Atheism is/is not a religion

Our life experiences are not all the same, so there is no way we can all share an underlying premise at the subconscious level.

BTW - I am implying that my lack of faith from God arises from looking at the available evidence, seeing preponderance in a scientific sense, looking at what some call God's Plan of Salvation and the atonement, a doctrine of service by many faiths- and by people who are not of any faith, compassion by people of faith, and by people who do not share that faith, never answered prayers, never having seen miracles, and thinking that for thousands of years people seeking out this God character just be like the people who believed in Leprechauns or that the stars control our destiny.

Frankly I think what you have faith in is very nice, and I am sure it brings you great comfort.

I just don't believe it.

Having looked at the evidence, etc.

 

to live.

Instinct

all of us have it.

Some not for very much longer.

zero evidence of some monkey on a thrown, claiming to be a god

i know. Idiots will be destroyed. Looking forward to it.

each liar will get theirs.

do good, and live. Kind of like procreation to the instinct of mankind. It's universal

another universal of the conscious experience

that's bull

just shut up with that bs

i know, like doctors saving more lives than any religious group ever even considered, by knowledge, not religious stupidity

if your god is anything like you, no wonder people turn to atheist. (evolve beyond prideful ignorance)

is me slapping you around, the proof?

no magic, so th role the idiots claim has always been crap

you cant spell speculation let alone denying that mother nature is the god of every life you even heard of. Well, lies still live, so i guess some life needs a fly swatter.

 

How do you look at 'evidence' to determine if having faith is justified?

 

I think that anything based on faith cannot be looked at objectively.

I looked at the evidence I have seen in life, and I have seen no evidence that makes me conclude that God exists.

I really do not argue that others might find evidence to support their faith, but I really don't consider it 'evidence' in any scientific sense- but then again I do not try to argue with people that their faith is wrong- only that I do not believe it.

I do not think that faith should require or does require any evidence.

 

Just wanted to jump in here and say that it appears that I do have a bad working definition of what agnosticism is. I admit that what I said earlier about it was flawed, after doing some reading on the subject on my own.

In that respect however, since the area that I thought agnosticism covered is not in fact true, what do we refer to people who don't believe either way, who don't think you can ever know, but haven't tilted in one direction or the other? Is there a term for that? Undecided? Independent?

 

Technically they'd be atheists. If you don't actually believe in a god, that's the term that applies regardless of why you don't (including having never considered it). In practice we don't call them anything because people don't actually need labels.

 

Let me help you out, SFJEFF. Instead of this convoluted mess of tortured logic you gave, the correct answer is that you can't.

 

There is no evidence of gods, so looking at "the available evidence" (of which there is none) will neither assist in catching the faith-bug nor prevent one from catching it.

Having prayers answered or seeing miracles has nothing to do with evidence, either. If a person has faith then the answering of prayers and the occurrences of miracles are just as evidently true to him as the absence of answers and miracles is to a person without faith. In other words, there is nothing anyone can do to dismiss the truth of prayers and miracles other than saying it's false, - which has the exact same value as saying it's true.

If "having looked at the evidence" worked then it could just as easily lead to faith as sustain an absence of it.

 

No, they would be agnostics. I don't know is different than I think probably not or definitely not. The later two are atheism.

 

More propoganda. Indeed, if one is too lazy to look, there is indeed no evidence.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/answers.html

http://www.cambridge.org/gb/knowledge/isbn/item2713274/?site_locale=en_GB

http://www.amazon.com/God-Evidence-Reconciliation-Reason-Postsecular/dp/0761519645

And many, many more.

Once again, its post like the one above, and the complete failure to use logical reasoning that caste dubious status on atheisms intellectual underpinnings.

Thesis: There is no God.

Evidence in support of thesis? No evidence required because we have no burden of proof! There is no evidence, magic flaoting tea pots in outer space! Jesus was a Myth! I hate people that disagree with me.

Rebuttal of commonly provided evidence = a complete failure to even acknowledge the countering agruement.

Conclusion, my opinion is actually fact - naner naner.

Why do so many atheists make the claim that there is no evidence for God? When honest people know that there is, only its not conclusive in a scientific sense? Why be a such odds with general consensus?

 

They're technically both. If your position is "probably not" and certainly if you're specifically "undecided", as we were discussing, they fit both the definition of atheism and agnosticism.

As I suggested, in this kind of context, the labels are largely pointless though.

 

No, they do not. Because a real agnostic says, "I don't know," or, "I will not state an opinion on this." As soon as he crossed the line into probability and states, "Probably yes or no." He is no longer agnostic. Standard definitions make these things clear, obfuscation makes it muddy.

Now, how many times have atheists on this forum reminded us that atheism is JUST one sentence? The disbelief in a God or Gods? And yet, that encompasses one who has not formed an opinion on the subject?

the world is not going to change its definitions for you Joe, nor should it.

 

Atheism is the lack of belief in a God or gods. It could be claimed that atheists only believe in one less God than monotheists. To suggest that non-belief in a god is a religion is palpably laughable.

 

However you cannot claim that it is not a religious viewpoint...

 

This is factually untrue.
An agnostic is free to say what his opinion is on the subject of a deity, but will add that there is no way to know what is true.
Gnosticism is only about knowledge, not belief.

 

That's like saying you can't claim an absence of insects isn't an entomological viewpoint.

The entomologist will see it as such since he views the absence from his own point of view, - someone indifferent to insects will not.

 

Like a True Scotsman?

They don't need to. That's because I'm talking about definitions of characteristics rather than definitions of people.

 

If I am about to roll a dice, am I going to roll a six? I don't know, but probably not. "not knowing" and thinking "probably not" are not incompatible.

 

Well, thank you for the religious like claim without any supporting arguementation. Atheism is not a religion because atheists SAY so! Even though that asked the supreme court to recognize them as one ... go figure. I guess, rather than clarify that glaring contradiction, its best to simple declare ... both?

 

God is not a roll of the dice.

Do you have a mother? I don't know and probably not suddenly take on two very different distinctions there don't they? I don't know indicates not knowing? Adoption, etc. Probably not? Indicates someone is most likely a test tube baby.

You believe in gravity? Unsure and probably not?

Again agnosticism and atheism are two very different things with two very different definitions ... for a reason. If you find yourself swinging between two definitions, then I would wager it probably has something to do with YOUR standards and not the standard definitions.

Sorry brother, but when simple English is twosted to become meaningless ... well, it simply makes no sense.

 

We are talking about definitions in a dictionary.

I am not sure what you are taking about, but again, my history with those who obfuscate standards is that they are looking to get over on something. To behave like a strong atheist yet have the evidential support of an agnostic. Its fundamentally dishonest. THough, to be sure, I highly doubt that you are even attempting to be dishonest, I would ask why your personal beliefs are so difficult to define? Its not like atheism and agnosticism just popped into being. Its not like anyone but atheists seems to have a problem with the definintions?

My question then is why? Why do atheists have a tough time differentiating between agnosticism and atheism? Why not accept the STANDARD delineation, and if not, why not? What good is served? What will changing the definition do in terms of precise communication and meaning?

 

I haven't seen a whole lot of atheist churches/temples around. I wonder why that is? Hmm... lol

 

Oh, you have never seen an atheist hold a meeting have you? No atheist organizations have buildings? (but you don;t call them churches, even though they fill exactly the same function as a church?)

Would you like to take that bet?

 

Are they tax exempt too?

A lot of groups, Republicans and Democrats for example, hold meetings in buildings and have groups. Hell you can have a book club and hold meetings, I am pretty sure it doesn't count as a religion though where people go to worship and pray.

 

By that "logic," any private association of like-minded individuals is a religion. Is the Red Cross a religion then? How about the National Association of Sportfishermen? Surely the Midwest Hog Farmers and Feedlot Operators Association is a religion. Call us when the shuttle lands...