Atheism is a Religion . . . . but a good one.

[Gerard]

I have not read all posts in this thread but I do "believe" that atheism is just a lack of a specific belief. There may have been sideshows that include belief in something or rather, but basically that's beside the point....

Gerard

[The Non Prophet]

You quote Bill Maher and left out a better quote from him.

"Until someone claims to see Christopher Hitchens face in a tree stump, idiots must stop claiming Atheism is a religion" -Bill Maher
[youtube:1lvtwj8x]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A41WZBcmnfc[/youtube:1lvtwj8x]

How can the absence of religion be a religion? your dichotomy is just retarded rhetoric from religious people. I guess Off is a TV channel as well.

[aitm]

Claiming with "certainty" that there is no god is not a "leap of faith" nor does it require "infinite knowledge". All that is needed is common sense. Did a god exist before humans? We find nothing that indicates a necessity for such. But once humanity comes along, god does not immediately show up.  Instead we find evidence of animism across the world....then the evolution of "religions"  seems to spread almost evenly from different areas all at the same time. And funny thing....all these areas seem to have different gods, and all these gods seem to have very humans frailties for all their majestic powers. They are jealous, vengeful, evil, and also loving. How odd that. So if there was only one god, why so many? And when we have so much evidence that man created gods why would any reasonable person decide that indeed this creation of man must somehow mean that there now must be in reality a real god? What nonsense. Reason and common sense dictates, indeed MUST dictate that the gods are inventions of humanity. There is no real alternative.

[Hakurei Reimu]

BA, while I welcome you, you could have come with a better intro than the OP.

Atheism is a religion the same way non-stamp collecting is a hobby.

That is to say, it's not.

God is not a concrete, rigorously defined entity we can really talk about the existence or nonexistence of. At best, it is a placeholder for our ignorance, given the shape of an old man with a beard and glowing halo if given a shape at all, or a cloud of glowy stuff, or anything but an actual consciousness. If you don't believe me, ask your nearest believer or apologist to define God for you with the same rigor as we define scientific concepts. I guarantee they will either try to deflect, or come up with a definition that is very defective in some way. I, for one, have never gotten a working definition for God. At best, all I get is a list of desiderata, but a list of required attributes does not a definition make, much less an existence.

The role of "God" in the universe has retreated from being ever-entwined with our daily lives all the way back to the beginning of the universe, where it is even now under attack. The role of God has shrunk in proportion to our ignorance. That is indicative that "God" is a label by which we plaster over that ignorance to let us pretend that we have an answer when in fact all we have is ignorance. That's what makes the God-belief stupid.

In brief, here are my rebuttals to your other points: the phrase "time requires creation" invokes a stolen concept fallacy; consciousness has never been demonstrated outside of a brain; the "observer" in the Copenhagen Interpretation is a term of art referring to a measurement apparatus for which consciousness is not required; consciousness evolved slowly over stages and into a spectrum of awareness, and concepts are not required for competence; what John Wheeler —or any other physicist— believes is immaterial. What they are able to prove in the peer review literature is what is at issue; the kind of no-time that precludes Lawrence's 'eventually' will preclude any sort of change from 'no-time' to 'time'; an infinite regression wouldn't be an actual problem here, as it would be with infinite doughnuts, because it would dispose of the need for a First Cause (which is all this argument for God is in the first place); Rationalism is, dispite its name, not a rational methodology.

[Bibliofagus]

As far as I know, everyone on the forum is an agnostic atheist.

I'm just an atheist. Claiming an agnostic position on the existence of god is special pleading. There is an infinite amount of retarded delusions that can be construed, and none of these appear to warrant the claim of being 'agnostic' about them.
I don't believe Voldemort exists. Period. There is no reason to say 'I don't know blabla could be' exept to be polite to some child or something.

[ Image ]
[youtube:3fscmce8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk[/youtube:3fscmce8]

This illustrates my point nicely.
Agnosticism can be applied to any claim, not just claims about god.

[Plu]

Agnosticism is can be applied to any claim, not just claims about god.

But it still applies to you, even if you don't say it. You might not call yourself an agnostic atheist, but you still are one. Unless you are a gnostic atheist, of course.

[Bibliofagus]

Agnosticism is can be applied to any claim, not just claims about god.

But it still applies to you, even if you don't say it. You might not call yourself an agnostic atheist, but you still are one. Unless you are a gnostic atheist, of course.

True, the label other people made up for me applies to me. But I refuse to give extra credibility to the existence of god by using the term 'agnostic atheist'. It's like saying: I don't believe Voldemort exists, Buuuut he may very well exist.
No one ever does that. Probably because it's crazy.

Imagine your kid asking you if you believe santa claus (sinterklaas!) exists. What are you going to say? The moment the kid asks the question you know it has doubts about it, and you (sort of) know he doesn't exist.
What position are you going to take? The one in which you are not sure? Or are you going to tell the truth?

The agnostic position (at least to me) is the same as the solipsist position. Nothing is ever sure except the existence of me. I could be fooled all day long and be living in the Matrix right? Many theistic claims are the same. "Evidence of evilution was just planted by the Devil" for instance. Or: "You just have to have faith." etc

Agnostisism is as useless as solipsism. Couple to that the popular use of the term agnostisism (I don't know if - god - exists) and what do you get?
Special pleading. Most of the time in normal conversation the only question that gets the answer 'I don't know bladiebla could very well be' is the question about gods existence. Why is it more special than the question of Voldemorts existence?
Because we allow it to. Fuck. 'Smart' atheists say they are 'agnostic' as well as atheistic.

I may not be smart. But I don't believe any god exists. And I dont believe Voldemort exists.
I dont believe Santa exists. And when I have kids I plan to tell them. I'm not going to say 'maybe Santa is for real kid' when he finds out it's may not be real.

I see no reason to treat jahweh, allah etc any differently. If I would be agnostic about this kind of madness, I would be a solipsist. And I'm not. Sorry.

Short version: If I would be very insecure about 'knowing' anything I would claim to be a solipsist. To me there is no reason to say I'm an agnostic atheist as long as the 'knowing' part of gnostisism is as ill defined as it is when people speak of their 'agnosticism'. Hell. I looked around and couldn't locate any definitions of agnosticism at all that mention anything about what it takes to 'know' anything.

Edit:
Many times I'm a gnostic atheist as well btw. This usually happens when a theist tries to define his god.

Edit 2 & 3:
In the thread about contradictions in the bible you say: "anything that cannot be tested is not real. Period."
Why are you agnostic? I mean: Is there a definition of any meaningfull 'god' for which you can devise a test to prove it's excistence? Why not just run it?

[Bibliofagus]

Agnosticism is can be applied to any claim, not just claims about god.

But it still applies to you, even if you don't say it. You might not call yourself an agnostic atheist, but you still are one. Unless you are a gnostic atheist, of course.

See above. Tl dr:
If I would be agnostic about the 'god' kind of madness. I would be a solopsist.

[Savior2006]

"





The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma.

No it isn't. When I say that it's a matter of fact that actual magical witches don't exist, that isn't religious dogma, nor it is a leap of faith. It's due to at no point of time has there been any evidence of magic existing. When I say that you are stupid if you think you can fly on a broom, that's not religious dogma, that's me criticizing you for you being stupid.

[Jackdaw]

"I don't know what caused the Big Bang and I don't know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don't know either" – Bill Maher. "I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don't have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position" – Issac Asimov. "You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself" – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: 'Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects'. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:

"If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either" – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness 'somehow' evolved; you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

"Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing" – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in 'The Spiritual Universe' claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles 'pop' into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss's reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I'm not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing 'eventually' collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – 'How The Universe Works') that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss's assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: 'What caused the first Big Bang ?'. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call 'The Tooth-Fairy' rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can't do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: 'I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation'. Since you can't do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this 'Awareness' down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

Ya and a hopeless religion too :Hangman:

[leo]

"I don't know what caused the Big Bang and I don't know why there is something instead of nothing and that means you don't know either" – Bill Maher. "I prefer Rationalism over Atheism because the question of God is unknowable. As a Rationalist you don't have to waste your time either attacking or defending either position" – Issac Asimov. "You should be skeptical of everything, including yourself" – Bertrand Russell. I had to preface this article with the above quotes because, although I am a Buddhist and believe in a Supreme Being, I am a great admirer of the above people. My two B.A.'s are not in Philosophy or Physics, so feel free to tell me that I don't know what I'm talking about. You may be right. But I would like to open a discourse with my Atheist friends who have a Philosophy that I also admire. That philosophy is: 'Your Heart should not accept what your Mind rejects'. One of the tenants of Buddhism is that you should not accept anything without thinking. But, I do have a rebuttal for at least two of the statements by some well known, highly intelligent, Atheists:

"If God did not require being created, logic dictates that the Universe did not require being created either" – Michael Shermer. My rebuttal is that the Universe is composed of Matter, Energy, Gravity, Time and Space; all of which require being created. Consciousness however is still a mystery. In fact, if you're a follower of the Niels Bohr Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics, it is Consciousness that creates Matter. A Supreme Consciousness may very well indeed not have required being created. To those whose explanation of Consciousness is that the Human Brain is so complex that Consciousness 'somehow' evolved; you should know that using the word 'somehow' poses a lot of philosophical problems and questions. For example, Immanuel Kant in 'The Critique Of Pure Reason' surmised that Space and Time are only the relationship of one object to another; but, if we did not have the concept of Space and Time 'A Priori' in our Minds before we were born, we would not have been able to relate one sense impression to another. There would be no Awareness or Consciousness.

"Quantum Mechanics allows for a Universe to come into existence out of Nothing" – Lawrence Krauss. I have several rebuttals for this. First, Quantum Mechanics has become all things to all people. Physicist Fred Alan Wolfe in 'The Spiritual Universe' claims that Quantum Physics proves the existence of the Human Soul. John Wheeler believes that the strange results in QP experiments suggest that someone is observing the Universe. Secondly, when Dr. Krauss (if I understand him correctly) talks of something coming from nothing – He is talking about Gravity affecting Negative Energy is such a way that virtual particles 'pop' into existence which then become real particles. The problem with this, as even physicists who are atheists have pointed out, is that this occurs in Space and in Time within the Universe. The Big Bang occurred in a no-when, no-place, no-gravity. Krauss's reply is that a true Nothing (no space, no time, no gravity) is unstable. And like all unstable systems, it will eventually collapse in on itself and produce something. I'm not sure how to answer that. In a no-time, how does nothing 'eventually' collapse. It should be noted that by the year 2017, there may be satellites in place (according to the Science Channel – 'How The Universe Works') that might be able to detect Gravity Waves from a Universe that existed before the Big Bang. One theory is that a part of 2 separate Universes (each as a wave-like membrane) in a Multi-verse, collided, causing the Big Bang. If these Gravity Waves from a previous Universe are detected, that would obliterate Stephen Hawkings and Lawrence Krauss's assertion that the Big Bang came from nothing. Of course, that still leaves the question: 'What caused the first Big Bang ?'. And if the continuous Big Bangs go back in Infinite Regression – the question is: 'Why is there something instead of nothing ?'

When I talk with some of my Atheist friends, who I highly regard, I always assert that both positions on the existence of God require a Leap of Faith. Whenever I state that I always get what I call 'The Tooth-Fairy' rebuttal. My friends will state that they cannot prove or disprove the existence of the tooth fairy. However, they are still not going to believe in the existence of the tooth fairy until there is substantive scientific evidence. My answer to that is: If you want to stay up all night outside your kid's bedroom after one of them loses a tooth; and the tooth fairy never shows up – you can reasonably assert that there is no tooth fairy. What you can't do is to go back in Time to the Big Bang and from a position outside the Universe observe the Big Bang and then state: 'I was there at the Big Bang and I can tell you that there was no Supreme Consciousness. The whole thing was a product of Spontaneous Creation'. Since you can't do that, comparing the question of God with the question of the tooth fairy or the spaghetti monster, or whatever, is quite disingenuous. This is why Issac Asimov preferred Rationalism over Atheism and why Buddhists, although they believe in God, assert that the Nature of God is unknowable.

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

If the Question of God or the Nature of God is unknowable, then why do I believe in God ? Well, for me, God is not something I believe in, God is a Supreme Being that my Consciousness is aware of. Of course, what I think I am aware of is not Scientific Proof. So, as a Rationalist, I am willing to place this 'Awareness' down as a Belief and put it down in the category of Faith.

Ya and a hopeless religion too :Hangman:

:Hangman:  :Hangman:  :Hangman:

[Smartmarzipan]

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

I get soooo tired of refuting this.

So tired.

Please....stop.

[stromboli]

The bottom line is that if you are an Atheist and you state that you don't belive in God; that is absolutely and perfectly fine. However, if you state, as a matter of fact, that there is no God, you are taking a Leap of Faith and crossing over into the world of Religious Dogma. If you state that a God-belief is stupid, you are a religious fanatic.

An informed decision is not a leap of faith. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We can infer from lack of evidence that something does not exist, a logical conclusion. Faith is belief that something exists DESPITE evidence to the contrary, not BECAUSE of. If that were so, then belief would not be based on faith.

[Shol'va]

Whelp, if the op wasn't a hit-and-run, you guys made sure he won't show his face ever again

[DunkleSeele]

"Atheism is a religion"