personal beliefs based on selective facts. put into practice, it's a religion.
main difference is that it's a religion with a foundation that denies an objective ? . Buddhism is similar in this sense. -
The bolded is true, atheism is not a religion.Fazeem Blackall wrote: »So then by your Argument it is not a religion and therefore has no place in this forum on Race and Religion since it does not corespond to either category Correct???
I don't care what people discuss in what forums nor do I run these forums. -
Such as?solid analysis wrote: »it's a set of personal beliefs based on selective facts... -
You obviously care enough to respond to this and other threads, So Why Side Step a straight forward Question??? Either it is a Religion and has a place for Discussion in this forum on Race and Religion or it is not a Religion and has No Place in this Forum, so which is it???fiat_money wrote: »The bolded is true, atheism is not a religion.
I don't care what people discuss in what forums nor do I run these forums. -
solid analysis wrote: »it's a set of personal beliefs based on selective facts. put into practice, it's a religion.
main difference is that it's a religion with a foundation that denies an objective ? . Buddhism is similar in this sense.
So true..I've said this so many times. Yet nobody wants to realize that. -
religionist see religion everywhere
atheism means you disbelieve in the existance of ? /gods and nothing more -
Your question assumes that I somehow care what topics are discussed in what forums.Fazeem Blackall wrote: »Why Side Step a straight forward Question??? Either it is a Relgion and has a place for Discussion in this forum on Race and Relgion or it is not a Religion and has No Place in this Forum, so which is it???
I don't, so there is no need for me to answer a question that is based on a false premise. -
Fazeem Blackall wrote: »You obviously care enough to respond to this and other threads, So Why Side Step a straight forward Question??? Either it is a Religion and has a place for Discussion in this forum on Race and Religion or it is not a Religion and has No Place in this Forum, so which is it???
Still dodging and still caring enough to respond and post so the premise is validated by your posts...fiat_money wrote: »Your question assumes that I somehow care what topics are discussed in what forums.
I don't, so there is no need for me to answer a question that is based on a false premise. -
I don't think you're gonna get anybody to budge on this one, Solomon.
-
So now you're using faulty "rules" along with a faulty premise.Fazeem Blackall wrote: »Still dodging and still caring enough to respond and post so the premise is validated by your posts...
Reminds me of the "Does your mother know you're ? ?" trick kids like to play. They usually make up "rules" like "You have to answer with 'yes' or 'no'." to get people to validate their false premise.
But yeh, I respond because this is mildly-amusing and I'm easily-amused. Same reason I don't care where people post things; if something is amusing/interesting enough for me to respond, the location is moot. -
Theist: There is a ? !
Atheist: I reject your notion! -
This thread has proven that Fazeem is the king of quoting..
-
I look at religion as propaganda, and just like other types of propaganda, some are more harmful than others. Like I think that both Fox News and the New York Times are propaganda, but personally I think Fox has a more destructive influence on society. With religions, same thing, two different religions are both propaganda, but one may create more problems than the other.
I feel like I'm stating the obvious, so why even ask this question? Because in the progressive community and in the academy (in the social sciences and the humanities) the dominant narrative is that all religions are basically the same and as such we should just accept them all equally. I understand the purpose this narrative serves, it is designed to promote tolerance in a multicultural society, but is it not also intellectually dishonest? And if it is dishonest, is it a noble lie, so to speak? -
Or is it answering honestly will be contradictory to your Posting behaviour and fear the implications...fiat_money wrote: »So now you're using faulty "rules" along with a faulty premise.
Reminds me of the "Does your mother know you're ? ?" trick kids like to play. They usually make up "rules" like "You have to answer with 'yes' or 'no'." to get people to validate their false premise.
But yeh, I respond because this is mildly-amusing and I'm easily-amused. Same reason I don't care where people post things; if something is amusing/interesting enough for me to respond, the location is moot. -
Well in America i think without a doubt you would agree Christians are the worst its 2011 and homosexuals don't have the right to get married in most states lol
They can believe in anything they want but when people feel the need to push it onto others in there daily life's that's when it crosses the line. -
I'm not a follower of any religion, but I like Rastafarian, buddhism and hinduism beliefs.
-
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know that above is the result of someone's work.
It doesn't take a religious nut to know that there is someone behind the manufacturing of the above vehicles.
It doesn't take a prime minister of intelligence to know that the above is the result of someone's work and ideas either.
We can go on and on. With anything physical. We are able to behold invisible truths, made visible through someone's work are we not?
Well. Couple questions: Who's work is this (below)??
Who's created all the things in this image, captured in a shot by Hubble?
How great of an author must there be to have created such works, including all else in the universe that exists but isn't seen by us. -
Ah, a derivative of the "I can't understand something, so it much be the work of a magical/supernatural being/entity." argument.
A timeless classic.
-
The problem is that some people would rather it be that rocket scientists tell them how something came to be. And in return, there are some people who would rather define ? by the amount of tricks He can do.
-
The objections to the old watchmaker argument should be well known by now, but I'll list them anyway.
1. It implies the watchmaker is more complex than the watch, and since complexity implies design here, the designer must also have been designed. If a special exemption can be made for one complex thing like a watchmaker, it can also be made for the watch.
2. It is already a known fact that complexity can arise from mindless natural processes. There is mathematical proof of this as well, if you want to look up the "infinite monkey theorem."
3. The watch analogy is faulty to begin with. We already know with common sense that a watch is made out of various materials by a team of people. We have no similar references at all to apply such an analogy to the entire universe. We'd need to have compared multiple universes in order to do this.
So, I hope that answers your questions. I'm surprised people are still trotting out this old watchmaker thing, but I guess pastors are still spreading it around. -
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »The objections to the old watchmaker argument should be well known by now, but I'll list them anyway.
1. It implies the watchmaker is more complex than the watch, and since complexity implies design here, the designer must also have been designed. If a special exemption can be made for one complex thing like a watchmaker, it can also be made for the watch.
2. It is already a known fact that complexity can arise from mindless natural processes. There is mathematical proof of this as well, if you want to look up the "infinite monkey theorem."
3. The watch analogy is faulty to begin with. We already know with common sense that a watch is made out of various materials by a team of people. We have no similar references at all to apply such an analogy to the entire universe. We'd need to have compared multiple universes in order to do this.
So, I hope that answers your questions. I'm surprised people are still trotting out this old watchmaker thing, but I guess pastors are still spreading it around.
But if complexity is a mindless natural process, then who is to say that even your explanation against the watchmaker analogy is mindless? Why should anybody interpret what you...or even I say if our ability to reason doesn't even have ground that it can stand on? -
Why would our conversation have no ground to stand on simply because we were not magic'd into existence by a jealous ? ? We evolved to be tool users instead of fast swimmers or sharp-toothed fighters. As a result, we can coherently discuss even the most abstract of concepts. At least I can. I'm not sure about you.
-
@My_nameaintearl wrote: »Why would our conversation have no ground to stand on simply because we were not magic'd into existence by a jealous ? ? We evolved to be tool users instead of fast swimmers or sharp-toothed fighters. As a result, we can coherently discuss even the most abstract of concepts. At least I can. I'm not sure about you.
Why would you assume I am making the case for ? in my response? Was it just a mindless natural process? I'm saying that if you going to define complexity that way, then the foundations for reason will fall apart. The person who is using reason must also be reduce to a mindless natural process. -
Reason having been produced naturally does not rob it of its soundness and value. The foundations of reason have nothing to do with a supernatural grand design unless you can explicitly show otherwise. You seem to just enjoy bloviating. THATS RIGHT BLOVIATING
This discussion has been closed.