Atheism IS a Religion

JoePineapples

Evidence said:

Anything that can cause this much confusion can only come from the Devil, .. because our Creator God is not a God of confusion.

This "agnostic theist/atheist" is like the Trinity Doctrine, or quantum-theory, confusing, meaningless and worthless, it says a lot, but explains nothing.

You find that confusing? It's just two binary options, with one of only four possible outcomes. So only four options to choose from.
McDonald's must be many times more confusing for you!

Evidence

JoePineapples said:

Evidence said:

Anything that can cause this much confusion can only come from the Devil, .. because our Creator God is not a God of confusion.

This "agnostic theist/atheist" is like the Trinity Doctrine, or quantum-theory, confusing, meaningless and worthless, it says a lot, but explains nothing.

You find that confusing? It's just two binary options, with one of only four possible outcomes. So only four options to choose from.
McDonald's must be many times more confusing for you!

@JoePineapples

OK, let' see if using McDonalds is more confusing or not?

Agnostic Atheist
Doesn't believe any McDonalds exists -doesn't claim to know that no McDonalds exists

Gnostic Atheist*
Does not believe any McDonalds exists - claims to know no McDonalds exists.

You're right, this is not just confusing, but on the borderline of, .. sorry to say but; retard.

Agnostic Theist
Believes a McDonalds exists - doesn't claim to know this belief is true (Maybe lives in the jungles of Africa and never seen a McDonalds, but heard a lot of people who went to McDonalds and ate there!?)

Gnostic Theist
Believes a McDonalds exists - claims to know McDonalds exists. (Believes a McDonald exists because he may have a few franchises himself!? This is just like gnostic theists that have gods in their homes, and in their churches that they worship and sacrifice to.)

Now let's separate all the  McDonalds and gods that are obviously out there, and seek The One and Only Possible uncreated-Creator?
Not the "Greek/theistic gods" because we know they are man-made, so we would not find our Creator there (Just as a child who is looking through his toy-box full of plastic toy soldiers for his Daddy) , but like I said; let us look for the uncreated-Creator, the One and Only Possible conscious Spirit/Mind "I Am".

From a lifetime of observation I have found that atheism is not only a religion, but as I keep saying, a very crude, evil, merciless demonic religion. It's not about just "not believing in God", but about hating God, and hating anyone who mentions God or the Bible, and anyone who lived in a communist country will attest to this.

George_Horse

@CYDdharta ;CYDdharta said:

George_Horse said:

Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 

No we don't believe there is no god, we just don't believe in any. So simple, it isn't a religion, because: religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, which we don't have. 

No, atheism is the belief that there is no god.  Agnosticism is the uncertainty of whether or not a god or god exist.

AGAIN, "LACK OF BELIEF" NOT BELIEF THERE IS NO GOD. 

GET IT RIGHT.
 

Wake

Atheism tells us that there cannot be a God. But it cannot tell us where the universe sprung from.  Where all the matter and all the energy came from. They tell us that man will know all in good time. Well, not believing in something without any proof is the same thing as believing in something without evidence. Atheism is probably the largest religion of the western world today. What's worse is that it contains no real ethics and no real morals. It has become mob rule.

THEDENIER

I can't believe that those who believe in god are comparing his existence to the existence of Peter Pan. Many of you seem to think that atheists are just deniers who refuse to listen to any evidence, but if you can provide me with evidence that god is real. Real solid evidence, I will change my faith. I believe I also speak for every other reasonable atheist too. If I told you that pepperoni pizza was secretly the government's way of disposing of alien flesh, what would your response be. Probably, it would be something like "I don't thinks so, but maybe given enough evidence I would be willing to change my mind." That is our stance on religion. You would not just go "sure, sounds real, so let be believe it without evidence." On the topic of religion we merely use this philosophy. It is amazing how many intelligent people suspend their thinking when it comes to religion. Science on the other hand, despite what you may think, always has logic and evidence behind it. @Evidence I can't comment on any of your beliefs until you define them. As far as I can tell, you don't believe in any organized religion, but seem to think that there is a god. Despite your ridicule of faith without evidence, you have been unable to produce any evidence for whatever belief system you espouse.  

Evidence

It was the Roman Catholic Religion that took the Scriptures, both O.T. and N.T., and through their Trinity doctrine morphed our Infinite Creator "I Am" into many, or plural Greek theos/gods. So after that, if anyone mentioned the word "god", everyone understood it to mean 'theos', and the person that mentioned the word god, or shown signs of believing in any of them was now labeled a "theist", .. and visa-versa.

theism: belief in the existence of a god or gods; specifically :belief in the existence of one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world who transcends yet is immanent in the world.

.. so where would people look for this one God viewed as the creative source of the human race and the world?  Where else but in theos, or in theology, which is the Greek invented, and Roman adopted definition of all the worlds religion created gods-theology. This is why humanity is lost, both theists and atheists are in the same boat without a rudder, in a turbulent ocean being tossed to and fro by the waves to one religion after another, of which NOT ONE is our Infinite Creator mentioned in the Bible. I mean go ahead, look up the words theos or theology in the Bible and you will not find them.

Now what was Lucifer's boast to the Angels that were giving him audience while he was still up in Heaven?
Isaiah 14:12-14 (KJV)
12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

God, our Infinite Creators presence is in Heaven, so by the request of their god Lucifer, the Catholic religion created another heaven which they call the supernatural realm, or just "supernatural" .. the word doesn't even exist in the Bible.

Remember I keep saying that both "theist and atheist are two sides of the same coin Religion"? Well here is how:

"Supernatural realm"  was the Catholics 'theistic' version'. And then, they created the 'atheistic version', which was the cosmos, a science fiction 'space-vacuum' full of other planets that Lucifer himself created (through his servants) from fantastic stories of long, long time ago before time, and in a space before space, and a lot of artist CGI paintings by which he made Gods created World, our home, unimportant, .. "an insignificant speck"  in Satan's expanding vast, cold and dark universe, just the way he likes it! And man who was created in Gods own image, he turned into an animal, .. no, even lower than an animal, an evolving amoeba that no one or nothing gives a hoot about: "a chaotic accident"!

And because of this, here is some of the things people, especially Christians believe and say:
* Christians (and people in general) actually believe that they are part of the original Church that Jesus established through Peter and the apostles.
In reality, it was the gentile people that started to call the Early Disciples "Christian" as a mockery.
Constantine and the Catholic Church took this name, and named their Religion by it: The Catholic Christian Religion.
* That being a theist, which in Greek means those that believe in god/gods are actually Disciples of Jesus Christ.
* That God is a deity, a deified man or some demonic spirit/fallen angel that rule from the supernatural realm.
* That you must join a Religion, specifically the Catholic Religion and accept their version of god on "blind faith". That somehow that's what our Creator requires; "blind faith", .. which is why no Christian can accept the evidence of God through facts that I give them even though they cannot deny the truth of it, either scientifically, philosophically, nor Biblically. So they actually become The DENIERS, rather than "The Believers".

Evidence

THEDENIER said:

I can't believe that those who believe in god are comparing his existence to the existence of Peter Pan. Many of you seem to think that atheists are just deniers who refuse to listen to any evidence, but if you can provide me with evidence that god is real. Real solid evidence, I will change my faith. I believe I also speak for every other reasonable atheist too. If I told you that pepperoni pizza was secretly the government's way of disposing of alien flesh, what would your response be. Probably, it would be something like "I don't thinks so, but maybe given enough evidence I would be willing to change my mind." That is our stance on religion. You would not just go "sure, sounds real, so let be believe it without evidence." On the topic of religion we merely use this philosophy. It is amazing how many intelligent people suspend their thinking when it comes to religion. Science on the other hand, despite what you may think, always has logic and evidence behind it. @Evidence I can't comment on any of your beliefs until you define them. As far as I can tell, you don't believe in any organized religion, but seem to think that there is a god. Despite your ridicule of faith without evidence, you have been unable to produce any evidence for whatever belief system you espouse.  

Lol, you are funny. What evidence could ANYONE provide to a heavily indoctrinated mind, whose religion is not only atheism, but THEDENIER!? You have a religious stance on religion, just you don't see it. I mean how could you right? What you've been indoctrinates with defines what you believe in, and as I shown you, from what you believe, you are a religious atheist created by the Catholic Religion.

Do you believe in the Big-Bang theory, or the Evolution theory?
You're a Catholic whether you know it/accept it or not. I've shown that the Catholic Religion, along with the Bible has kidnapped science too! Look up their history.

Funny, atheism (which you claim you are) denies the very facts that god/gods exist, and you call yourself @THEDENIER a double whammy!

The "belief system I espouse" comes from scientific observation, which after much evidence with a lot of substance, strengthens my faith.

Evidence

Wake said:

Atheism tells us that there cannot be a God. But it cannot tell us where the universe sprung from.  Where all the matter and all the energy came from. They tell us that man will know all in good time. Well, not believing in something without any proof is the same thing as believing in something without evidence. Atheism is probably the largest religion of the western world today. What's worse is that it contains no real ethics and no real morals. It has become mob rule.

@Wake ;  How can atheism tell us there cannot be a god, when we have tens of thousands of god/gods out there with over 6 BILLION followers, .. you know what I mean? And yes I agree with you that: "Atheism is probably the largest religion of the western world today.", .. it is spreading like wildfire, in the same way it did in Europe, China N.K. Russia; communism, disguised in One World unity, peace and equality! "We are the World. This One World Order, our Presidents can't stop talking about, threatening us with the atheistic imaginary nukes, meteors, anything to get men into some church/religion praying, where they get us with the "theistic part".
Atheistic science, and then theistic religions, they keep both sides busy religiously!

Man is doomed, since our choices have been made up by religion. Men actually think the only two choices are theism or atheism, BB-Evolution, or Greek gods like Helios named Jesus and such. It's like "They" built a bunch of separate curvy, confusing roads leading to the exact same location; slow death and they are all 'One Way'.

You know how we can tell that atheistic Communism comes from Religion? Religion always works on the human emotion, like all the Communist leader including Hitler's speeches, and this last One World Order is no exception:

Look: We Are the World song-

There comes a time when we heed a certain call (from the deities/demons from the supernatural realm)
When the world must come together as one (I have traveled the world, and never once felt that we were not One)
There are people dying (yeah, by poisoning our water, chemo therapy, chem-trails, etc.,)
And it's time to lend a hand to life
The greatest gift of all (Give $$ into their bank accounts through the Red Cross, Salvation Army etc.)

We can't go on pretending day by day
That someone, somehow will soon make a change (leave us alone you devils, don't cause all the dissention so we could live in harmony)
We are all a part of God's great big family (God's great big family, lol, which is Lucifer himself!)
And the truth, you know (are all lies, like NASA, 666CERN, UN Politics etc.)
Love is all we need (as in porn, sex and abortion)

We are the world, we are the children
We are the ones who make a brighter day (which you cloud with deadly chem-trails)
So lets start giving (More giving? Gas, utilities, food prices, and of course taxes, what more can we give?)
There's a choice we're making
We're saving our own lives (yes you are you bastards, it's always "your lives", never ours)

It's true we'll make a better day (when you all hang from trees, and burn in the deepest of hell)
Just you and me (bull sht, it's always you, you and you!)

Send them your heart so they'll know that someone cares (Michael Jackson knew about that 'care' -



And their lives will be stronger and free (not after a few shots of chemo and radiation treatments)
As God has shown us by turning stones to bread (which you then turn back into bullets and bombs)
So we all must lend a helping hand (and as dumb and brainwashed as we are, our children offer you that helping hand by filling your armed forces against ourselves)

We are the world, we are the (dead) children
If we don't wake up!

By the way, I believe I know where matter and energy came from, and it's not "from nothing"!?

CYDdharta

JoePineapples said:

CYDdharta said:

George_Horse said:

Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. 

No we don't believe there is no god, we just don't believe in any. So simple, it isn't a religion, because: religion - the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods, which we don't have. 

No, atheism is the belief that there is no god.  Agnosticism is the uncertainty of whether or not a god or god exist.

Where is it that you get your definitions of "atheist" and "agnostic" ?

Atheism is being without belief in any gods, being without theism, just like;
 -acephalic is being without a head
 -abiotic is without life
 -asexual is without sex
I'm sure that's probably not the first time you've heard that explanation but that's what atheism literally means. Why somebody doesn't believe, is a different question. It might be that, like myself, they've never believed in any of the gods and just remained that way. They may hold the belief that there are no gods, but they're not required to hold this belief in order to be an atheist.

While theism/atheism refers to a position of belief, gnosticism/agnosticism refers to a position of knowledge. Agnosticism does not exclude atheism (or theism), your position of what you think you do or don't know runs parallel alongside your position of what you do or don't believe, not in place of it.

In America there does seem to be a strong misuse/misunderstanding of the word "agnostic", I suspect this may be due to an overall negative perception of atheism in the USA, with many atheists in the past identifying as "agnostic" to avoid persecution or alienation.

My understanding of the terms "agnosticism" and "atheism" come from the common dictionary definitions.  

"a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience."
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

"a :a lack of belief or a strong disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods

b :a philosophical or religious position characterized by disbelief in the existence of a god or any gods"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/atheism

Where do your mistaken understandings of of the term come from?

THEDENIER

@Evidence. You have shown nothing. Funny how you call yourself evidence when you often are lacking it. Regardless of your unclear beliefs that allow a shifting burden fallacy whenever you wish thanks to how vague they are, atheism is not a religion. The actual definition of religion is:
re·li·gion

rəˈlijən/

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   Now prove to me how atheism which literally means "without god" actually asks its followers to believe in god.

THEDENIER

@Evidence , by the way, I still fondly remember debating the flatness of the earth with you, good times.

George_Horse

@THEDENIER Good points comrade!

Wake

Evidence said:

Wake said:

Atheism tells us that there cannot be a God. But it cannot tell us where the universe sprung from.  Where all the matter and all the energy came from. They tell us that man will know all in good time. Well, not believing in something without any proof is the same thing as believing in something without evidence. Atheism is probably the largest religion of the western world today. What's worse is that it contains no real ethics and no real morals. It has become mob rule.

@Wake ;  Man is doomed, since our choices have been made up by religion. Men actually think the only two choices are theism or atheism, BB-Evolution, or Greek gods like Helios named Jesus and such. It's like "They" built a bunch of separate curvy, confusing roads leading to the exact same location; slow death and they are all 'One Way'.

I don't think we need anything else to prove who the nutjob is.

JoePineapples

Evidence said:

@JoePineapples

OK, let' see if using McDonalds is more confusing or not?

Agnostic Atheist
Doesn't believe any McDonalds exists -doesn't claim to know that no McDonalds exists

Gnostic Atheist*
Does not believe any McDonalds exists - claims to know no McDonalds exists.

You're right, this is not just confusing, but on the borderline of, .. sorry to say but; retard.

Agnostic Theist
Believes a McDonalds exists - doesn't claim to know this belief is true (Maybe lives in the jungles of Africa and never seen a McDonalds, but heard a lot of people who went to McDonalds and ate there!?)

Gnostic Theist
Believes a McDonalds exists - claims to know McDonalds exists. (Believes a McDonald exists because he may have a few franchises himself!? This is just like gnostic theists that have gods in their homes, and in their churches that they worship and sacrifice to.)

Now let's separate all the  McDonalds and gods that are obviously out there, and seek The One and Only Possible uncreated-Creator?
Not the "Greek/theistic gods" because we know they are man-made, so we would not find our Creator there (Just as a child who is looking through his toy-box full of plastic toy soldiers for his Daddy) , but like I said; let us look for the uncreated-Creator, the One and Only Possible conscious Spirit/Mind "I Am".

From a lifetime of observation I have found that atheism is not only a religion, but as I keep saying, a very crude, evil, merciless demonic religion. It's not about just "not believing in God", but about hating God, and hating anyone who mentions God or the Bible, and anyone who lived in a communist country will attest to this.

I'm really not sure why you've tried to merge McDonalds with the theist/atheist/gnostic/agnostic chart, it's quite obviously an invalid comparison.
It would be clear to most that I meant there are four options;
-Agnostic atheist
-Agnostic theist
-Gnostic atheist
-Gnostic theist
...which you think is confusing (and apparently the devil's work). These four options compared to a myriad of options of the McDonald's menu, it must bring your cognition to a grinding halt if you go in there.

Evidence

THEDENIER said:

@Evidence. You have shown nothing. Funny how you call yourself evidence when you often are lacking it. Regardless of your unclear beliefs that allow a shifting burden fallacy whenever you wish thanks to how vague they are, atheism is not a religion. The actual definition of religion is:
re·li·gion

rəˈlijən/

noun

1. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.
   Now prove to me how atheism which literally means "without god" actually asks its followers to believe in god.

I have shown nothing?? Or it all went right over your head? Now let's say someone gives you the definition to a metal like magnesium:

Magnesium is a chemical element with symbol Mg and atomic number 12. It is a shiny gray solid which bears a close physical resemblance to the other five elements in the second column (group 2, or alkaline earth metals) of the periodic table: all group 2 elements have the same electron configuration in the outer electron shell and a similar crystal structure.

Now any , or a Jesuit Illuminated-One could say: You have shown nothing. Funny how you call yourself evidence when you often are lacking it. Regardless of your unclear beliefs that allow a shifting burden fallacy whenever you wish thanks to how vague they are

Wecan then give you an even broader definition with examples like this: Magnesium occurs naturally only in combination with other elements, where it invariably has a +2 oxidation state. The free element (metal) can be produced artificially, and is highly reactive (though in the atmosphere, it is soon coated in a thin layer of oxide that partly inhibits reactivity — see passivation). The free metal burns with a characteristic brilliant-white light. The metal is now obtained mainly by electrolysis of magnesium salts obtained from brine, and is used primarily as a component in aluminium-magnesium alloys, sometimes called magnalium or magnelium. Magnesium is less dense than aluminium, and the alloy is prized for its combination of lightness and strength.

.. and of course you, showing these hand signs with one hand (very important!)



.. and type with the other the SAME response, .. over and over again: You have shown nothing. Funny how you call yourself evidence when you often are lacking it. Regardless of your unclear beliefs that allow a shifting burden fallacy whenever you wish thanks to how vague they are

But if you look at our debates, you never actually quote the problem, just the same old grunt: "You have shown nothing, .. you have shown nothing" and I'm sure you pat yourself on the shoulder after each.

You see we know you're just going by the same old Jesuit order, what your religion has brainwashed you with:



which the German Nazis adopted, and it was to belittle and deny any evidence contrary to the Big-deception, laugh at it, ridicule it, and walk away with nose high, and taking long goosesteps.



and if it continues, kill the person slowly if possible in a ritualistic killing, ..  otherwise make sure everyone sees it!



and then take over the investigation of the obvious murder and hide it for 50 years (JFK assassination is a good example) and then release the truth to the public, but keep denying even the most obvious truths, truths even a child can see and understand. This will rub it in our noses, and humiliate us even more, .. give the feeling of being totally dominated like a long term seriously abused wife.

It is exactly what you are doing. And of course you feel no guilt or shame about any of this because you consider me (as all non-Germans are considered) an evolving ape, an animal not worth a serious debate.

But just so you know, events are changing, the more arrogant you guys become, the more God will open peoples eyes.

Evidence

Wake said:

Evidence said:

Wake said:

Atheism tells us that there cannot be a God. But it cannot tell us where the universe sprung from.  Where all the matter and all the energy came from. They tell us that man will know all in good time. Well, not believing in something without any proof is the same thing as believing in something without evidence. Atheism is probably the largest religion of the western world today. What's worse is that it contains no real ethics and no real morals. It has become mob rule.

@Wake ;  Man is doomed, since our choices have been made up by religion. Men actually think the only two choices are theism or atheism, BB-Evolution, or Greek gods like Helios named Jesus and such. It's like "They" built a bunch of separate curvy, confusing roads leading to the exact same location; slow death and they are all 'One Way'.

I don't think we need anything else to prove who the nutjob is.

@Wake or is it "Sleep", the opposite, upside down and backwards oath of the Jesuit! You know well I say the truth Illuminated one, .. or is it "dark one", like in "The Dark Knight", .. or the "Black Pope", .. or .. ah never mind, you know well what I mean.

Evidence

JoePineapples said:

Evidence said:

@JoePineapples

OK, let' see if using McDonalds is more confusing or not?

Agnostic Atheist
Doesn't believe any McDonalds exists -doesn't claim to know that no McDonalds exists

Gnostic Atheist*
Does not believe any McDonalds exists - claims to know no McDonalds exists.

You're right, this is not just confusing, but on the borderline of, .. sorry to say but; retard.

Agnostic Theist
Believes a McDonalds exists - doesn't claim to know this belief is true (Maybe lives in the jungles of Africa and never seen a McDonalds, but heard a lot of people who went to McDonalds and ate there!?)

Gnostic Theist
Believes a McDonalds exists - claims to know McDonalds exists. (Believes a McDonald exists because he may have a few franchises himself!? This is just like gnostic theists that have gods in their homes, and in their churches that they worship and sacrifice to.)

Now let's separate all the  McDonalds and gods that are obviously out there, and seek The One and Only Possible uncreated-Creator?
Not the "Greek/theistic gods" because we know they are man-made, so we would not find our Creator there (Just as a child who is looking through his toy-box full of plastic toy soldiers for his Daddy) , but like I said; let us look for the uncreated-Creator, the One and Only Possible conscious Spirit/Mind "I Am".

From a lifetime of observation I have found that atheism is not only a religion, but as I keep saying, a very crude, evil, merciless demonic religion. It's not about just "not believing in God", but about hating God, and hating anyone who mentions God or the Bible, and anyone who lived in a communist country will attest to this.

I'm really not sure why you've tried to merge McDonalds with the theist/atheist/gnostic/agnostic chart, it's quite obviously an invalid comparison.
It would be clear to most that I meant there are four options;
-Agnostic atheist
-Agnostic theist
-Gnostic atheist
-Gnostic theist
...which you think is confusing (and apparently the devil's work). These four options compared to a  myriad of options of the McDonald's menu, it must bring your cognition to a grinding halt if you go in there.

Here is what you said:
@JoePineapples   You find that  confusing? It's just two binary options, with one of only four possible outcomes. So only four options to choose from.
McDonald's must be many times more confusing for you.

.. so I tried it with McDonalds as you suggested so I could answer your question, and I found using McDonalds instead of god in Gnostic and Agnostic atheist even more confusing, .. why, does it make sense to you? I shown you this stuff doesn't make sense, because no one could debate something that didn't exist, OK? How many more ways can I say this?

THEDENIER

@Evidence Yes, you are right, everything goes over my head. Your last argument just did. Are you saying that the dictionary definition of religion is not useful and using magnesium as a comparison? By the way, fantastic evidence there, I take back what I said about your lack of it, it just does not pertain to what we are discussing. Please explain the whole magnesium thing again. The reason that I always state "you have proven nothing" is because you state things as fact and think that others will take if for granted. Next time you should consider the fact that not all of us share your lack of critical thought. I am willing to debate you, and I attempt not to dismiss your ideas without thought, but to have a debate, you must also be willing to actually debate. Instead of telling me how indoctrinated I am, please tell me how atheism which literally means "without god" actually asks its followers to believe in god.

Evidence

THEDENIER said:

@Evidence Yes, you are right, everything goes over my head. Your last argument just did. Are you saying that the dictionary definition of religion is not useful and using magnesium as a comparison? By the way, fantastic evidence there, I take back what I said about your lack of it, it just does not pertain to what we are discussing. Please explain the whole magnesium thing again. The reason that I always state "you have proven nothing" is because you state things as fact and think that others will take if for granted. Next time you should consider the fact that not all of us share your lack of critical thought. I am willing to debate you, and I attempt not to dismiss your ideas without thought, but to have a debate, you must also be willing to actually debate. Instead of telling me how indoctrinated I am, please tell me how atheism which literally means "without god" actually asks its followers to believe in god.

To @THEDENIER
.. look, "gods exist", I have shown proof of that with plenty of evidence to back it up. If god/gods didn't exist, humanity would be, .. as you said above: "without god/gods". But that is NOT the case is it now, and the proof is: the billions of theists out there!
again, .. as I have shown you guys/atheists (for the hundredth time) that god/gods exist, you can buy them on eBay, also from hundreds of other internet sights all you have to do is type into Google: "Buy Gods" and it will guide you to them. What you do with them gods is up to you?

Another example that either you can choose to let go over your head, .. mock it, or learn of it, is that a big majority of Teens tend to hate their parents, so if the teens (or an adult like me) came up with a title like:

parents those who love their parents and believe, honor or even worship them
aparents: those who hate their parents, don't honor, or believe parents exist. They talk about them all the time, but don't believe in, nor honor them.

..could you accept that? Actually, I'm serious. Just to show how the idea of atheism is, I will try to start a trend with teens, "parents and aparents" as I described above.

Here is the facts behind why this could be actually as valid as theism and atheism. I have teen twins, and one of them hangs around a bunch of adult-teens who live from girlfriends houses to friends houses and sometimes I find a group in my back yard sleeping on the kids trampoline. They do odd jobs, and the rest of the time they spend their time at the skate park smoking, snorting and whatever. There are at least 20 skaters in this group, and every one of them hate their parents, especially their dad.

My other twin loves us parents, believes in us and shows it in his grades, actions by doing what we ask, etc. To him we would be "parents", while to my other, including her friends we are "apparents".

There, and since this is a public Forum, it is now official. On Debatesland.com the first definition of "parents-aparents"
parents those who love their parents and believe, honor or even worship them
aparents: those who hate their parents, don't honor, or believe parents exist. (never call, never report in, as if we were dead or nonexistent)

Erfisflat

THEDENIER said:

@Evidence , by the way, I still fondly remember debating the flatness of the earth with you, good times.

I remember you tucked tail and ran in our debate!

THEDENIER

@Evidence If you can get parents and aparents in the dictionary I would accept them as legitimate words. Yet again, I fail to see your point (if you had any). Atheism as a concept makes perfect sense, just like parents and aparents. Neither of those are ideas. Parents and aparents may not be dictionary English, but they are logical. Are you denying the definition of atheism? Regardless, all I want if for you to explain to me how those who don't believe in god can be classified under the category "those who believe in god(s)". @Erfisflat I tried to continue debating the shape of the earth with you, but unfortunately the time commitment became to much (how do you find time to post so much?). If I remember correctly, I remember evidence leaving before I did, so losses were suffered on both sides.

Evidence

THEDENIER said:

@Evidence If you can get parents and aparents in the dictionary I would accept them as legitimate words. Yet again, I fail to see your point (if you had any). Atheism as a concept makes perfect sense, just like parents and aparents. Neither of those are ideas. Parents and aparents may not be dictionary English, but they are logical. Are you denying the definition of atheism? Regardless, all I want if for you to explain to me how those who don't believe in god can be classified under the category "those who believe in god(s)". @Erfisflat I tried to continue debating the shape of the earth with you, but unfortunately the time commitment became to much (how do you find time to post so much?). If I remember correctly, I remember evidence leaving before I did, so losses were suffered on both sides.

@THEDENIER said: If you can get parents and aparents in the dictionary I would accept them as legitimate words.

Yes, legitimate word, I mean who can deny that the word exist? .. but legitimate definition?
OK, so here would be millions of aparent "Tweeting" Teens kicked out of the house claiming their parents don't exist, and you'd be OK with that? You wouldn't try to explain to them that "just because the dictionary defines a word, doesn't mean the definition is correct!? Parents do exist, only these kids refuse to believe in them, or worship/honor them, so this Debater on Debateisland.com (I'm not naming any names) came up with the word 'aparent', .. but it really doesn't mean what it claims."

The list could grow:

atheist
aparents
awork (this one should become popular with pot-smoking or online-gaming teens)
ahole .. umm, wait, I think we already have that one, .. I specifically remember being called that a few times. Well anyways, I think you got my drift by now, no?

The question is the definition, not the word. The word "atheist" exists, but the definition is all screwed up.

Fox-Newsflash!!  "Man gets killed by a 10 foot bronze falling god Shiva!"
Atheist: "That's ridiculous, gods don't exist."

I never left debating the Flat Earth, I know it's flat, @Erfisflat convinced me with all the evidence he provided. Now sure I have a lot of questions, but not about the flatness.

Evidence

OK, here is my take on this Topic of discussion: "Atheism is a Religion"

I tried to figure out how this word got into the dictionaries, and how in the world it picked up so many followers where in the past 100 years, atheism has become the fastest religion on Earth (Thanks to Communism and NASA)

First, some years ago while I was still a firm 'believer' in the Globe Earth theory, proudly putting on and wearing my tinfoil hat when the conversation came up just like a loyal Mouseketeer! Defended it with all the NASA evidence I could get my hands on. Videos, pictures, science-documentaries like Nova, .. heck I had enough evidence of the expanding BB universe to shut even the most knowledgeable F.E'r, down, and I didn't have to listen to their idiotic mumbo-jumbo, (and I didn't till about a year ago) why? Because I had the worlds greatest German scientists to back me up, .. so there! "It's science" and F.E. was not backed by science, I know, I watched kids TV shows growing up and they told me so.  Well that all changed with all the evidence @Erfisflat shown me/us.

What I knew before, was that Religion, specifically the Roman Catholic Religion under Constantine confiscated both the O.T. and the N/T. little books/scrolls (whatever they were written on) and compiled them all into One awesome Book, The Bible. Something the Jews would never even dream of doing, not after having so brutally murdered their long awaited Messiah. (Funny how God can use even the most unlikely people to do His work. Here was a Gentile pagan god worshipping Emperor of one of the most pagan god worshipping Nations, and used him to collect the books and combine them into one.
But why would Constantine and the Catholic Church agree on such suicidal task? Every religion honors/worships their gods more than their own lives, more than their children's lives, so what could convince Constantine to do such a thing? Not only that, but to be able to remain an Emperor of that Kingdom!?

Why would a "theist", .. a Pagan gods worshipper have these books collected, and combine them when the entire book is against worshipping pagan gods?

Like in any conspiracy, there had to be a pay-off.
The Bible was against any man-made gods that have been created since the fall of man, and the message from this Hebrew God (our Creator) was as clear as you can get. He hated any competition, especially man made gods, it angers Him something awful! (I mean I can understand, how would I feel if my children, after I have brought them up in love, gave them everything they ever wanted, kept them safe and even overlooked their trespasses, that after a good deed to them they would pass right in front of me, go to the back yard and bow down before a tree, and give thanks to it, and even put some food for it in honor, and treat me as an 'aperent' as if I didn't even exist!?)

And after searching and knocking, arguing and Debating with theists and atheists alike for many years, with Scholars, to your everyday church goer, I came to the realization/revelation that the Christian "Religion" actually hides God, hides our Infinite Creator "I Am" in plain sight. They have for over 1,700 years, the last notable event was the murder of Arius in 336AD, ending the last great fight against the lies of the RCC's Trinity-doctrine.

Here is what happened, the RCC knew well that no true Roman citizen would bow down to no Jewish God, and give up all their gods for Him, so they invented a man-made doctrine called the Trinity Doctrine, where they through a complex series of twists and turns of the Scriptures, made God just another of the Greek gods theos, and adopted, or renamed their gods by the names of the Apostles, Mary, etc.

In this Trinity Doctrine, Jesus is Lucifer, or son of Lucifer, can be either/or:



God is just an idea, meaning all the gods and Religions, including Satanism, worship 'a-god', or the idea of god.



So now we come to the conclusion of this long 2,000 year process, where Satan has convinced man that "God can only exist in theism, or Religion", and that He is no different than any other gods (as defined in theism) the World is now ready to accept all the Religions gods as "leading to one god", which as you can obviously see is none other than Lucifer.

Here is Morgan Freeman (an atheist) who takes "you", yes, takes you on a journey to show "you" just how silly, evil , discriminating, and hateful religion is. Playing the Yin-Yang, now I'm good, and now I'm evil.

 

So it all comes down to: Not to leave your Religion with their god/gods, but Unite all the theos/gods into One World Idea, or Religion, where not some invisible Spirit speaks (for God Is Spirit), but a visible person we can all recognize, a man-god, or superhuman and he, with, and in the spirit of all the Religion-gods will lead the world into a New Age that unites us all as One, in Peace, safety and prosperity.

You see, they knew communism didn't work, the atheist idea where men were to pretend they didn't believe in God, denying God/gods even existed, so now a new approach; where all gods exist, .. as One idea, and one person, a Christian Diviner/medium who went to all the best Jesuit School of Divinity, will speak for them all.

I'm sure you can guess whom Lucifer chose that person to be, the whole world Religious leaders bow down to him



And so called non-religious (theist/atheist remember?)



And what other Denominational Christians don't want to admit as if their god is any different?:



So here I show you why and how theism/atheism are two sides of the same coin: "Religion".

uzairmahmud

@joecavalry

Atheism is a religion that says, you cannot believe in God. Would that not be considered a rule? Not allowed to believe in God? And how about "only science can explain"? Those sound like rules to me.

George_Horse

uzairmahmud said:

@joecavalry

Atheism is a religion that says, you cannot believe in God. Would that not be considered a rule? Not allowed to believe in God? And how about "only science can explain"? Those sound like rules to me.

  

"Atheism is a religion that says, you cannot believe in God."




AGAIN, Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is it too hard to understand what Atheism is for you? 

THEDENIER

@Evidence even though I disagree with your point, I can understand it, and I respect it as a view point. My question is, do you think atheism is a religion based on the dictionary definition of both terms? I hope that erfisflat presented you with better evidence than he has presented to me which was unconvincing at best. About your point about aparents: aparents is a perfectly acceptable and meaningful term. Just because the group that a term describes is wrong about their beliefs does not illegitimize the term. For example, aparents may not believe that parents exist (even though they obviously do exist) but that does not mean that aparents are still a definite and real group of people. Even if you think atheists are wrong, the term atheism still makes perfect sense.

CYDdharta

George_Horse said:

  

"Atheism is a religion that says, you cannot believe in God."




AGAIN, Atheism - disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

Is it too hard to understand what Atheism is for you? 

...but what is religion?

1 a :the state of a religious

b (1) :the service and worship of God or the supernatural  (2) :commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance

2 :a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion

...and what is religious?

1 :relating to or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality or deity

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religious

Thus, using Merriam Webster's definitions, religion can be interpreted as; commitment or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.  That does describe atheism.

Erfisflat

It's just a semantics debate. Atheist believe there is no God just as well as they don't believe in God. In either case, they KNOW nothing. 

Erfisflat

Of course, they do believe in the false heliocentric model, so there's that.

Evidence

THEDENIER said:

@Evidence even though I disagree with your point, I can understand it, and I respect it as a view point. My question is, do you think atheism is a religion based on the dictionary definition of both terms? I hope that erfisflat presented you with better evidence than he has presented to me which was unconvincing at best. About your point about aparents: aparents is a perfectly acceptable and meaningful term. Just because the group that a term describes is wrong about their beliefs does not illegitimize the term. For example, aparents may not believe that parents exist (even though they obviously do exist) but that does not mean that aparents are still a definite and real group of people. Even if you think atheists are wrong, the term atheism still makes perfect sense.

Yes, I understand what you are saying, and I can, or I actually have to agree with the dictionaries definition, because that is what whoever came up with the term "atheist" defined it as. So whoever came up with the term has the authority over that word, .. right? Other people came up with words like "bosons", "black holes", and the magical "gravity", we can argue about their definitions, but they (the words) exist nevertheless.

Let me use my "Mother asks her child to go get daddy, because dinner is ready" analogy.
"The child runs into his bedroom and opens his toy box, takes one of his plastic toy soldiers, runs to mommy and says: "here is daddy!""

Now we could name, and define this act as:
parent: someone who believes that parent or parents exist
aparent: someone who does not believe a parent, or parents in general exist
The words origin: Debateisland.com by Evidence - "Mother asks her child to go get daddy, because dinner is ready"
The child runs into his bedroom and opens his toy box, takes one of his plastic toy soldiers, runs to mommy and says: "here is daddy!"

Here is the moral of this story. Let's just say; 200 (or whatever) years from now, after many generations of 'teens' there would be millions of "parent-people" and "aparent-people" in the world, just as we have billions of theists, and atheists. Then one day someone would look into the origin of the word; "parent", and read that the child took a 'plastic toy soldier as daddy' to mommy, and NOT the real Daddy. The plastic toy soldier is Not a real father, or the child's daddy, so the words "parent/aparent" makes no sense.
The billions of "parent-people" that believe that plastic toy soldiers are actually daddy, or a real father are crazy, .. and all the "aparent-people" who don't believe that plastic toy soldiers even exist, are crazier.

In conclusion: The Greek term theist, refers to those Greeks or other nationalities that believed in and worshipped man-made gods, no different than plastic toy soldiers. And those who are "atheists" claim that those stone/wood/plastic man made gods don't even exist.

Both wood/stone/plastic man made gods, and child made plastic-toy soldier daddies exist, and no one could honestly deny that. And those who believe in plastic man-made gods, and child made/defined plastic toy soldier daddies are called "theists" and "parents" as defined in the dictionaries.

Finally:
The Greek man made gods/theos and the Creator of our Heavens and the Earth and everything in them, the Infinite and Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am" described in the Hebrew Bible is as different from the Greek man made gods as the childs plastic toy soldier-daddy is from his real Father.

missmedic

"1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural."          

1-There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant. 

 2-My own philosophy is my worldview, which is a backdrop for all my thought and a context for all my knowledge.

3- We live in a continuously changing world with new kinds of moral problem being generated all the time and much harmful ignorance still to overcome. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. The worry that, without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. When classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. So often declared -'the territory of religion'- moral development is in fact something to which the scientific approach contributes far more and far more reliably due to its emphasis on reasoned logic and evidence, the tools that help us discern what's true and false and without which one can't even formulate a valid argument. To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion. We can be good without god.
Religion will denounce science when it disagrees with its superstitious claims, but then uses science to prove its superstitious claims, you cant have it both ways. Science never uses religion to prove anything. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certainty
 Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn"t provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.

Vaulk

@missmedic

I agree that there's a great deal of confusion about what "Faith" is so allow me if you will to provide further distinction.  Faith is specifically the belief in something as truth or fact without proof.  I feel the need to clarify this further so allow me to say that we're not talking about evidence (Something that people commonly mistake for proof) we're talking about proof.  If something is not proven (Can't be proven) then belief in it will require faith "Belief without proof". 

So for example if you were to believe in a theory (Big Bang Theory) then you are literally exercising faith in regards to your belief as the subject of your belief has not been proven to be fact.  Theories are very nice to have and can serve a multitude of purposes but will never ever be facts.  So in essence, ANY belief held by ANYONE in regards to the creation of the world WILL require faith as NONE of them can be PROVEN.

Evidence

Vaulk said:

@missmedic

I agree that there's a great deal of confusion about what "Faith" is so allow me if you will to provide further distinction.  Faith is specifically the belief in something as truth or fact without proof.  I feel the need to clarify this further so allow me to say that we're not talking about evidence (Something that people commonly mistake for proof) we're talking about proof.   If something is not proven (Can't be proven) then belief in it will require faith "Belief without proof". 

So for example if you were to believe in a theory (Big Bang Theory) then you are literally exercising faith in regards to your belief as the subject of your belief has not been proven to be fact.  Theories are very nice to have and can serve a multitude of purposes but will never ever be facts.  So in essence, ANY belief held by ANYONE in regards to the creation of the world WILL require faith as NONE of them can be PROVEN.

Wow, here is a perfect example of e Religiously Indoctrinated mind: "Faith is specifically the belief in something as truth or fact without proof."

Oh wait, I know, @Vaulk must have two jobs; one, for Benny Hinn Ministries in the "raising the dead" dept. The second job is teaching Big-bang Evolution theory as fact at ASU "Origins" Project.

Evidence

missmedic said:

"1). Atheism is faith based as I've mentioned before, there is no proving or disproving God and therefor any belief or disbelief is faith based at some point.  2). Atheists apply the materialistic worldview to all data as a matter of rigorous practice.  3). Atheists have admitted openly to having a moral code which comes off more often than not as "I don't need God to be good" but since Morality is beyond scientific understanding...it's supernatural."          

1-There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant. 

 2-My own philosophy is my worldview, which is a backdrop for all my thought and a context for all my knowledge.

3- We live in a continuously changing world with new kinds of moral problem being generated all the time and much harmful ignorance still to overcome. It's only through abandoning certain widespread religious ideas that progress towards a truly just and consistent morality is possible. There's an ongoing need to develop and refine our moral understanding. The problem is the false and morally corrupting idea that the lawmaker is perfect. It's corrupting because, in causing us to accept unjust laws, it leaves us defending the indefensible. We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behaviour is doing what's right, not what we're told unless what we're told is also what's right. The worry that, without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality, is without foundation. When classing harmless things as immoral results in persecution we've reason to condemn the misclassification. So often declared -'the territory of religion'- moral development is in fact something to which the scientific approach contributes far more and far more reliably due to its emphasis on reasoned logic and evidence, the tools that help us discern what's true and false and without which one can't even formulate a valid argument. To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion. We can be good without god.
Religion will denounce science when it disagrees with its superstitious claims, but then uses science to prove its superstitious claims, you cant have it both ways. Science never uses religion to prove anything. Religious faith is both arrogant and ignorant. Because of it's certainty
 Far from being arrogant the scientific method is one of humility. It acknowledges the limits of our current knowledge. It doesn"t provide explanations or answers from a position of ignorance, but investigates the unknown in an attempt to reach understanding based on empirical evidence. Surely it is the superstitious or religious approach which claims to know the answers without any evidence except "faith" that is the arrogant approach.

Wow, beautifully put.

So would you agree that Religion was the cause of defining "faith" as "blind-faith"?

I like what you said here: "To make informed moral choices and therefore moral progress religion needs science, but science does not need religion." because I so agree. But then you say this: "We can be good without god."

Superficially that's true, and that is what the Bible says too, that even those who do not know God can do good, because nature itself teaches us right from wrong.

But who created "nature"? God did, and He said: "It is good", meaning 'it works perfect as He intended it to'.

God created all things by rules and laws, which we see, and learn from through scientific observation. If we just follow the laws we learned through 'science', and how beautifully everything works, and if we established our "moral laws" upon what we've learned, we would have a perfect society.

I like your last sentence too, the "the arrogant superstitious religious approach", .. because as I understand it, seen it, ..  is how "Religion" survives! By teaching, forcing their followers (not Gods followers), but their, .. the Religions followers to accept what they teach on "blind faith", or else, nobody would follow Religion and their gods with all the idiotic doctrines. Religion, like we have learned and seen from history of the Christian Religion; "blind faith" has been forced on us through lies, trickery, threats, even torture.

Also I would just like to clarify about the "scientific method far from being arrogant", .. that would be the "real scientific method", not the todays Religious scientific method that considers the BB-Evolution stories as science, right?

missmedic

@Vaulk

Faith is more that belief without proof, it's belief without knowledge. I "believe" in the bigbang because it’s a reasonable assumption that I adopt for purely pragmatic reasons. The big bang theory is provisional and does not contradict our background knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge about reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms.
 When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid.

Faith required that you believe despite an absence of expected evidence or despite the presence of conflicting evidence.
But how do we detect lies?
Through the absence of expected evidence or the presence of conflicting evidence. The very things that faith demanded we disregard. Any supreme intelligence would know that a system that protected lies so efficiently Would lay humans open to just about any conceivable abuse. ....

Wake

@missmedic - Sorry - but ALL morals and ethics are based upon mostly Christianity and in part by the Old Testament and perhaps a very few from Islam. Or as the Muslims might say - the people of the book which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And these morals and ethics were derived by Jews to themselves and then Christ applying them to ALL and Islam accepting them to a point.

If you accept that there are morals and ethics without accepting religion and proclaiming Atheism you are nothing more than confused.

If you can believe that science will some day solve all the riddles of the universe (and presently they explain surprisingly few) you are accepting that not on logic since science knows so few real facts but on the faith that they will discover these facts. Whether it was the Big Bang being disproved by noting that the universe is speeding up as it expands, that the gravity in our universe is 90% too much for the visible matter and energy and dark matter has totally avoided detection or the simple fact that the amount of energy and matter in the universe cannot be explained in any known theory. Even the theory that the moon was broken off of the earth was disproved with geological evidence from the moon itself. We really cannot even say with any real confidence that quantum mechanics is real or nothing more than reflection of the value of energy being expended to demonstrate its theories.

So as an Atheist you are proclaiming the same religious faith as a Christian though in denial.

Evidence

missmedic said:

@Vaulk

Faith is more that belief without proof, it's belief without knowledge. I "believe" in the bigbang because it’s a reasonable assumption that I adopt for purely pragmatic reasons. The big bang theory is provisional and does not contradict our background knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge about reality. To speak of knowledge that we don't understand is a contradiction in terms.
 When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid.

Exactly, .. that's what "religious faith" requires, which is why the Bible warns us about Religions and their doctrines, tells us to "Get out of her my people", supreme intelligent Infinite Mind/Spirit would know that a system that protected lies so efficiently would lay humans open to just about any conceivable abuse.

I agree 101%

Take this last Las Vegas shooting, as fake as it is, half the world will believe it. Why? Because of sci-fi Religions like Christianity (including the Pontifical Academy of (space/cosmos) Sciences, aka Sci-Fientology), .. Scientology, Mormonism and so on I tell you with all these exciting events, I'm thinking of getting a job as a Crisis-Actor. Especially with the upcoming alien attack, I could fake having been "alien abducted" and show them the (NASA artist rendered) planets they took me to.

P.S.

I like what you said here: "The big bang theory is provisional and does not contradict our background knowledge. Knowledge is knowledge about reality." .. I see you're a Crisis Actor too, .. the BB-story not contradicting reality, .. good one.

missmedic

Wake said: @missmedic - Sorry - but ALL morals and ethics are based upon mostly Christianity and in part by the Old Testament and perhaps a very few from Islam. Or as the Muslims might say - the people of the book which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And these morals and ethics were derived by Jews to themselves and then Christ applying them to ALL and Islam accepting them to a point.

If you accept that there are morals and ethics without accepting religion and proclaiming Atheism you are nothing more than confused.

Getting people accustomed to following divine commands regardless of their consequences or reasonableness — and always thinking that this is "moral" — is a wonderful means for priming people to follow the commands of any other leader as well— especially one that purports to speak on behalf of or in defense of traditional religion. Morality comes from making choices, not from following commands.

If you can believe that science will some day solve all the riddles of the universe (and presently they explain surprisingly few) you are accepting that not on logic since science knows so few real facts but on the faith that they will discover these facts. Whether it was the Big Bang being disproved by noting that the universe is speeding up as it expands, that the gravity in our universe is 90% too much for the visible matter and energy and dark matter has totally avoided detection or the simple fact that the amount of energy and matter in the universe cannot be explained in any known theory. Even the theory that the moon was broken off of the earth was disproved with geological evidence from the moon itself. We really cannot even say with any real confidence that quantum mechanics is real or nothing more than reflection of the value of energy being expended to demonstrate its theories. So as an Atheist you are proclaiming the same religious faith as a Christian though in denial.

Our beliefs and feelings are unreliable. But aren’t they still some indicator of truth? Otherwise anything and everything is equally likely to be true, and that seems absurd. Indeed, it is absurd — our knowledge of the world is imperfect, but we still manage to use it day-to-day. Our senses–emotional or otherwise–are flawed, but that doesn’t mean they’re useless.

Now if all knowledge is imperfect, why single out faith? Why is knowledge obtained through faith worse than any other knowledge? The answer is that, while all ways of knowing are flawed, some are better than others. What makes some ways better? The fact that they can be corrected through thought and experience.

A belief that cannot change can’t be moved closer to truth. Faith-based beliefs could be true, of course, but they could also be false. A strong feeling that something is true doesn’t make it true.

Like all beliefs, faith-based beliefs can be mistaken, and we may hold them only because we like them or because we grew up in a particular time and place. But only faith-based beliefs can’t be corrected through thought and experience. They’re not necessarily wrong–they could even be right–but that doesn’t change the fact that faith is a bad reason for believing them.

Is faith all bad? Not necessarily. Faith-based beliefs can certainly be useful. As many will attest, they can increase happiness. If I want something to be true and I believe through faith that it is true, I may be a happier person. Faith has contributed to the happiness of many people. But is it the only path to happiness? I don’t think so. We can appreciate the wonder and mystery of the universe without having unjustified faith that it is or is not a certain way. We can live with purpose without having faith that this purpose was ordained for us.

Choosing not to live according to faith may, in fact, be a moral choice. If we accept that our beliefs can be wrong and change them when necessary, we stand a greater chance of understanding each other. Without faith we have the tools necessary to bridge differences. The possibility of a peaceful coexistence improves. Faith is not all bad, yes — but it may do more harm than good.

missmedic

  " Wake said: @missmedic -" Sorry - but ALL morals and ethics are based upon mostly Christianity and in part by the Old Testament and perhaps a very few from Islam. Or as the Muslims might say - the people of the book which includes Judaism, Christianity and Islam. And these morals and ethics were derived by Jews to themselves and then Christ applying them to ALL and Islam accepting them to a point.If you accept that there are morals and ethics without accepting religion and proclaiming Atheism you are nothing more than confused."

    Getting people accustomed to following divine commands regardless of their consequences or reasonableness — and always thinking that this is "moral" — is a wonderful means for priming people to follow the commands of any other leader as well— especially one that purports to speak on behalf of or in defense of traditional religion. Morality comes from making choices, not from following commands.

"If you can believe that science will some day solve all the riddles of the universe (and presently they explain surprisingly few) you are accepting that not on logic since science knows so few real facts but on the faith that they will discover these facts. Whether it was the Big Bang being disproved by noting that the universe is speeding up as it expands, that the gravity in our universe is 90% too much for the visible matter and energy and dark matter has totally avoided detection or the simple fact that the amount of energy and matter in the universe cannot be explained in any known theory. Even the theory that the moon was broken off of the earth was disproved with geological evidence from the moon itself. We really cannot even say with any real confidence that quantum mechanics is real or nothing more than reflection of the value of energy being expended to demonstrate its theories. So as an Atheist you are proclaiming the same religious faith as a Christian though in denial."

   Our beliefs and feelings are unreliable. But aren’t they still some indicator of truth? Otherwise anything and everything is equally likely to be true, and that seems absurd. Indeed, it is absurd — our knowledge of the world is imperfect, but we still manage to use it day-to-day. Our senses–emotional or otherwise–are flawed, but that doesn’t mean they’re useless.Now if all knowledge is imperfect, why single out faith? Why is knowledge obtained through faith worse than any other knowledge? The answer is that, while all ways of knowing are flawed, some are better than others. What makes some ways better? The fact that they can be corrected through thought and experience.A belief that cannot change can’t be moved closer to truth. Faith-based beliefs could be true, of course, but they could also be false. A strong feeling that something is true doesn’t make it true.Like all beliefs, faith-based beliefs can be mistaken, and we may hold them only because we like them or because we grew up in a particular time and place. But only faith-based beliefs can’t be corrected through thought and experience. They’re not necessarily wrong–they could even be right–but that doesn’t change the fact that faith is a bad reason for believing them.Is faith all bad? Not necessarily. Faith-based beliefs can certainly be useful. As many will attest, they can increase happiness. If I want something to be true and I believe through faith that it is true, I may be a happier person. Faith has contributed to the happiness of many people. But is it the only path to happiness? I don’t think so. We can appreciate the wonder and mystery of the universe without having unjustified faith that it is or is not a certain way. We can live with purpose without having faith that this purpose was ordained for us.Choosing not to live according to faith may, in fact, be a moral choice. If we accept that our beliefs can be wrong and change them when necessary, we stand a greater chance of understanding each other. Without faith we have the tools necessary to bridge differences. The possibility of a peaceful coexistence improves. Faith is not all bad, yes — but it may do more harm than good.

Sorry I could not post with quotation marks the first time.

Fascism

https://www.google.com/search?q=define+religion&oq=define+religion&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.3776j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
http://www.bing.com/search?q=define+religion&qs=n&form=QBLH&sp=-1&ghc=1&pq=define+religion&sc=8-15&sk=&cvid=B52DB7D01C37431E9CAE5E759D626123
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/religion
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/religion

Atheism is a religion. It fits in one of the definitions of religion in every one of these dictionaries. 

Coveny

I take a week's vacation and you guys go off on tangents.

Atheism is a lack of belief in god(s). It has nothing to do with ethics, it has nothing to do with morals, it's not a calling, it's not pursuit, it's not faith in science, it's not faith in anything, and it's NOT a religion.

Theist means you believe in god(s), and atheist means you don't. These two words are antonyms, not synonyms. Stop trying to twist semantics because you are unable to comprehend a life that doesn't include believing god(s) exist.

CYDdharta

@Coveny
...and religion means; a commitment or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.  That does describe atheism.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny
...and religion means; a commitment or devotion to an acknowledged ultimate reality.  That does describe atheism.

Are you committed and devoted to not believing in Thor? You attempt to apply the same words to an action or belief that you apply to a lack thereof. Atheism is an absence of belief, commitment, and devotion, it's a null value. Just like it makes no sense to say "you are commitmented and devoted in not believing in Thor", it makes no sense to say an atheist is committed and devoted to not believing in god(s). Any other option makes it impossible to be an atheist because you've attempted to define theism and atheism as the same thing. So no, that does NOT describe atheism.

Now I will concede, that most atheist have a commitment and devotion to science, but that is in conjunction to being an atheist, and not a requirement of atheism, any more than a belief in yahweh is a requirement to be a theist. (A theist can believe in Vishnu for instance)

CYDdharta

Coveny said:

Are you committed and devoted to not believing in Thor? You attempt to apply the same words to an action or belief that you apply to a lack thereof. Atheism is an absence of belief, commitment, and devotion, it's a null value. Just like it makes no sense to say "you are commitmented and devoted in not believing in Thor", it makes no sense to say an atheist is committed and devoted to not believing in god(s). Any other option makes it impossible to be an atheist because you've attempted to define theism and atheism as the same thing. So no, that does NOT describe atheism.

Now I will concede, that most atheist have a commitment and devotion to science, but that is in conjunction to being an atheist, and not a requirement of atheism, any more than a belief in yahweh is a requirement to be a theist. (A theist can believe in Vishnu for instance)

That is incorrect.  If you believe no God exists (nor Thor, nor any other diety), you have a distinct belief, thus its a religion.  If you don't believe in God (or Thor, etc.), but don't rule out any possibilities, you don't have a belief, but you're also not an atheist, you're agnostic.

Saying atheism is a null value and thus not a religion is like saying 0 is not a number.

Coveny

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

Are you committed and devoted to not believing in Thor? You attempt to apply the same words to an action or belief that you apply to a lack thereof. Atheism is an absence of belief, commitment, and devotion, it's a null value. Just like it makes no sense to say "you are commitmented and devoted in not believing in Thor", it makes no sense to say an atheist is committed and devoted to not believing in god(s). Any other option makes it impossible to be an atheist because you've attempted to define theism and atheism as the same thing. So no, that does NOT describe atheism.

Now I will concede, that most atheist have a commitment and devotion to science, but that is in conjunction to being an atheist, and not a requirement of atheism, any more than a belief in yahweh is a requirement to be a theist. (A theist can believe in Vishnu for instance)

That is incorrect.  If you believe no God exists (nor Thor, nor any other diety), you have a distinct belief, thus its a religion.  If you don't believe in God (or Thor, etc.), but don't rule out any possibilities, you don't have a belief, but you're also not an atheist, you're agnostic.

Saying atheism is a null value and thus not a religion is like saying 0 is not a number.

You are trying to play with semantics again. You believe Thor exists is a value. A lack of having that belief isn't a value anymore than saying that you have hair but the number of hairs you have is zero. Do I get to claim to be an actor even though I've been in exactly zero films? Does my distinct belief that I've been in zero films equate to a non-actor religion? No of course not. if you apply your position to anything else it's absurd, you just can't handle the idea of someone not having blind faith.

On the point of agnostic... that is incorrect. Agnostic is just the antonym of gnostic, and it just deals with the certainty you have. If you are "sure" you're gnostic, and if aren't "sure" you're agnostic. So you can be an agnostic theist(believe in god(s) but not certain about it), or a gnostic athiest(don't believe in god(s) and certain about it). Stop playing word game to protect your cognitive bias.

CYDdharta

Coveny said:
.

You are trying to play with semantics again. You believe Thor exists is a value. A lack of having that belief isn't a value anymore than saying that you have hair but the number of hairs you have is zero. Do I get to claim to be an actor even though I've been in exactly zero films? Does my distinct belief that I've been in zero films equate to a non-actor religion? No of course not. if you apply your position to anything else it's absurd, you just can't handle the idea of someone not having blind faith.

On the point of agnostic... that is incorrect. Agnostic is just the antonym of gnostic, and it just deals with the certainty you have. If you are "sure" you're gnostic, and if aren't "sure" you're agnostic. So you can be an agnostic theist(believe in god(s) but not certain about it), or a gnostic athiest(don't believe in god(s) and certain about it). Stop playing word game to protect your cognitive bias.

Lol, you whine about playing word games after playing word games ... badly.  Stop trying to define words as something they're not.

Agnostic
:a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable; broadly :one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/agnostic

...and Gnostics are NOT simply people who are certain there is a God, you made up the definition whole-cloth. 

Gnosticism

:the thought and practice especially of various cults of late pre-Christian and early Christian centuries distinguished by the conviction that matter is evil and that emancipation comes through gnosis

From wiki;

Gnosis refers to knowledge based on personal experience or perception. In a religious context,gnosis is mystical or esoteric knowledge based on direct participation with the divine. In most Gnostic systems the sufficient cause of salvation is this "knowledge of" ("acquaintance with") the divine. It is an inward "knowing," comparable to that encouraged by Plotinus (neoplatonism), and differs from Christian proto-orthodox views.

Maybe you can come back to this debate when you learn what what we're actually debating.

Coveny

@CYDdharta

Per your definitions
Agnostic - reality is unknown and probably unknowable, and not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence
or to put another way they aren't certain, or sure about reality. Thanks for confirming I'm correct.

Gnosis and Gnosticism religions and are not antonyms to gnostic. (English is full of words that have multiple meanings please pay attention)

Some articles on the topic that might help you understand the words you butcher better:
http://www.differencebetween.net/language/difference-between-gnostic-and-agnostic/
https://thesecretatheist.wordpress.com/2012/02/02/agnostic-gnostic/
http://www.stanleycolors.com/2013/12/atheism-vs-theism-vs-agnosticism-vs-gnosticism-a-simple-guide-to-know-what-the-hell-you-are/
http://pediaa.com/difference-between-agnostic-and-gnostic/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/camelswithhammers/2009/10/distinguishing-the-atheist-agnostic-the-theist-gnostic-the-atheist-gnostic-and-the-theist-agnostic/ 

CYDdharta

@Coveny

FFS, you bemoan the semantics game, then post this as a reply?!?  You can find anything on the internet if you look hard enough (even that Queen Elizabeth, Britney Spears, Eminem, and Miley Cyrus died and were replaced with clones).  That doesn't make it right, or even mean that it makes sense, so lets just stick to actual dictionary definitions.  You cannot believe God exists (or does not exist) and believe that the existance and/or nonexistance of God is unknowable at the same time.  It is an either/or proposition.  And speaking of definitions, many words do, indeed, have multiple definitions.  Gnosticism isn't one of them, and it doesn't mean anything close to what you said it does

Coveny

@CYDdharta I agree with your dictionary definition and you say let's stick with dictionary definitions? ROFL Here are some definitions of gnostic for you because you couldn't understand the articles:
Dictionary - pertaining to knowledge.
Free Dictionary - Of, relating to, or possessing intellectual or spiritual knowledge.
Collins - of knowledge
Cambridge - relating to knowledge, especially knowledge that most people do not have:

Gnostic means you know, it comes from Greek where they use an "a" in front of words to mean "not". So gnostic means you "know", and and agnostic means you don't "know". It refers to certainty or surety as I keep saying and proving. The following statement makes complete sense and isn't a contradiction in any way: I don't believe god exists but I don't believe it's possible to know for sure that god doesn't exist. It's not difficult to understand if you can get past your confirmation bias. Agnostic means one thing, and gnostic means something COMPLETELY different in your fantasy. (rather than them being antonyms like asymmetrical, atypical, etc) But hey why let logic or the meaning of words stop your fantasy?

CYDdharta

@Coveny

Post the link to the dictionary definition; or better yet STOP MAKING UP YOU'RE OWN FAKE DEFINITIONS!!!!