- Joined
- Jun 24, 2005
- Messages
- 1,009
- Reaction score
- 238
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Liberal
Re: Atheism a religion
LoL... oh that's scary
N.Lmn said:
LoL... oh that's scary
N.Lmn said:
Arch Enemy said:The main reason why Atheism isn't a religion is because they do not worship any superior being or deity. One who is worshiped is essential for a religion, other-wise it isn't a religion.. it's a set of beliefs.. more along the lines of philosophical teachings.
ghost said:Well that is true, but there beliefs are taught, to the point of preaching. Even the public school has taken on there ideals. And not even on there own choice, atheism is forced onto allot of people. So that why I think its a religion. But to its more like...a religious theory. I mean most atheist have abolished the teaching of 'God' in school why?
If you ask a mojority of the students in school if they go to church, allot of them will say yes. I mean its almost gotten to the point where they are trying to take god out of pledge of allegience why? Because they dont believe in it? Well if they dont then they should no say. Because we are nation founded on 'God'.
And to take 'God' out of our pledge is like saying, oh we are a religion and we dont want that other religion to be forced on us.
Arch Enemy said:Though it is pushing the whole "god" thing, I believe the pledge of allegiance isn't over the top.
The pledge says "One nation under God". It doesn't say "One nation under the god". I think it'd be a problem if it said "One nation under Yahweh" or "One nation under Allah" but it doesn't, "God" doesn't mean "God of the Hebrews" it means something with power above that of humans.
Who cares? If someone really loved this country they wouldnt care if 'God' was in the sallute. I mean If someone wants to pledge illegience, then they should do what our allegience was intended to do. Pledge allegience to 'God'. But no people just are looking for an exscuse to wine.Dezaad said:I think the pledge of allegiance is not inclusive, precisely because it pushes the whole God thing. Leaving in the word God leaves many Americans out, some of which do believe in a God. Taking it out of the pledge leaves no one out.
ghost said:Who cares? If someone really loved this country they wouldnt care if 'God' was in the sallute. I mean If someone wants to pledge illegience, then they should do what our allegience was intended to do. Pledge allegience to 'God'. But no people just are looking for an exscuse to wine.
ghost said:Who cares? If someone really loved this country they wouldnt care if 'God' was in the sallute. I mean If someone wants to pledge illegience, then they should do what our allegience was intended to do. Pledge allegience to 'God'. But no people just are looking for an exscuse to wine.
ghost said:Could Atheism be a form of religion in a way? It takes out 'God', And sets no God as the standard. But wouldnt that make it some sort of belief? Sort of like a religion in a way. And If there thing is to fully take away religion they are only reaslablishing it in a different that suits them.
nope said:You seem not be able to imagine what an Atheist really believes.
I tell you for instance that the flying Spaghetti Monster really exists. You call me a dork and say it's nothing but imagination. Now i say that is also just a belief. You shall prove that something you have never seen or expierienced, something you think is just ridiculus, doesn't exist.
You say: "I just believe it because, I'm stupid or because I like spaghettis so much that i want to believe it ...".
Now you are the Atheist and I'm the one, who believes in something.
I hope you see why you can't call Atheism a religion. It would be the same if you call Jews religious because they don't believe in Buddha.
"how can i provide evidence that God/gods do NOT exist?"
I think i have answered this question too.
rees said:God= a God/gods is what i'll mean from this point on whenever i say God.
''negatives cannot be proven''... i was somewhat implying this in my statements as well...thus to make a point
if you think of my statement 'how can i provide evidence that God do NOT exist?'
and lets assume atheism means denying the existence of God... the first few posts seemed to be discussing the definition of atheism...
since it cannot be proven... then how could anyone say ' i definitely know God doesn't exist?....uncertainty should cause neutrality, not choosing a side...so it just doesn't make sense to me.... this is just how i see it...for now,
i spent..way too much time typing this up....zzzz
guns_God_glory said:...Now first of all, where is documented history
have we seen significant evolution take place?
Sure science says we are similar to apes and has fossils that they
say can prove it. How reliable is this science? How can someone say by
looking at fossils that we were once apes?
Science said the world was flat back in the 1300's and that was
wrong, how can we be sure that later on down the line scienc isn't going to
say "Just kidding". We don't have enogh evidence to support evolution fossils
and similar DNA isn't enough.
As for God, there is evidence if you know where to look.
How did the universe come to be? Not how did the world come to be
but our whole universe. Kinda hard to think that up if you don't believe in
God.
As for Jesus there is well documented proof of his existence as
well.
Actually negatives CAN be proven. I can say that there are no nickels in my pants pocket. I can pull my pocket inside out and then prove that there are no nickels there. Thus, I have proven a negative.Joe7000 said:Keep up the good work, Nope! If it'll help, negatives cannot be proven -- simple Logic 101.
shuamort said:Actually negatives CAN be proven. I can say that there are no nickels in my pants pocket. I can pull my pocket inside out and then prove that there are no nickels there. Thus, I have proven a negative.
Umm, no. That wasn't my statement. It wasn't an infinite statement. "There are no nickels in my pocket right now". That's a negative statement. I can prove, with logic that there are no nickels in my pocket right now. I can therefore prove a negative. Simple statement, simple proof, simple logic.Joe7000 said:Sorry, but in logic 101 a negative implies that there can be no nickel in your pants pockets, ever.
Joe7000 said:This is why, in a court of law, one cannot be proven
innocent -- one can only be proven guilty or not guilty. Innocence is not
even a legal term. It is also why innocence is presumed until proven
otherwise.
shuamortUmm said:reductio ad absurdum[/I] which is a fancy way of saying that you make an assumption that such and such is true and then show that this assumption leads to a contradiction. The contradiction shows that there is something wrong with the assumption, namely such and such must not be true.
Also, the statement "one cannot prove a negative" is amusing circular logic.