You are welcome to "learn" from a bronze age story book, i prefer academic books to learn from.
Nope, good sense is required, god magic, according to the bible kill people, have you not learned that yet?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Atheism is a RELIGION
- Thread starter Matheist
- Start date
You are welcome to "learn" from a bronze age story book, i prefer academic books to learn from.
Nope, good sense is required, god magic, according to the bible kill people, have you not learned that yet?
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Are you seriously telling me that the vast majority of religious people on the planet think that religious texts are not meant to be taken literally at all?
You had a look at the Republicans lately?
And yet they are perfectly happy to use their religion as an excuse for the crimes they commit.
Tiberius
Well-Known Member
Are you saying that religion is a form of mental illness, like addiction?
In any case, no one actually considers gambling to be worship or religious in any way. You are clinging to a ridiculous point because you don't want to admit you are wrong.
So? They've all been completely convinced in their beliefs, just as you are with yours. They were wrong, how can you be sure you aren't wrong as well?
A meaningless statement.
Cool. When it happens, lemme know. I'm not gonna hold my breath.
No he didn't, he placed it in the end times. We've had nutjobs predicting the end of the world for thousands of years.
Whatever. Telling me passages from the Bible isn't going to convince me that they are real. If you haven't got any evidence, then you're wasting your time.
TagliatelliMonster
Veteran Member
Indeed.
And....
"disbelief" = not a belief
"lack of belief" = not a belief.
I rest my case.
My "argument" is that disbelief or lack of belief, is not a belief.
By very definition of the words "disbelief" and "lack of belief".
When you have a lack of something, then you don't have that something.
So when you lack belief, you don't believe. "Not believing", is not "believing". It is rather "not believing".
I mean seriously...
Asymmetrical is not a type of symmetry....
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
It's been debunked where the Bible prophesies the Jewish Messiah will be worshiped amongst many Gentile peoples?!
It's been debunked that the Jews in the diaspora would bless the nations they stayed in, be persecuted there, then return home to Israel, to win the nation in a day, revive Hebrew, plant cities without walls, and make the desert bloom with agricultural richness?
It's like you've NEVER read the Bible.
The official definition of Atheism #151
atheism. n. disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.
Conclusion
1. It is a religious claim, and not rooted in science, logic, philosophy etc.
2. The claim for belief in God (The Dawkin's Scale *)
3. The claim for disbelief in God
4. The claim for without belief in God
(vs. not making a choice when everything has its causes and effects, IS A CHOICE - Burden of Proof)
* There are 320,000,000 Gods
Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.
Atheism is a Religion.
*
Premise 1: Who is an Atheist?
Pure Agnostic: God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
Weak Atheist: I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
De-facto Atheist: I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.
Premise 2: "Equiprobable, skeptical, improbable" means:
1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Conclusion: Atheism is a religion with 320,000,000 Gods
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. Pure Agnostic
God's existence and non-existence are exactly EQUIPROBABLE.
equiprobable: (of two or more things) equally likely to occur; having EQUAL PROBABILITY.
Therefore:
1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.
5. Weak Atheist
I do not know whether God exists, but I'm declined to be SKEPTICAL.
Therefore:skeptical1. not easily convinced; having doubts or reservations.
2. relating to the theory that certain knowledge is impossible.
1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.
6. De-facto Atheist
I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very IMPROBABLE.
Therefore:improbable1. not likely to be true or to happen.
synonyms: unlikely, not likely, doubtful, dubious, debatable, questionable, uncertain;
More: unexpected and apparently inauthentic.
1. Disbelief in God(s)
2. Belief in God(s)
3. Therefore, the definition of Atheism asserts the belief in 320,000,000 Gods.
Progress:
The definition #1 #151 Atheism is a Religion . #6 #32#37 #41 #205 #223
Strawman Fallacy: #235
Worldviews: #241
Ok, so what?
That's kind of you to say. And I thank you for your good cheer.
The word faith has multiple meanings. Two of them are justified belief, as in having faith that one's car will probably start the next time it is tested as it has the last 500 times somebody tried to start it, and unjustified belief, or belief lacking sufficient evidence, like religious faith, or faith that there is no climatological catastrophe looming. Confusing these two different meanings leads to a logical fallacy called equivocation. An obvious example of this fallacy would be to note that that banks are a safe place to keep money, that rivers have banks, and that therefore rivers are a safe place to keep money.
Faith in oneself might be either justified or unjustified belief, depending on past performance and outcomes. Are we discussing something that one has been repeatedly successful doing with few or no failures in the past? Expecting to succeed again is reasonable, not faith-based in the sense of unjustified belief.
And being in control of one's life rather than submitting to the rules of a religion does not elevate one to the status of a god. Autonomy and self-actualization are considered virtues in many ideologies including mine, secular humanism.
For some reason, many religious people resent others living autonomously. They say that we are in open rebellion against God, trying to escape accountability so that they can live a libertine existence.
The meanings of those two words as they are presently used by a growing number of atheists allow one to be both an atheist and agnostic if one does not believe in gods, but realizes that he has no test to rule out the possibility, and therefore he must remain agnostic on the matter.
Meekness and humility are not synonyms. One can be either humble or meek, both, or neither. Meekness refers to a poverty of spirit such that one is easily pushed around or taken advantage of. It is not a virtue. Think of the Caspar Milquetoast type, or if you're familiar with the movie Office Space, the character named Milton. These people are not blessed. They are accursed.
Some, perhaps, but once again, a meek person might be teachable or unteachable. Teachable is also not a synonym for meekness, nor is unteachable an antonym
Sure they do. Milton was very angry about having his desk moved to the windowless basement of the office and having his red stapler taken, but all he did about it was mutter angrily under his breath.
I've had this conversation before, and every time, the Christian apologist changes the meaning of meekness to that of other words, which tells me that he knows that meekness is not a virtue. It's pretty hard to argue that the inability to stand up for oneself, or on behalf of others, when one should be more assertive, is a good thing.
OK. I haven't seen the argument, and at this point, I lack sufficient evidentiary support to believe it. I'm not sure why a neurophysiologist is commenting on bacteriology, genetics, or evolution, or why some consider him authoritative when the scientific community doesn't. The theory of evolution is still standing strong. Can you paraphrase the argument? And who is the Russian scientist and professor?
We don't know with certainty, but in my opinion, the best idea at this time is that life assembles itself spontaneously due to the laws of chemistry and thermodynamics whenever and wherever the proper conditions are present. The spark of life is the oxidation of energetic molecules by a biological system, a kind of a very slow burn that powers cellular metabolism, movement, growth, repair, etc...
Were you aware that Dr. Flew developed dementia toward the end of his life, right about the time he is alleged to have converted from atheism to deism?
Complexity is not an infallible sign of intelligence. Irreducible complexity in a biological system would require an intelligence, but not mere complexity.
Flew's argument is a logical fallacy called arguing from incredulity. What he's telling us is that he just doesn't see how life could exist without the help of intelligence, so therefore, it didn't.
Also implied is the special pleading fallacy that cellular complexity requires intelligent input, but not the complexity of the intelligent agent, which would presumably be orders of magnitude more complex than the complexity in the cell.
How would one worship gambling? By gambling? By gambling excessively? Can somebody that doesn't gamble worship gambling - perhaps by building an altar to it?
A recurring theme in this thread is the meaning given to words like religion, atheist, agnostic, god, faith, and now worship. It is perfectly possible to live one's life without worshiping anything or anybody.
Life has never been as good for as many as it is now. Today people live longer, are healthier, are safer, are more comfortable, and live easier lives with the assistance of machines that do much of the menial labor.
In Christianity, simply being an unbeliever is called wicked.
- "Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness?"- 2 Corinthians 6:14
Then, eventually, you die and face Allah, who punishes you in the extreme. You claim that that is unfair. You had no way to know to take that warning seriously rather than the one you chose. And you are simply told that it's your fault for not complying. You were warned. What would you think if you were treated so harshly for heeding the wrong warning with no clear way to know which if either to heed?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Assertions need to be backed up and demonstrated. You think atheism is a religion? Then go ahead and demonstrate that it is a religion.
Since the poster refuses to answer relevant questions surrounding the criteria that make something a religion, there really isn't much more to say. They haven't made their case. Nor do they really seem to care to make a cogent argument.
Last edited:
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Google is your friend. The fact that you, personally, refuse to look at the debunking process? Isn't my problem, is it?
I'd be happy to school you here-- but not for free. Unless you've been living in a cave, it's been around for decades, that the "bible prophecies" are inadequate.
Nonsensical gibberish.
It's like you've never lifted your head above the sand....
Quite right! And that must, obviously, begin by a careful definition of what "a religion" really is. I think if you study philosophy a bit, that'll prove to be a real challenge. Definition of religion - Wikipedia
To be perfectly blunt, at the end of the day though there are way too many definitions of religion, I have to go back to the notion from which religion takes its name, "religare" or to bind oneself," that religion really does mean that to which you stake some personal claim that requires of you some act, some specific beliefs that inform behaviour, and that sort of thing. I don't mind leaving the ideas of "god" or "supernatural" out of that.
So, in one sense, one might actually say that someone like the physicist, chemist or biologist, who "binds himself" to the scientific method, has undertaken a kind of quasi-religious stance. That is, to accept that the scientific method is the best way to understand the natural world. There isn't, actually, a real proof of that statement, that it is "the best way."
But let's now talk about what it is that those who argue for atheism being a "kind of religion" are really getting at. They must be saying, must they not, that the atheist commits himself, because of his atheism, because of his "binding himself" to a non-belief in gods...which is of course precisely what atheism means, and that this commitment informs his ongoing behaviours.
SO! What are they, those ongoing behaviours.
Yes, I think that those who suppose not believing in gods is a religion are really beating a dead horse.
So, in one sense, one might actually say that someone like the physicist, chemist or biologist, who "binds himself" to the scientific method, has undertaken a kind of quasi-religious stance. That is, to accept that the scientific method is the best way to understand the natural world. There isn't, actually, a real proof of that statement, that it is "the best way."
But let's now talk about what it is that those who argue for atheism being a "kind of religion" are really getting at. They must be saying, must they not, that the atheist commits himself, because of his atheism, because of his "binding himself" to a non-belief in gods...which is of course precisely what atheism means, and that this commitment informs his ongoing behaviours.
SO! What are they, those ongoing behaviours.
- Does anyone know an atheist who sets aside 5 times a day, or one hour a week, to specifically NOT worship any gods?
- To those who think that "God is Love," does that require that atheists do not love, and do you have any examples?
- Are atheists, by their lack of belief in gods, required to do evil, to commit immoral acts, to burn down mosques and churches? (And who, by the way, is more likely to burn down a church but the frequenter of a mosque, and vice-versa? What, after all, is the motive for doing such a thing?)
- What must the atheist keep in mind, due to lack of belief in deities, before deciding what to eat, or what to wear, or who he is allowed to have converse, communion or even sex with?
Yes, I think that those who suppose not believing in gods is a religion are really beating a dead horse.
I find apparently the people of Acts 4:13-20 also preferred academic books because in their view Peter and John were perceived as unlettered men, but they took note about Peter and John that they had been with Jesus.
What we can 'learn' is 'what the Bible really teaches' as opposed to the traditions of men over Scripture but just being taught as being Scripture.
According to what the Bible really teaches is to 'lay down the sword' - Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10.
'Lay down the sword' means: Do Not kill. Remember Exodus 20:13.
Because God does Not want anyone to be destroyed is why He places life and good in front of all - Deuteronomy 30:15.
We are to take to heart and choose life - Deuteronomy 30:19; Proverbs 6:16-17
There will be justice for the righteous ones, No person will do any executing of the wicked, we are asked to warn ( Not kill ) the wicked as per Ezekiel 33:8-11. God takes No pleasure in the death of the wicked.
By warning, then the wicked could repent - Ezekiel 3:18-21
Thus, to me 'warning' is Not killing. That is why Matthew 24:14 is called ' good news ' about God's kingdom of Daniel 2:44.
Good News because we all have the opportunity to love as Jesus' loved others (Not kill others) - John 13:34-35.
Bronze ages. Academic books have been updated since then, the bible hasn't
What the bible teaches? Commit genocide, kill children, steal land, capture sex slaves... Right, you are welcome.
And cherry picking does not make the horror of the bible go away
* Example of Christ-like love is Not love in general but to have the same self-sacrificing love for others as Jesus has.
In other words, we are now to love neighbor ' more ' than self.
That self-sacrificing love means telling others about the ' good news of God's kingdom ' as Jesus taught at Matthew 24:14. I know of No atheist or agnostic who goes about telling others about Acts of the Apostles 1:8.
* It's 'Christendom' ( the so-called Christian ) who burns down places of worship. Jesus never taught that.
* As to what must the atheist keep in mind is Not found in Scripture, what is found in Scripture is Micah 6:8.
We are to exercise justice, to cherish loyalty, and to walk in modesty with God.
[/QUOTE]
How people were to be treated is recorded in the 19th chapter of Leviticus. - Leviticus 19:18 (Golden Rule)
Any execution was for the sake of justice for the righteous ones.
The death of Egypt's first born included children of any age minor or adult.
Egypt kept the Israelites as slaves and would Not let them go.
Parents are responsible for minor children - 1 Corinthians 7:14
Those parents in Noah's day were beyond reform, beyond repentance.
If No action was taken, then the wicked would destroy all the righteous ones.
This will also be the case at the time when the executional words from Jesus' mouth takes the action needed to rid the earth of those who would bring ruin to earth whether in a physical or moral way - Revelation 19:14-16; Isaiah 11:3-4.
Yes, Daniel 12:4,9 is placed in the end times, the end times of badness on Earth as described at 2 Timothy 3:1-5,13.
Predicting the end of the world for thousands of years does Not make the Bible as wrong, just makes the calculations or guesses as wrong.
Plus, there are people who think the end of the world means the end of Earth, that is Not what the Bible teaches.
It is the 'end of all badness on Earth'. God will bring to ruin those ruining Earth - Revelation 11:18 B.
As to when Jesus' thousand-year day begins I am letting you know when that happens.
The answer is found at 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3.
When the ' powers that be ' will be saying, "Peace and Security..." that is the precursor to the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14 before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.
There is no evidence that egypt kept hebrew slaves, even modern hebrew scholars consider this a story without substance. Learn from the bible?
And of course even if true, its hypocrisy to kill for it when hebrews themselves did precisely the same thing, and worse.
Exodus 21:20-21
2Samuel 8:13
Numbers 31:9
Judges 21: 10-12
Any age, including children and innocent babies.
So god made everyone bad except noah and his immediate family so he murdered every person, animal and plant (except noah and co) to cover his error? Note that included all the pregnant woman and their unborn child.
In Scripture we are dealing with the Hebrew word 'a-naw' from the root word 'a-nah' which means humble.
So, meek is connected to being mild or gentle, Not ego - Philippians 2:3
I must admit I never heard of Moses (Numbers 12:3) or Jesus being in poverty of spirit or easily pushed around or taken advantage of. Nor were the apostles any Caspar Milquetoast.
In what way in the movie was Milton like Moses or Jesus.
Jesus demonstrated what it means to be meek by biblical standards.
Jesus endured without complaint and showed great zeal when he twice threw out the greedy money changers.
Better to be meek than divide spoil with self-exalted ones - Proverbs 16:18-19.
Those who are Not meek seek to lead meek ones astray to cause damage or destroy - Amos 2:7; Amos 8:4
And when the Hebrews did Not obey then we find they often went astray being a still-necked people.
They were in Babylonian exile for 70 year because of their unfaithfulness.
Yes, there was internal strife in Israel as per Judges chapters 17 to 21.
The land was polluted with idols, idol worship and sex crimes (chapter 19)
There was war committed against those Benjaminites (chapter 20) but there were saved ones as per chapter 21.
The women and children of Numbers 31:18 were Not killed - Deuteronomy chapters 20-21.
The Philistines were enemies - 2 Samuel 8th chapter.
Exodus chapter 21:12-27 is about violence done to a fellow man (violence on animals - Exodus 21:28-36)
In ancient of Israel there was the ' avenger of blood ' (Numbers 35:19-21,31) - Please see Leviticus 24:17-22.