Where all discussions end up falling into

[Eban]

Is atheism a form of belief/religion like christians insist saying it is, or is it really like atheists say it is, a scientific "theory", or the lack of believing in a spiritual omnipresent entity?

Because it seems to me that theists and non-theits cannot discuss anything before breaking this into a consensus, or else atheists will be arguing with people that believe that science is a mere form of religion, where every theory is a belief, therefore a religion. And we can even go further saying that atheists may conclude that a religion is a form of scientific theory, improbable like christians say evolution is, but possible as a theory.

It seems crazy think about it, it´s a neverending loop in my mind.

[Superbug]

Atheism is a philosophical position, as is theism. Both are impossible to test, therefore they are not scientific theories.

[bandecoot]

Atheism is a philosophical position, as is theism. Both are impossible to test, therefore they are not scientific theories.

I was going to take issue with this, then I thought about it and I would agree with it. They are both positions on a subject that cannot be tested or shown incorrect.

Of course having admitted that here superbug, we are going to have double buffer The Pascal Counters in our browsers. 'Cause you know what's coming once they read this.

[HRG_new]

I was going to take issue with this, then I thought about it and I would agree with it. They are both positions on a subject that cannot be tested or shown incorrect.

Of course having admitted that here superbug, we are going to have double buffer The Pascal Counters in our browsers. 'Cause you know what's coming once they read this.

I've no problem with that. My Pascal Counter automatically doubles its own range when it gets too close to a power of 2. Besides, it has an automatic Odin defense built in :teeth: :teeth:

[bandecoot]

I've no problem with that. My Pascal Counter automatically doubles its own range when it gets too close to a power of 2. Besides, it has an automatic Odin defense built in :teeth: :teeth:


Does that work with Jupiter Optimus Maximus as well? I would hate to impinge on your work but that sounds like the course of wisdom.

[technomage]

I've no problem with that. My Pascal Counter automatically doubles its own range when it gets too close to a power of 2. Besides, it has an automatic Odin defense built in :teeth: :teeth:
But you know what happens ... plan for Odin, get Loki. :wink:

This is a non-theist only area.

- Jaltus

[Arterial Spray]

Does that work with Jupiter Optimus Maximus as well?
No, but I hear it works fabulously on Optimus Prime.

[bandecoot]

No, but I hear it works fabulously on Optimus Prime.


Took me a while to get that one. Not being a transformer fan. But my question is more regarding Pascal counters and auto responders for that argument. Sure ly you have a Pascal counter? How many times have you seen Pascals Wager used by some Newbie who thinks they have just found the ultimate conversion tool for Atheists?

[zorathruster]

Is atheism a form of belief/religion like christians insist saying it is, or is it really like atheists say it is, a scientific "theory", or the lack of believing in a spiritual omnipresent entity?

The problem with this description is that is falls into the same trap as the christians fall into with the inquisition. Believers in christianity instigated a purge of the faithful and not in an effort to robust their authoritarian power. This doesn't look good for the christian. Persons who claim a common moral guidance (Christianity) enacted those murders. Christians attempt all sorts of methods to distance themselves from the atrocities of their past.

Atheism on the other hand is a "non" belief in a god. That means we don't believe that a God exists. That is not relative to our morality which is different than a belief or non-belief in a supernatural deity.

Point being you need to delink from the same trap. Theists wish to group various atrocities such as the soviet purge in with the atheist camp. Problem is that under the definition of "non-belief" it could as rightly be said that those instituting the soviet purge were nonbelievers in UFOs or Fairies or Trolls or Unicorns. It would be as right to lope "non-believers in Trolls" with the Soviet purge because they had common "beliefs" or a non acceptance of the existance of trolls. To group non-believers as a grouping allows theists to group atheists with those who commit atrocities and share the common non-belief in the supernatural.

Thusly, when the topic is presented, a prudent atheist will point out a positive belief in theism and the associated moral directives is not the same as grouping those who reject the idea of the supernatural which does not carry with it the dictate of a moral code and cannot form the common bond of moral impetous that theism does.

Of course that means you need to have a fair grasp of your own moral code before you do that.

[Superbug]

Theists want to classify atheism as a religion for political reasons. Then any law against religious bias would be a law against the lack of religious bias. It's just politics.

[yuzuha]

Hm, I suppose atheism could be carried to the point of being a belief, but I don't think it could normally be classified as one. Normally I think of it as doubtful agnosticism, and think of myself as an atheist or agnostic (I do believe in kami, gods and demons, but I also believe that these are simply creations of our own minds in response to the awareness of some external or internal stimulus, and think these images sometimes resonate between people because our brains are similar, but think it is a mistake to project our internal imagery onto the external universe or other species... would dolphins or intelligent aliens come up with the same deistic imagery as humans? Not likely.), but I suppose some people could get just as rabbid about it as some theists can about their favorite deity/ies and/or associated dogma.... at that point it simply becomes anti-deism which is simply the other side of the same coin.

[Mark Little]

Atheism is a philosophical position, as is theism. Both are impossible to test, therefore they are not scientific theories.I'm in semi-agreement with this - how's that for fence sitting? :lol:

Clearly no one can prove or disprove that there is or isn't a god. After all, there could be a god who kicked off the universe and simply observes as we may observe an ant farm. Nothing we do can prove or disprove this theory.

On the other hand, if we go down that track, we have to concede every illogical thing that can be imagined may exist - an invisible, purple unicorn may exist, even though I can't see how an invisible thing can be purple.

What can be tested is whether the claims of a particular religious belief align with the world as we can measure it.

This, of course, does not mean that Christianity is wrong, since a literal genesis on which YECs base their theories, is not univerally accepted by all Christians. Please, no outrage that that dissenters aren't really Christians, since they could say the same about you.:wink:

Atheism, at least in my case. results for a lack of an unambiguous case for a belief in the supernatural. Until I see differently, it sits with the invisible pink unicorns.

Still, it is an interesting topic, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so much time on the issues, would we?

[bandecoot]

I'm in semi-agreement with this - how's that for fence sitting? :lol:

Clearly no one can prove or disprove that there is or isn't a god. After all, there could be a god who kicked off the universe and simply observes as we may observe an ant farm. Nothing we do can prove or disprove this theory.

On the other hand, if we go down that track, we have to concede every illogical thing that can be imagined may exist - an invisible, purple unicorn may exist, even though I can't see how an invisible thing can be purple.

What can be tested is whether the claims of a particular religious belief align with the world as we can measure it.

This, of course, does not mean that Christianity is wrong, since a literal genesis on which YECs base their theories, is not univerally accepted by all Christians. Please, no outrage that that dissenters aren't really Christians, since they could say the same about you.:wink:

Atheism, at least in my case. results for a lack of an unambiguous case for a belief in the supernatural. Until I see differently, it sits with the invisible pink unicorns.

Still, it is an interesting topic, otherwise we wouldn't be spending so much time on the issues, would we?


Mark the theists cant respond here, this is our corner of Tweb. They get modded out if they try.

I tend to agree to a point. Directed Panspermia could be valid, I dont see how , but then I am not all knowing.

Physical evidence tends to support a lack of Gods however. at least as far as the middle eastern religions go. So I go with that. Don't we all?

[Superbug]

On the other hand, if we go down that track, we have to concede every illogical thing that can be imagined may exist - an invisible, purple unicorn may exist, even though I can't see how an invisible thing can be purple.


Theism isn't illogical if you ignore YEC and other stupid arguments, like TAG and objective meaning. Invisible unicorns or purple unicorns aren't illogical either. I don't believe neither in gods nor in unicorns but I can't prove that they don't exist. I think that theism is just wishful thinking and if they stopped wishing for a moment, they'd realize it's a stupid belief. But we'd still have to be agnostics.

[Cloud_Walker]

Atheism can be either belief in absence (strong atheism) or absence of belief (weak atheism). So generally all that can be said about atheism is that it is the lack of belief in deities, whether because there's no reason for the belief, because one thinks deities can't exist, whether one is simply not aware of the topic, etc, etc. It is important to realize that theism and atheism are statements about belief, while agnosticism is a position on knowledge. Anyone who is honest with themselves is an agnostic.