The Religion of Atheism

[Alisa]

It really isn't when compared to some definitions of atheism seen here.

If atheism is an abscence of something and nothing more then why can a car not be an atheist. It conforms to the criteria does it not?

It only becomes bizarre when the required criteria is to actually entertain the belief in a deity as plausible and then dismiss it.

Atheism is the absence of belief IN A BEING CAPABLE OF BELIEF.
Cars are NOT CAPABLE OF BELIEF.
Therefore, BELIEF OR NONBELIEF is NOT a property that a car can possess.

 

[Pauldohert]

Are you an atheist Alisa or just not capable of belief?

 

[Rabbie]

It really isn't when compared to some definitions of atheism seen here.

If atheism is an abscence of something and nothing more then why can a car not be an atheist. It conforms to the criteria does it not?

It only becomes bizarre when the required criteria is to actually entertain the belief in a deity as plausible and then dismiss it.

IMHO Only a sentient being capable of abstract thought can have a view on religion atheism etc.

As I said to someone else in another thread "Don't pretend to be stupid. It doesn't suit you." and does give the impression that perhaps you arent pretending.

 

[Alisa]

Are you an atheist Alisa or just not capable of belief?

And so it begins.
I knew I shouldn't have responded.

 

[dan-cat]

Atheism is the absence of belief IN A BEING CAPABLE OF BELIEF.

Then it is something, not nothing. The requirement to believe is the indicator that the consideration of the plausibility of the belief is required.

It is a rejection, a considered position, not a void.

 

[Pauldohert]

JUst trying to avoid generlisations by asking specific questions - though the answer may be obvious - you never now how others see things.

Just enquiring minds. Not necessarily stupid. Necessarily i said.

 

[dan-cat]

As I said to someone else in another thread "Don't pretend to be stupid. It doesn't suit you." and does give the impression that perhaps you arent pretending.

Follow my line of argument instead of the patronising one please.

 

[Pauldohert]

And so it begins.
I knew I shouldn't have responded.

If you don't like the response - then don't begin!

Are you capable of belief?

Yes or no?

 

[Alc]

You can't put agnostics on one side or the other then.

No, you can't.

I can see where this is going: Someone else has said how it's not possible to be an atheist and really those of us who claim to be are all agnostics. So, if you can just get someone to say that all great advances have been made by either religious people or agnostics, you've 'proven' that no atheist has ever done anything significant.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, for all we know, all of these people were atheists.

 

[Alisa]

Then it is something, not nothing. The requirement to believe is the indicator that the consideration of the plausibility of the belief is required.

It is a rejection, a considered position, not a void.

I would agree with that, the same way zero is not nothing, and white is a color.

 

[Pauldohert]

No, you can't.

I can see where this is going: Someone else has said how it's not possible to be an atheist and really those of us who claim to be are all agnostics. So, if you can just get someone to say that all great advances have been made by either religious people or agnostics, you've 'proven' that no atheist has ever done anything significant.

Unfortunately, as I said earlier, for all we know, all of these people were atheists.

You rose to the challenge?! Now you have failed - you claim its invalid.

It may be invalid - thats more my point, just as invalid that all bad things have come about through religion, which gets banded about all the time.

 

[Alc]

You rose to the challenge?! Now you have failed - you claim its invalid.

It may be invalid - thats more my point, just as invalid that all bad things have come about through religion, which gets banded about all the time.

What challenge is that?

You asked for an example of something that atheists have achieved. I gave you what I believe to be one. You asked for proof that the person responsible was actually an atheist because you know full well that he existed in a time when it wasn't exactly healthy to come out and say so. Since I can't prove it, you say I've failed.

Why is the fact that religion has - and is - frequently used as an excuse to carry out atrocities 'invalid'?

If you want a challenge, you come up with an example of something terrible carried out in the name of atheism.

 

[Thales750]

I am bracing myself for the onslaught of personal attacks you are certainly about to unleash on me, but I will respond against my better judgement...in imaginary things is like being schizophrenic and hearing voices.

You have got to be joking. Go back and read the post where you call believers all manner of derogatory names.

Alisa you’re acting like a hypocrite.

Read your post from a neutral observers position. The whole point of this exercise was to see if devout atheists are capable of moderating their language.

You should see yourselves pranting around, like the fundamentals that you obviously are.

 

[Alisa]

You have got to be joking. Go back and read the post where you call believers all manner of derogatory names.

Alisa you’re acting like a hypocrite.

Read your post from a neutral observers position. The whole point of this exercise was to see if devout atheists are capable of moderating their language.

You should see yourselves pranting around, like the fundamentals that you obviously are.

Paul and I have history.

 

[dan-cat]

I would agree with that, the same way zero is not nothing, and white is a color.

Good so please stop staying it is simply an absence of belief. It is far more than that as illustrated by my 'stupid' car example.

It is the failed adoption of a belief. The failure of the hammering of a square into a circle if you will. This entire process requires criteria set by you that you subject the 'belief' to. (I am not commenting on the validity of this criteria btw)

It is so much more than 'the lack of'. It's why the suggestion of a car being an atheist is, to put kindly, bizarre. Atheism requires theism to exist and requires a set of criteria that theism fails to conform to.

 

[Alisa]

Good so please stop staying it is simply an absence of belief. It is far more than that as illustrated by my 'stupid' car example.

It is the failed adoption of a belief. The failure of the hammering of a square into a circle if you will. This entire process requires criteria set by you that you subject the 'belief' to. (I am not commenting on the validity of this criteria btw)

It is so much more than 'the lack of'. It's why the suggestion of a car being an atheist is, to put kindly, bizarre. Atheism requires theism to exist.

Yes, you can't have the absence of something without the something in the first place that is to be absent. Glad we got that straight.

 

[dan-cat]

The whole point of this exercise was to see if devout atheists are capable of moderating their language. [/FONT][/COLOR]

I have been called stupid and am not even a theist.

 

[dan-cat]

Yes, you can't have the absence of something without the something in the first place that is to be absent. Glad we got that straight.

...and requires a set of beliefs that theism fails to conform to.

 

[Alc]

I have been called stupid and am not even a theist.

1) You argued with the definition of atheism.
2) You typed in English.

Those are two characteristics of the theists on this thread.

Therefore, following rationale established earlier, you are a theist.

 

[Rabbie]

You should see yourselves pranting around, like the fundamentals that you obviously are.

I think you should look in a mirror before castigating everyone who has the temerity to disagree with you.

You have found God and that has helped you stay sober. Great! I am happy that you have got your life under control and even gladder for your family. An unreformed drinker can be very difficult to live with.

However I do not share your belief in God but that does not not make me a bad person. In one of your earlier posts you mentioned the difference between religion and a belief in God. I would agree that the problems are caused by Organised Religion through out the ages and not by individual believers. However I don't recognize the picture you draw of bands of Atheists gathering together to form cults and worship etc. This certainly doesn't occur in Britain and I doubt if it happens in the US. Perhaps I am wrong there.

I am a tolerant person and i believe in the doctrine of "Live and let livE" provided you or anyone else does not force their views on me. Of course if I attend a debate or post on a forum such as this then a robust exchange of views is to be expected and welcomed. But I expect this to occur in a pleasant way where we respect each other's right to differ. If you don't want this then don't join the debate or even start it.