- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 10,348
- Reaction score
- 2,426
- Location
- The anals of history
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
Neither atheism nor Buddhism have a god, ergo not religions. Philosophies. Perhaps some religions prefer androgenous gods.
It's true that Buddhism doesn't have a god, however it's also true that one of the following statements is correct
- A god/gods exists
- There is no God.
True, that's a binary proposition, one must exist, but given the number of gods man has invented for himself to worship and the utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any of them, the chances of just picking the one correct god out of a hat is virtually nil. There's no better reason to think that the Christian God exists than Zeus, Odin or Krishna. However, given that there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them, picking none, at least until someone can prove one is real, seems like a logical option.
True, that's a binary proposition, one must exist, but given the number of gods man has invented for himself to worship and the utter lack of any evidence for the existence of any of them, the chances of just picking the one correct god out of a hat is virtually nil. There's no better reason to think that the Christian God exists than Zeus, Odin or Krishna. However, given that there isn't a shred of evidence for any of them, picking none, at least until someone can prove one is real, seems like a logical option.
Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.
If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.
Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.
There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.
I am a believer....you, apparently are not. You are well within your rights not to believe as I am to be a believer. I won't try to change your mind and get you to convert to Christianity. Do Christians the same courtesy.
However, I do understand the angst that atheists have towards religion....look at the Middle East, look at Fred Phelps and his Westboro Cronies.....look at the judgmentalism and the attempts to squeeze as much of the Christian Doctrine as they can into our governmental laws.
That's not Christianity....God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.
You said that you wont try to convert anyone, yet you insisted that you will be able to tell after you die. Talking about something that you couldnt possibly know as if it were known fact. Its a passive form of preaching. You offered a concept that its possible not to die. The hope is that the observer will contemplate the concept of immortality. The established belief is that immortality can only be obtained through the belief in a god. So then 1 + 1 = 2 and there you have it you actually created a subtle way to offer a conversation. At least to those willing to listen. The technique is very old and well established. ANd with that establishment then one doesnt need to say a lot because most people have heard the story of the bible many times.
I'm not talking about concepts, I'm talking about simple propositions (many of which may make up a single concept). The proposition "God exists" is either true or false - and yes, just by knowing it you'll assign some level of belief.
Atheism is not a religion. It is a lack of belief in a supreme deity, that is all. Any other opinions and ideologies formed about the society in which we live are derived the same way any religious person's opinions and ideology is derived; by our personal opinion on various issues, personal morality on various issues, and our personal views of right and wrong.
There are certainly fanatical atheists who go way to far in their disbelief, but you could say the same for almost anything. Those people do not make atheism a religion.
The whole burden of proof debate is tiresome. Haven't you atheists "evolved" beyond that yet? It's the same thing Richard Dawkins was spitting out 30 years ago.
There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.
God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.
Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.
If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.
Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.
No one is fanatical about disbelief. The prominent and outspoken atheists you're probably thinking of are those who advocate strongly over the political ramifications of religion. They are often scientists and educators who are incensed about myth being substituted for science in science classrooms, or peace activists who are angry over the wars started over religion, or civil rights activists who do not like the way major religions are so often concerned with trampling the rights of women and oppressing gays. That has nothing to do with being "fanatical about disbelief". That's real causes and protecting people from the abuses of religion.
There are atheists who go too far in the attacking of religion. The scientists and educators you are talking about are definitely not who I was referring to. It's not a large segment, but there are some who are truly fanatical.
Well, how about some examples? Honestly, there are only two assertions atheists can make. First, that religion is wrong. Second, that religion is harmful. How exactly does someone go too far in trying to promote truth or in protecting people from an institution that is hurting people? I mean, yes, one could start stripping people of their rights or using violence, but atheists don't do that or even advocate for it.
I don't think atheism is a religion, in the sense that part of what defines a religion is a belief in God. That's the simple answer.
The longer, and perhaps better, answer would begin by trying to define what a god is. If a god is defined as something superhuman that creates and controls the universe, then isn't nature itself a god? Isn't the universe a god?
As such, if you bow to the clockwork of nature (science), aren't you in a sense practicing a religion?
However, like I said, that's a bit heady, and knowing how the word is commonly used, atheism is NOT a religion because you don't believe in God. Simple.
Now, that said, it IS a belief system, because "negative" beliefs simply don't exist. It's the pink elephant problem (try to not imagine a pink elephant, and you immediately imagine a pink elephant).
It's just one of those things about the human mind... we can't think in negatives.
Now, you might be able to convince me that the abstract concept of "atheism" can deal with this gray area, but you'll never convince me that atheists, being human beings, are devoid of any beliefs on the subject of the supernatural.
Really? That's what you got out of my post? That I'm subtly and sneakily trying to convert you by acknowledging your right to NOT believe? Gimme a break.
The truth is....when we die, which we all do....regardless of religious affiliation(or lack thereof) we will know one way or another.
If you're right....I will no longer exist....period. if I'm right, there is a soul and there is something "after" our bodies have died.
That is not proselyting....I simply don't care whether you believe or not. That is your choice.
Logic lol. You said the equivalent of 'there is no evidence of nothing, just like there is no evidence of a god'
But you are correct that the conclusion should be that no god exists, in fact that is the default position. (I think I heard that somewhere before?)
No.Is atheism a religion
No, it's still quite relevant. The existence of a specific god as asserted by one religious person or another is not equally likely as that assertion being false. Ancient deities that no one believes in anymore are not equally likely to exist as not exist. Even moreso, deities that have been completely forgotten to history that literally no one believes in anymore. There is absolutely no reason to even consider the possibility that those gods exist and someone would have to make a very compelling case for anyone to take that possibility seriously. Why is the western god different merely for being popular right now? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. As much as theists like to squirm out of this, their claims are extraordinary and frankly absurd.
That's not even a little bit true. There is substantial evidence of a universe operating without intervention by a deity, of prayer having no effect on healing, of no gods revealing themselves, of having faith not actually leading to a person living a happier or more moral life... all compelling evidence that gods do not exist. The proposition of free will automatically precludes any gods, as shown above. That human beings have conjectured so many mutually exclusive views on divine existence shows that none of them can be true, since they are completely interchangeable but purport to be absolute truth. God propositions are astoundingly unlikely and patently ridiculous.
Typically, deities are defined as "supernatural," not "superhuman." All kinds of things are "superhuman." An elephant is "superhuman" in regards to strength.
You still don't understand what disbelief is, dude.
Disbelieve is not a negative belief. It is a LACK of belief.
Right now, I am sure you LACK belief in purple ants from Mars, because you have never heard of any such thing. You cannot tell me for certain they do not exist, but it would be silly to believe they do.
That is my stance of deities.
Do you get it?
Atheists might believe in all kinds of things, or they might not. The one thing none of them believe in is a deities. We are not some kind of homogenous voting block. "Atheist" only describes one single aspect of all the millions of aspects of philosophy.
Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.
If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.
Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.
There will never be proof that one is real. Until the day we die that is, and as the old saying goes....dead men tell no tales.
I am a believer....you, apparently are not. You are well within your rights not to believe as I am to be a believer. I won't try to change your mind and get you to convert to Christianity. Do Christians the same courtesy.
However, I do understand the angst that atheists have towards religion....look at the Middle East, look at Fred Phelps and his Westboro Cronies.....look at the judgmentalism and the attempts to squeeze as much of the Christian Doctrine as they can into our governmental laws.
That's not Christianity....God gave us free will to choose to accept him or not. I respect that. Others don't.
That is not proselyting....I simply don't care whether you believe or not. That is your choice.
And if you don't pick one, you're an atheist.
That's the part I disagree with. An atheist is someone who doesn't believe in God, therefore they have picked one.
Why is picking none the logical option? There is no evidence for the lack of a god anymore than there is evidence for the existence of a god.
If you want to get technical about it, the only logical option is to say that we don't know whether God exists.
Something I'm perfectly willing to do, because that's the conclusion the facts support.
You don't care whether people believe, but you sincerely think that anyone who doesn't believe as you do is going to burn forever in a lake of fire and you don't see a problem with that view.
Hmmm...
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?