Atheism is a religion

Yes, it has. Read The Moral Landscape for an argument in favor of science based ethics.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sTKf5cCm-9g"]‪Sam Harris: The Moral Landscape‬‏ - YouTube[/ame]

Then it is of little more use than a poetic novelty.

 

I didn't equate him to a god. I equated him to the Pope i.e. a religious leader.

 

I dont (*)(*)(*)(*)ing care and you make me sick.

 

Obviously that is exactly what I am suggesting.

 

You worship in your way. Others worship in theirs. And I should take this opportunity to point out that Jesus, God, and the like all ALSO come from a book... Do you mock the Flying Spaghetti Monster? You call her a "supposed deity." What do you expect with an attitude like that? Why is FSM a "supposed" deity while "God" is not "supposed?"

 

Not even that, he is no more the pope than Sam Harris or Bill Maher. What you do not seem to understand is that atheism does not have a doctrine, a leader, a ritual. It is simply the denial of the supernatural.

His noodley appendage will guide you.

 

I want to begin by saying I am an Agnostic, so I hope you don't take this the wrong way. You're correct that Atheism does not have a variety of specific doctrines like Christianity does, but it does have to answer whether we have objective morals or not (Jean-Paul Satyr is an atheist who says without God there are no objective moral values), what is reality (solely materialism?), what is the best way to knowledge, etc. So while atheists can disagree on these implications that need to be answered, a coherent atheist worldview would still need a find a way to answer them, and this would in some sense mean that Atheism would have to be more than just denying the supernatural.

 

You raise some good points, but for my part, I have to ask "why?" Why do "implications need to be answered" as you suggest?

 

Ok I'll use an example that helped me understand this. Let's say that I claim all killing is wrong. This could imply, depending on how killing is defined, that I cannot use self-defense against an attacker nor could I support any war at any time. If I am a pacifist, these would be necessary implications of my position that could cause me problems. If I just ignore them, then I am not really trying to make my worldview coherent. If an atheist doesn't answer the possible or real implications, then the position is not being adequately defended. I hope this makes sense.

 

Well, that is wonderful news. That would mean that Atheists and other non-theists, in their attempts at ridiculing Theists and Christians for their practice with regard to what non-theists call 'myths', 'fairy tales', 'hallucinations', etc., are equally guilty of the same behavior.

 

Once again, your questions have their foundation on the definition of 'God'. Can any one of us or any group of us fabricate a definition of 'God' that would be all inclusive and also disallow any additional attributes of 'God' to be later added to that definition?

 

You raise a good point, so if my reply is short, I am posting from my phone.

You raise a good point, however the advancement of ethics does not necessarily need to be fronted by atheists, agnostics are a part of it too. There really isn't a big difference between atheists and agnostics.
it's a matter of basing human values on something other than... say, a book that condones the stoning of homosexuals.

 

I sort of agree with you. Divine command theory really has trouble overcoming what is known as the Euthyphro problem, which comes from Plato's dialogue Euthyphro. In it Socrates asks Euthyphro, is an action good because God says it is good or does God recognize it as good and then command it because of this? If you answer that it is good because God says so, then morality could be completely different, such as stoning homosexuals for example. If you say God recognizes an action to be good, then you are stuck with morality being separate from God (which is what the theist wants to avoid). But the one thing about divine command theory is that God is the source of all morality. It is objectively what God says it is.

Without God, human beings have to determine what is right/wrong. And there are different strategies atheists/agnostics have taken on this. Some say morality is just natural. Other's base it in utilitarianism or deontology (basically rule following). Most of us have instinct reactions to certain actions, such as stealing, lying, or unnecessary murder. But what the theist charges is that we have no real right to make the moral judgment because our morality has no grounding aside from human subjectivity and subjectivity is entirely relative. So the debate rages on. And this is why an atheist/agnostic should attempt to give some sort of rationale with regards to morality. What that rationale is, I am not sure yet. I'm still thinking this topic over.

 

Yes. And the converse of that is you have no moral standing on which to mock believers in the Flying Spaghetti Monster because you and they share--by necessity--a similar suspension of logic to justify your beliefs.

 

There are logic forms that vary in rules, format, etc, than just one. Therefore, there is no 'suspension of logic' within my own being, and perhaps not in others, but merely an application of differing forms of logic. Depending on the particular system of logic that is being used, would determine whether or not there is a 'moral standing' to act in a mocking manner.

 

If A then B.

God = Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Sorry, there's just no way around this one.

 

Your belief is for me not understandable. I don't see any sense in this childish comparison - except that this comparison is created only to hurt the belief of other people so everyone is able to call them idiots because their god is a flying spaghetti monster.

I would say: you can see in the moment the flying spaghetti Mollotow Cocktails in the streets of english cities - and they have absolutely nothing to do with god or a feeling of responsibility in the eyes of god. And the young disrooted people there are also not crying "Christian are intolerant barbars because they like it, if everyone is respecting the 10 commandements". They do not even have any plan what a Christian could be, because they never saw only one in their whole life, and they never heard only one word from Jesus Christ - except the nonsense atheists are telling them about the belief of Christians.

http://youtu.be/fS2X-Agrdb4

 

I favor rights being totally subjective to what humans as a whole decide recognize as rights. The issue that I have with "natural rights" is that they often invoke the supernatural, god gave them to us, or they invoke a birth right of some sort.

However if there no one to recognize and define any sort of right, then that right does not exist. Often in gun control debates people say its their natural right to own a firearm, in reality though, Americans are the global minority when it comes to gun ownership. This supposed "birthright" is not universally recognized, therefore I have a hard time accepting gun ownership (or anything) as a "birth right", "natural right", etc.

The issue with using instinctive feelings for the definition of rights is that the pendulum swings both ways. A child may be upset if a candy is taken from him, however the other child may be upset if the candy is not given to him. So who has more of a right to the candy?

Sam Harris makes a wonderful argument in favor of basing human rights and ethics on neuroscience, The Moral Landscape is an excellent read. Harris explains his argument in the video I posted in this thread.

 

I am not sure I can find much secular and temporal objection (or cognitive dissonance) to a form of "religion" that bears true witness to Capitalism and the institution of money based markets, even if it is on our lucre.

In my opinion, it simply re-affirms my commitment try to bear true witness to Capitalism and the institution of money based markets, whenever I cannot bear true witness to Religion for free.

 

1. His statement that he is a theist is false.
2.If an entity (FSM) exists it does means this entity has created the universe or anything at all.This only proves that an individuals making such a statement and agreeing in it validity are atheists, those who have mentality of a 5 years old.
3. I can continue, but:

Ladies and Gents let me bring another one to your attention.

 

Your example in the first two lines above is valid for those that worship the FSM. Though, IMHO, it is an infantile representation.

 

I understand I’ll see no reaction to the fact that you attributed your own fart to me.
You have a very scientific perception of Empiricism, which means it is vague, uncertain, oxymoron.
"Whatever is in our intellect must have previously been in the senses.” Or in other words we can rely on logic conclusions based on empirical evidence we can touch, smell, see, hear.
This is a statement of the scientific method most of scientists, college professors and intellectuals recognize and use.
FYI: the scientific method was invented over 700 years ago and it was first used to prove existence of G-d through logic on the base of empirical evidence.
I can recite it and I can update it. But
1. I despise science as you know.
2. it requires some rigorous training in logic on your side.
3. No observed, sensed and seen with one’s own eyes reality can convince an atheist.
4. I am here to prove presence of 3 and absence of 2 in atheists.
5.i am not here to get involved in the same debate as evolution is a joke.

You are delusional because nobody except you and delusional ones can see more than 2.

So what else do you want? This is exactly what I am saying - IF God exists then he IS above science, and reason. Why maybe? What is the doubt, did not we already agree that it is true?

Where do you see us just assuming so that you have to say but? Where do you see us just saying?
IF we assume we have to define. If we define then God is beyond our understanding by the definition. If he was within our understanding then we are gods, and thus the creators of all things around us and ourselves, which is obviously a perfect scientific idea and thus it is oxymoron.

Yes, there are. And?

The 7th time: There is no such a mathematical/logical statement as more (superior). There is only statement more than. You have to prove that my method of coming to know God has more problems than the 2 methods you have came up with or than any other methods in any combination.

What should I defend, what are deficiencies of my method? Common..
You have been required to have full faith in yourself. If you don’t have such faith you are an oxymoron zombie and I am done; I cannot kindle fire in your mind for it is completely rotten and wet, or because you’re a child in the process of becoming a human. If you don’t have such faith no other methods can work, except for the scientific method used by teachers, scientists, college professors and intellectuals whose sole job and goal is to abuse children and suppress development of human intellect.

Where did I ever suggest to agree on everything? (An Argument is NOT valid if it is void of ad homs) = false. ( Ad hom is not a valid argument) =true. Good or bad do not belong to terms of logic or math.

[Who is that someone? It is a strawman you have made. May I use an equal ad hom argument to counter your argument? Which one would you prefer for your feelings to be hurt at this time of a day?
You’re bringing in a new value of human bias with no justification for its necessity. You are adding it to both sides of the equation. It does not change the equation but makes you look illiterate.

A=B and A+2=B+2 are the same.

I also asked you to stop trying to prove/disprove/understand G-d with means of science according to our previous agreement. I’ve already showed you 5 times that those who have not learned any science are not necessary but most likely cannot be equated with oxymoron zombies. Moreover for the sake of simplification I’ve accepted an equal amount of oxymoron zombies on all sides (it is 2 in the equations above).

Whited out is your spin, bolded is what I’m saying taken by you out of the context. The context is that those who seek to arrive at knowledge arrive at becoming brainwashed oxymoron zombies. Your mind is not a vessel to be filled with garbage produces by child abusers aka scientists, college professors and intellectuals, but a fire to be kindled.

So what else do you want? This is what I am saying - IF, IF IF IF God exists then it IS true.

Bolded are the words you have omitted intentionally. You have already done this like 5 times.

1. You bringing in a new value of human bias in with no justification for it necessity. You are adding it to both sides of the equation. It does not change the equation but makes you look illiterate.
2. There is no contradiction in the statement that the Bible is both divinely inspired and written by human beings.

I did not say that they were reliable. I said they are more reliable than human biased science and reason when it comes to the issue of G-d.

The Bible, the Word of G-d if he exists, the Church and your intellect are at your intellectual disposal for starters.

???????
Are you saying that you’r afraid of trusting to yourself because it will prove G-d exists? I don’t know how… but if you convinced that you’ll come to proving God through this method, I wouldn’t argue… it is your personal way of thoughts unknown to me.

All other methods are based on humanity. This cancels adding your new value on both sides of the equation.

What faith and what set?

It is given.

He could, it does not change anything. Neither science nor reason can overcome our humanity and creation of G-d as a necessity of our minds. Your suggestion to surgically cut G-d out of human brain is an idea of a cannibal, a scientist.

More reliable, more reliable... You cannot understand a simple thing even it is repeated to you 10 times. The scientific method of logical conclusions based on empirical evidence is only useful to produce beliefs. You believe in evolution happening, black holes existing, vacuum fluctuating etc. which have no other use, and then you believe that all these beliefs not only have any relation to observed reality but somehow could be a method of proving/disproving/understanding G-d, when the Word of G-d and the Church set up by him are not reliable. Try the 11 th time, But I am note sure that I will have time/ interest.

 

Atheism is a negative obsession with religion. There is probably not a God. but the question isn't that important (unless, of course, there is such a nutty one as pictured in the Old Testament, which seems very unlikely).

 

Traveling the safe passage through the forests?