New PM of England is openly atheist

[DrewPaul]

Duck?
View attachment 67519073

That is one ugly duck.

 

[Cope]

It actually IS a belief. It believes the absolute non-existence of a god.

Agnosticism could be classified as a non-religion but Atheism does hold to their belief.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

You probably mean incredulous. If my belief is credulous that is a good thing. Perhaps your belief the earth and humans are insignificant is due to false humility. I'm not sure what your point is with the pictures. Have you ever looked into all the conditions and circumstances necessary for one planet like ours to not only sustain life, but to cause it? Thanks to kindly mother nature, the universe is packed with the ingredients necessary for life so although we don't know for sure its reasonable to conclude life in the universe is abundant. Why would mindless natural forces not only cause a universe to exist, but has built in that force the ingredients for life to exist? These are forces according to you didn't plan or give a rats ass if humans existed, or if planets, stars, gravity and laws of physics that make our existence possible? This is where atheists arguments and reasoning runs into the dirt and why there are so few atheists. They criticize the idea of a Creator mercilessly but have no explanation why mindless forces would cause all the conditions for intelligent life to exist. Those conditions are so exacting it leads scientists to believe this is one of an infinitude of universes.

If something is (statistically) only likely to happen once in 1,000,000,000,000,000 occurrences, and there are 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 occurrences, statistically, how many times will it happen?

If the time taken for an occurrence is 0.01 seconds and occurrences happen in EACH cubic centimeter, how many occurrences have there been in the entire universe in the past 1,000,000,000 years?

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

If we're the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to cause a universe, laws of physics, planets, stars, atoms, molecules, gravity and all the ingredients necessary for life our existence is unbelievably special and beyond the word 'lucky'. Whats more special? If mindless forces through time and chance unintentionally cause the virtual universe to exist or if scientists, engineers and programmers cause the virtual universe to exist?

Personally I favor the theory that the Universe was created by the equivalent of a pimply faced nerd (with a rather warped sense of humor) as the equivalent of a Junior High School Science Fair project and placed third (and which would have won an "Honourable Mention" had there been more than three entries [or a "Thanks for participating" letter if there had been more than four]).

 

[Gordy327]

If we're the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to cause a universe, laws of physics, planets, stars, atoms, molecules, gravity and all the ingredients necessary for life our existence is unbelievably special and beyond the word 'lucky'. Whats more special? If mindless forces through time and chance unintentionally cause the virtual universe to exist or if scientists, engineers and programmers cause the virtual universe to exist?

The flaw in your argument is that you automatically assume "intent." Who says there is or has to be intent?

 

[I'm Immemorial]

Good for him for being honest about this. It doesn't seem to have hurt him with the electorate.

Good for him, indeed. I reckon he or someone like him would go over like a lead balloon in the States, especially the South.

 

[Buckeyes85]

It actually IS a belief. It believes the absolute non-existence of a god.

Agnosticism could be classified as a non-religion but Atheism does hold to their belief.

Sorry but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your argument or claim what others believe.
Who has ever said they "believe" in the absolute non existence of a go? Answer: no one. The sentence itself doesn't even make sense,

Saying I have absolutely no reason to believe in gods based upon all available information is not the same as making the affirmative claim you have an absolute belief something can't exist.

 

[Allan]

Sorry but you don't get to change the definition of words to suit your argument or claim what others believe.
Who has ever said they "believe" in the absolute non existence of a go? Answer: no one. The sentence itself doesn't even make sense,

Saying I have absolutely no reason to believe in gods based upon all available information is not the same as making the affirmative claim you have an absolute belief something can't exist.

Yup. This debate should have ended at Post 11:

Atheism is a religion like “off” is a TV channel.

 

[DrewPaul]

The flaw in your argument is that you automatically assume "intent." Who says there is or has to be intent?

I claim there is intent, I don't claim there had to be. Atheists gaping flaw is the lack of a reasonable explanation why mindless forces would come into existence and create a universe with all the conditions and properties needed for intelligent life to exist none of which are necessary for natural forces to exist. The only available reasonable naturalistic explanation astronomers have offered is that this is one of an infinitude of universes. The theory itself states confirmation of other universes is impossible. Its the perfect time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. Ever hear of Occams razor?

 

[hooligan]

It actually IS a belief. It believes the absolute non-existence of a god.

Incorrect.


...To be clear: Atheism is not a disbelief in gods or a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods...

What is Atheism?

Atheism is one thing: A lack of belief in gods. It is not an affirmative belief that there is no god nor does it answer any other question about a person.

www.atheists.org

 

[Variant]

That isn't referring to the same thing that the term is typically used in the US though. This document is just complaining about how the fundamental system in the UK means that election results don't exactly reflect the overall national vote (though it doesn't ask whether that would be possible or a good thing). No politician in the UK can intentionally adjust the boundaries of individual constituencies for the specific purpose of favouring their own party.

Them having a naturally unrepresentative set of districts only really removes the malice but dosen't actually fix the problem.

 

[Gordy327]

I claim there is intent, I don't claim there had to be.

Your claim lacks any validity until you can prove it. Assertions do not cut it.

Atheists gaping flaw is the lack of a reasonable explanation why mindless forces would come into existence and create a universe with all the conditions and properties needed for intelligent life to exist none of which are necessary for natural forces to exist.

Atheists dont pretend there is a "intelligent," i.e. supranatural cause. Atheists are honest enough to say "we dont know" and/or provide what is known.

The only available reasonable naturalistic explanation astronomers have offered is that this is one of an infinitude of universes.

No, scientists can only speculate on infinite universes. While such a concept is intriguing and is sci fi plot material, there is no solid evidence for multiple universes. Naturalistic observations and measurements explain this universe. Supernatural "explanations" do not.

The theory itself states confirmation of other universes is impossible. Its the perfect time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. Ever hear of Occams razor?

You invoke Occams razor, yet claim there is "intent" behind the universe, which only adds more questions and complexity, the exact opposite of occams razor.

 

[HonestJoe]

Them having a naturally unrepresentative set of districts only really removes the malice but dosen't actually fix the problem.

That still isn't gerrymandering as Americans (and a lot of other people) would understand it, and I'd suggest it's being used for it's emotive power rather than literal accuracy.

Regardless, however electoral constituencies are established, they will always be unrepresentative by one measure or another. If you go by pure population, more populated regions will get a lot more representatives, people in less populated areas will have representatives based much further away and you can end up artificially splitting naturally coherent communities. There can also be questions over which population to measure; all residents, all citizens, potential voters, registered voters, etc.

The bottom line is that there is no simple "right" answer, which is all the more reason to have it assessed by independent academics rather than self-invested politicians, even if you don't like all of the academic conclusions.

 

[poppopfox]

I claim there is intent, I don't claim there had to be. Atheists gaping flaw is the lack of a reasonable explanation why mindless forces would come into existence and create a universe with all the conditions and properties needed for intelligent life to exist none of which are necessary for natural forces to exist. The only available reasonable naturalistic explanation astronomers have offered is that this is one of an infinitude of universes. The theory itself states confirmation of other universes is impossible. Its the perfect time and chance naturalism in the gaps explanation. Ever hear of Occams razor?

Where is this "intelligent life?" Certainly not here on Earth.

 

[NolanVoyd]

No its not.

Yes it is. I proved that.

Is theism a religion?

Religions are various versions of theism.

Theism is the belief in at least one being of higher power. It doesn't define how many gods, how they are worshiped, or how they are defined. Despite its broad definition, it doesn't make theism and religion interchangeable. One can associate with a religion and not be a theist and vice versa.

If one believes a religion one is a theist. Religious beliefs are by definition theistic.

Yiu are just wrong.

I proved that.

 

[D_NATURED]

It is time to stop pretending that Atheism is not a religion.

It's time to stop pretending all together.

 

[DrewPaul]

Yes it is. I proved that.


Religions are various versions of theism.

If one believes a religion one is a theist. Religious beliefs are by definition theistic.

Yiu are just wrong.

I proved that.

Insisting your right and turning blue doesn't prove it.

Philosophical theism is the belief that the Supreme Being exists independent of the teaching or revelation of any particular religion. It represents belief in God entirely without doctrine, except for that which can be discerned by reason and the contemplation of natural laws.

Philosophical theism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Jainism. While many approaches to religion exclude nontheism by definition, some inclusive definitions of religion show how religious practice and belief do not depend on the presence of a god or gods.

I'd say Wiccans fall in the same category. They believe in a mother god but not a creator of the universe.

You proved something but not that you're right.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Insisting your right and turning blue doesn't prove it.

I proved your definition of theism wrong. I quoted the actual definition.

Philosophical theism

One can be a theist without practicing religion. But if one practices religion, they are, by definition theistic..

Maybe try a venn diagram, take a logic class.

You are just wrong.

Own it.

 

[DrewPaul]

I proved your definition of theism wrong. I quoted the actual definition.

One can be a theist without practicing religion. But if one practices religion, they are, by definition theistic..

Maybe try a venn diagram, take a logic class.

You are just wrong.

Own it.

I listed several religions that aren't theistic. You're just stubborn...admit it.

 

[DrewPaul]

Where is this "intelligent life?" Certainly not here on Earth.

Intelligent and rational are two different things.

 

[Airyaman]

It is time to stop pretending that Atheism is not a religion.

Can you name some of the tenets of the religion of atheism?

 

[NolanVoyd]

I listed several religions that aren't theistic. You're just stubborn...admit it.

Nonsense.

Your definition of theism in post 199, along with your ridiculous claim that 'Theism isn't a religious belief any more than atheism is.' Is flat out wrong. Not correct.

That is just a fact.

Your post 199 is wrong, incorrect.

I proved that.

I rarely ever talk to you because you are rarely ever intellectually honest and lack the ability to admit you were wrong.

 

[poppopfox]

Intelligent and rational are two different things.

Then where is this "rational" life since you can't show where the "intelligent" life is?

 

[ataraxia]

It actually IS a belief. It believes the absolute non-existence of a god.

Agnosticism could be classified as a non-religion but Atheism does hold to their belief.

If you press even the most stalwart "atheists", they will tell you that strictly speaking, they are not atheists but agnostics. No one can be 100% sure God does not exist, just like we can't be 100% sure Allah doesn't exist, or boogeymen under children's beds don't really exist.

Here is one of the most famous of these "new atheists" basically admitting it:

 

[The Mark]

The vote/seat in the House of Representatives is not even remotely as bad as the House of Commons. Labour’s vote was 34% and they got 63% of the seats.

Depends what that 34% means.

If that was their total share of the vote, but the other parties had less of a share than them in 63% of the seats, it makes sense.


Edit: But I don't even know where you got those numbers so I have no idea whether they mean anything at all.