July 1, 2010

Atheism Is A Religion

Atheism, debunking atheists,religionI know, I know, you have heard it all before.

I read a blog post that spelled it out pretty well, enough to re post it. Kevin Childs is a DJ at The Rock (Rockc3.com) and he did a post discussing how Atheists belong to a religion.

We, as rational individuals, all know its true except the atheists themselves. When, and only when, they understand that they indeed belong to a religion, then we can get down as to who holds the most accurate and truthful religion out there. For Atheists to attempt to claim "neutrality", in reference to God, is a complete cop out and disingenuous intellectually. They have indeed picked a side. They choose their religion based on what they believe is evidentiary to their presuppositions. Denying what they believe, and hold as truth, may be an easier pill for them to swallow but they are only attempting to deceive themselves.

Childs makes the case:

Atheism is a religion.
Atheism IS a religion. I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped. Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this:
  • They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Far from being the open-minded, follow-the-evidence-wherever thinkers they claim to be, they interpret all data ONLY within the very narrow worldview of materialism. They are like a guy wearing dark sunglasses who chides all others for thinking the sun is out.
  • They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution. No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny.
  • They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”
  • They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx.
  • They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development.
  • They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens (Speaking of which, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord) are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism.
  • They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? What makes us conscious? From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? They just take such unexplained things by … faith.
There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith.
Not only is Atheism a religion, the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy.

bit.ly/AtheistReligion

299 comments:

  1. This is the favorite point of the Religious Right, and it's still just as ridiculous as it ever was. Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way that not riding horses is a hobby.

    First of all, there really is no organized atheism. It's just a bunch of individuals who happen not to believe in the same thing. No other shared belief system is required. And they get to sleep in on Sundays.

    You can't seem to provide any proof that God exists other than "you have to BELIEVE!!" but you take your worldview as the standard, and all deviations from it must be working together. If you can't pigeonhole, you aren't happy.

    Let's go point by point.

    They have their own worldview: Well, everybody does. Climate-change deniers have their own worldview, and they're closer to a religion than the lack of religion is.

    They have their own orthodoxy. No, they have a lack of orthodoxy. There is no requirement to believe in evolution or anything else. The only belief that connects atheists is that they don't believe in invisible sky fairies.

    They have their own brand of apostasy. Yawn Same problem. Sure, the scientific guys get cranky when their particular flavor of science is denigrated, but this is really just the inverse of the previous point.

    They have their own prophets: Now you're just being stupid. Each of the guys you listed is something like a philosopher, but not everybody believes any of them are right. Lenin? Marx? Really? Not a lot of true communists running around these days, you know.

    They have their own messiah: Darwin? He wrote the most cogent and well-thought out theory to that point, but a lot of his points have been disproven. As I mentioned in your previous point, elements of evolutionary theory have been developed for centuries, across the globe.

    They have their own preachers and evangelists. Only if you use the most liberal definition of the word. There are people who talk passionately on the subject. That's about it.

    They have faith. Uh, no. That's the point. They don't share your faith.

    If you'd like, I can reverse every one of those points to explain why you are making a religion of disbelief in Odin. It's a fun party game.

    Why do you hate Odin? If you would just let Him into your heart, you could feel the all-consuming love. Of battle, admittedly, but love, nonetheless.

    ReplyDelete
  2.      " Atheism is a religion in exactly the same way that not riding horses is a hobby."
         I would suggest that atheism is a religion in the same sense that sitting on the couch and doing nothing is a hobby. You see, your example singles out one particular activity not to engage in and so is comparable to the claim that not being specificly christian is a religion. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. As such, it is a belief about gods (that they don't exist) and qualifies as a religion. Granted, it's not organized. In the same fashion, remaining sedentary is not organized. But if sitting on the couch and doing nothing is what someone likes to do, it's a hobby.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Dan,
    The main logic that is fractured here is that atheists, for the most part do not believe in anything by faith.
    Faith is the test for religion.
    Religionists are presuppositionalists. Atheists are empiricists, therefor atheism cannot be a religion.

    Now, lets say, arguendo, we redefine atheism as a religion.
    It doesn't change one fucking thing.

    At that juncture every human worldview would be a religion.

    Religion has always referred to a faith in god(s), but if you change the definition to any worldview, it means nothing to me; only that you have bastardized and corrupted your own faith.

    By doing that, you basically shit on the dinner table in your own house.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While the bible states unequvocally that it's words are to be believed by faith, fundamentalists continue to corrupt their own book by trying, like Ken Ham and Hugh Ross, to shoehorn the miraculous into mere physics, as discovered and explained by men.

    Obviously, miracles must be done by suspending the laws of physics and nature, and it is therefore foolhardy for religionists to try to explain them with the use of observed physics.

    Instead of making himself look like the most ignaorant person on earth, Ken Ham should merely say the he believes by faith that God caused a global flood, rather than make up hysterically farfetched "models."

    While you're at it Dan, you might want to try to have science defined as a religion too! Heehee!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Atheism IS a religion. It's really not but carry on... I know that some have made that statement without much evidence. You've just done it yourself... And I know that atheists themselves heatedly deny it. because it's simply not true... I’ve heard their rejoinders: If atheism is a religion, then not playing baseball is a sport. Or, atheism is to religion what bald is to hair color. Clever. I guess I don’t blame them for denying it, but denying something doesn’t prove it is not there. repeatedly asserting it is without backing up your assertion doesn't cause it to pop into existence either... (I would advise any atheist readers to re-read the previous sentence until BOTH meanings sink in.)

    A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped.
    Where do atheists claim it does?... Some religions are polytheistic (Hinduism, Mormonism), some monotheistic (Judaism, Christianity, Islam), some non-theistic (Buddhism). I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” Saying it doesn't necessarily make it true... But their atheism is religious nonetheless. Consider this: I shall...

    * They have their own worldview. Everyone has a 'worldview' what of it?... Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world. Where does atheism demand materialism? Baseless assertion - the rest of this comment is a rant and I'll ignore it...

    * They have their own orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is a set of beliefs acceptable to a faith community. Atheism has but one belief; that God's do not exist... Just as there are orthodox Christian beliefs, there is an atheist orthodoxy as well. In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution.Bwahahahahahaha - same question as your first comment where does atheism demand an unwavering belief in evolution? yet another baseless assertion... No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny. So we're supposed to just believe the shit you make up? If that's how you operate I've got this bridge for sale....
    * They have their own brand of apostasy. Apostasy is to abandon one’s former religious faith. Well you've yet to give any reason to believe atheism is a religion, ergo apostasy is, as yet, impossible... Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. 10 seconds on Google makes you a liar - the word has no religious connotation and your attempt to conflate it with one that does is dishonest... By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.” There was no admission, you're just making shit up...

    cont'd

    ReplyDelete
  6. cont'd...

    * They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx. You so funny....
    * They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin. Creatard canard #99,999 - it may have escaped your attention but while science =/= atheism ... idiot... Darwin – in their view – drove the definitive stake through the heart of theism by providing a comprehensive explanation of life that never needs God as a cause or explanation. Tell it to Francis Collins, his acceptance of evolution doesn't seem to be buggering up his belief in God...
    Daniel Dennett has even written a book seeking to define religious faith itself as merely an evolutionary development. I notice you fail to give a rebuttal...
    * They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect. They are seeking converts. They are preaching a “gospel” calling for the end of theism. Redefining terms for Jebus w00t...
    * They have faith. That’s right, faith. They would have you believe the opposite. Their writings ridicule faith, condemn faith. You are, of course, being disingenuous again, we condemn faith that has no evidence to back it up... Harris’s book is called The End of Faith. No rebuttal... again ... But theirs is a faith-based enterprise. Yet another baseless assertion ... maybe I should have kept a count... The existence of God cannot be proven you just outed yourself as a false Christian, sweet...or disproven. To deny it takes faith. It really doesn't, all it requires is a lack of evidence on your part. Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. LOL, it never claimed to have one, why should it? In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. LOL, again, why should it - attempting to denigrate evolution for failing to explain things it has never claimed to explain is the height of stupidity... There is no accounting for the things they hope you won’t ask: Why do we have self-awareness? Science doesn't deal with the 'why' merely the 'what' and the 'how'... What makes us conscious? You could try Ornstein's 'Evolution of Consciousness: The Origins of the Way We Think' From what source is there a universal sense of right and wrong? What evidence do you have that such a sense exists? They just take such unexplained things by … faith. Wrong ... again...

    There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain, even for the most ardent follower of God. There are questions we cannot answer. There are days when every honest Christian will admit doubt. But we don’t become atheists. But some theists do when those doubts become so great... It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. You personal credulity doesn't impress me... And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith. Or maybe you're just too frightened to think for yourself ... just saying...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well, as freddies_dead noted, saying

    "I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.” But their atheism is religious nonetheless. "

    ...doesnt make it true. Childs is just redefining religion in a vain attempt to make his case.

    This is fun! A "millionaire" is someone who has a million in currency. But today I'm going to include those who don't. Woohoo, I'm a millionaire!

    Doesnt really work, does it.

    Oh, and the most amusing part is claiming Darwin is the atheist "messiah". ROFL! He's not the messiah (he's a very naughty boy).

    ReplyDelete
  8. Publius:

    your example singles out one particular activity not to engage in and so is comparable to the claim that not being specificly christian is a religion. Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. As such, it is a belief about gods (that they don't exist) and qualifies as a religion.

    No. Like I wrote above, Dan's (and apparently your) viewpoint is that your viewpoint, that there is a god, is the starting point, and to deny His existence is therefore a radical departure from reality.

    Not really. As (again) I wrote above, you have no proof to support your proposition. The logical starting point of this conversation should be "there is no evidence of God's existance. Prove that He is there."

    Otherwise, this is like assuming that Elvis is alive, and announcing that to be the standard position; any opposing viewpoints must be proven.

    You can't start the argument with an unsupported statement, and demand that it be disproven. You have to establish the validity of your viewpoint first.

    Shorter: "Prove to me that unicorns didn't exist."

    ReplyDelete
  9. Whoa, you really opened my eyes with this one. I thought I could leave religion by becoming an atheist, but I see now that I've been bamboozled into accepting another religion! This kind of sucks. Seems like I can no longer call myself an atheist. But hey, since you're an expert at this stuff, could you tell me how to leave religion once and for all? I'm not a christian or a muslim or an atheist since those are all religions, but I don't believe in god either. What am I?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Lol. h_brummer, you must be a figment of Dan's imagination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ok, under this definition of religion, what would not be a religion?

    Dan, did you get that picture from Mariano? That's the kind of shit he's always saying.

    ReplyDelete
  12. By doing that, you basically shit on the dinner table in your own house.

    Exactly

    ReplyDelete
  13. Reynold:

         "Ok, under this definition of religion, what would not be a religion?" [Emphasis in original]
         Under my definition, anything that does not address the existence or non-existence of things supernatural is not a religion. So, for example, advocating (or opposing) animal rights is not a religion.

    Nameless:
         The default position is not to have come to any conclusion on the existence or non-existence of any gods. Any conclusion on the topic is a religion. Ray Comfort likes to claim that christianity is not a religion "because it is true." Atheism is a religion because of the topic it addresses (whether or not there is a god.) Christianity is a religion because it addresses the same topic.
         "Not really. As (again) I wrote above, you have no proof to support your proposition. The logical starting point of this conversation should be 'there is no evidence of [g]od's existance. Prove that He is there.'"
         Leaving aside the fact that you have invented a position to attribute to me, the logical starting point presupposes no conclusions. If Dan wishes to convince people that his god is real, he has the burden of proof. If you wish to convince people that no god is real, you have the burden of proof. The burden of proof falls on whoever is trying to convince someone that his position is correct.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Let's go through this bit by bit:

    "A religion doesn’t have to posit a god who must be identified or worshiped."

    True.

    "I’d say the new atheists and their religion are “anti-theistic.”"

    lolwut

    "* They have their own worldview. Materialism (the view that the material world is all there is) is the lens through which atheists view the world."

    You don't have to be a materialist to be an atheist, not necessarily. I suppose most are though. But it's not like we presuppose the truth of materialism and then just deny everything that might contradict it. I don't make the claim that the material world is all there is, I couldn't know that. I just say I've never been presented with convincing enough evidence to believe there's something beyond material. It's pretty lame to say the only reason atheists don't accept your arguments for the supernatural because they presuppose materialism. Maybe sit down and seriously consider the possibility that your arguments just suck?

    "In brief, it is that EVERYTHING can be explained as the product of unintentional, undirected, purposeless evolution."

    I'd really like to see the Atheist Manifesto this guy is pulling this from. Of course, there is no such manifesto. So how can he say this is some official atheist doctrine? He's just pointing at things the majority of atheists have in common and saying "AHA, that's your dogma! Atheism is a religion!!" It's simply a bunch of people with the same opinions. Nowhere does it read that you're not a true atheist if you, for example, believe aliens guided evolution. This is just silly.

    "No truth claim is acceptable if it cannot be subjected to scientific scrutiny."

    I would be very suspicious of any truth claim that can't be empirically verified. Upon what basis are these truth claims supposed to be accepted when we can't investigate them? If you make a truth claim, you have to provide reasons for me to think it is true... In other words, evidence. Otherwise, yeah, your truth claim is worthless.

    "Antony Flew was for many years one of the world’s most prominent atheists. And then he did the unthinkable: he changed his mind. You can imagine the response of the “open-minded, tolerant” New Atheist movement. Flew was vilified."

    I don't know much about Flew, but it's not like he saw the light and turned to Jesus. He became a deist if I remember correctly. Regardless of what other atheists have said about him, here's my take: People are free to change their mind and to believe whatever they feel is the most reasonable thing to believe. Nothing else to it, really.

    "They have their own prophets: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin, Marx."

    Lol! I haven't followed these gentlemen other than watching an interview given by Russell. That's pretty bad if they're supposed to be my prophets, right? I like how he makes it sound like all atheists are also communists. :D Talk about baseless fear mongering. I've got no interest in communism. Never read Nietzsche.

    "They have their own messiah: He is, of course, Charles Darwin."

    Darwin made a bunch of mistakes in the Origin. Still, yeah, I think he was a brilliant scientist. Definitely not infallible. Evolutions doesn't disprove God anyway.

    "They have their own preachers and evangelists. And boy, are they “evangelistic.” Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens are NOT out to ask that atheism be given respect."

    Yes, there are outspoken atheists who wish to make a real difference is society because they see religious belief as harmful. Vegetarians make books on why people should be vegetarians, I guess they're a religion too.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "The existence of God cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith."

    Unicorns.

    Really, I know every christian on here must've heard about the unicorns some time or another. The concept is so, SO simple to grasp: "The existence of unicorns cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith." That sound right to you? Hopefully not. Not believing something you have no evidence for in the first place is NOT faith. Come on...

    "Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly,predictable, measurable."

    Indeed! But hey, maybe that's why evolution is only the explanation for biodiversity, and not everything.

    "It is because our soul JUST KNOWS that God is there. And maybe because atheism is a religion that requires too much untenable faith."

    And muslims JUST KNOW that Allah is there. And buddhists JUST KNOW Buddha is there. And hinfus JUST KNOW their gods are there. I wonder who's right? I don't know God isn't there. Just don't see any evidence that he is.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Publius:

    So, your position on fairies, elves, Formori, Thor, mermaids and the Flying Spaghetti Monster would be the same as your position on religion? By your definition, these are beliefs held by people, which cannot be proven or disproven except by an act of faith.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Froggie,

    >>The main logic that is fractured here is that atheists, for the most part do not believe in anything by faith.
    Faith is the test for religion.

    Well then atheists certainly is a religion then. You put your trust in Metaphysical naturalism don't you? You have faith that is the ONLY explanation of things, right? You place your faith in man as the god to answer all the questions of life. Are you insulted by the label of Secular humanism.

    >>Religionists are presuppositionalists. Atheists are empiricists, therefor atheism cannot be a religion.

    So you presuppose empiricism? Check and mate.

    >>Now, lets say, arguendo, we redefine atheism as a religion.

    Great then, moving on?

    >>It doesn't change one fucking thing.

    Sure it does, admitting to the problem is the first steps of the cure. (of that festering disease :)

    >>Obviously, miracles must be done by suspending the laws of physics and nature, and it is therefore foolhardy for religionists to try to explain them with the use of observed physics.

    Hmm. There are certainly footprints of miracles. The miraculous is observable. Take the Shroud of Turin. It is a photo of a miracle in itself. Can it be explained by Metaphysical naturalism? Probably not, but that is not what "observed physics" is, is it? Are you claiming that all theories in the field of physics are explained? Are you postulating that observed physics does not include the observation of supernatural events? Or are we now discussing your atheistic worldview of Physicalism?

    Do tell. *resting chin in fists.

    ReplyDelete
  18. It is amusing that a certain section of religious apologists are desperate, and I mean DESPERATE, to classify atheism as a religion.

    Why is this?

    One reason is because if they were successful in doing so, they would be able to throw all the anti-religious arguments at atheists that they have had to endure. It seems they have realised that these arguments are quite convincing, and they want in...

    Look how desperately they try and throw the word 'faith' at atheists. Have they forgotten that their whole worldview is built on faith, the very thing they are now using to try and bring atheism down a notch or two.

    It's laughable. They are essentially saying: "We think your beliefs are as irrational as ours"

    ReplyDelete
  19. BTW, speaking of Hitchens, our prayers goes out to Christopher Hitchens in hopes of a speedy recovery for his cancer, we need more time with him Lord.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Freddies Dead,

    "Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy."

    >>10 seconds on Google makes you a liar - the word has no religious connotation and your attempt to conflate it with one that does is dishonest... '

    Where did he say that? Oh and 10 seconds on Google makes you a liar.

    Synonyms: abandonment, dereliction, disaffection, estrangement, tergiversation

    ReplyDelete
  21. "So you presuppose empiricism? Check and mate."

    Empiricism is axiomatic. It's all you got.
    You have a presupposition with no evidence.
    The bedrock of emricism is facts.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dan,
    Your religious fables were spun out of thin air.
    Science is derived from observation of reality.

    ReplyDelete
  23. H_Brummer,

    >>Whoa, you really opened my eyes with this one.

    I hope so, don't mind my skepticism though.

    >>But hey, since you're an expert at this stuff, could you tell me how to leave religion once and for all?

    First tell me the reason why that you wish to do so? What is the negative about religion?

    I once had a hang up about the word "religion", how we were linked with all the false religions out there. A friend said to me "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.

    A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    Don't let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe)

    The word "religion" itself is not the enemy here, false religions, and deceptions, are.

    >> I'm not a christian or a muslim or an atheist since those are all religions, but I don't believe in god either. What am I?

    Lost.

    ReplyDelete
  24. h_brummer,

    >>Really, I know every christian on here must've heard about the unicorns some time or another.

    Yea, in the Bible

    >>"The existence of unicorns cannot be proven or disproven. To deny it takes faith." That sound right to you? Hopefully not.

    No, because that just is not true. Its a false statement. You do understand that unicorns do exist. Have you ever heard of Rhinoceros unicornis? Folk stories, and the Bible, pointed to the Elasmotherium. Look it up.

    You logic is flawed again? Ready to convert?

    >>Not believing something you have no evidence for in the first place is NOT faith.

    Well that I completely agree with but that straw man is not Christianity though. We do have evidence, just nothing the atheists will accept. So what.

    >>I wonder who's right?

    Examine the evidence with those gifts given to you from God. I have. Truth always is confrontational, there is always someone on the wrong side of truth. The false religions out there is just that, false. Atheism is merely just a false religion out there.

    ReplyDelete
  25. h_brummer,

    >>I don't know God isn't there. Just don't see any evidence that he is.

    That you accept that is, lets try to stay honest here.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Rhiggs,

    >>They are essentially saying: "We think your beliefs are as irrational as ours"

    Nice straw man, now address what is being said.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Uh, sorry, I should've made myself more clear I suppose. I wasn't being serious, that was tongue in cheek. I'm sorry you had to spend the time writing a serious response. The point I was trying to make is that if not believing in religion is a religion itself, then what isn't? Sure, there probably are stupid atheists who hang on to every word from Dawkins etc and take it as "gospel truth". But the word atheist still applies to honest people who simply do not see compelling evidence for a god, and it's unfair to group them with the morons.

    The definition of atheism that most atheists themselves use is lack of belief in a god. That is so not a religion. It lacks any dogma, tenets, moral guidelines, scripture or divine authority. It's six words long. It doesn't necessarily mean you're a materialist or even that you believe in evolution. It's not a religion, and arguing that it is is a waste of time. Why can't we just settle on that and debate something that matters, like is there evidence for god?

    In my comment I said I don't believe in god but I can't be an atheist because atheism is a religion.. I clearly contradicted myself. Not believing in a god means I'm an atheist, by definition. Not believing in a god doesn't mean I presuppose materialism or hold Darwin as my messiah or Marx as my prophet or that I scorn people who go from atheism to theism. Stop with this childish demonizing of your opponents and engage in honest discussion for once.

    ReplyDelete
  28. "That you accept that is, lets try to stay honest here."

    Well, I guess. If I told you I had a dragon in my garage and showed you my burnt finger as evidence, would you believe me? Probably not. I have evidence but you're not accepting it.

    "No, because that just is not true. Its a false statement. You do understand that unicorns do exist. Have you ever heard of Rhinoceros unicornis? Folk stories, and the Bible, pointed to the Elasmotherium. Look it up.

    You logic is flawed again? Ready to convert?"

    I was actually referring to glowing white horses with golden horns that piss rainbows.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Froggie,

    >>You have a presupposition with no evidence.

    Once again bull frog, evidence that is not accepted is still evidence. Stop being intellectually dishonest. I have two words for you, cognitive dissonance.

    ReplyDelete
  30. H_Brummer,

    >>It lacks any dogma, tenets, moral guidelines, scripture or divine authority.

    Y'all have denominations, y'all organize camps to indoctrinate your philosophy to young children, y'all publish thousands of books and promote atheism. You definitely belong to a religion!

    >>It doesn't necessarily mean you're a materialist or even that you believe in evolution.

    Engage in honest discussion for once. Please, pretty please, show me one Atheist then that does not believe in evolution, or even metaphysical naturalism. *chin on fists

    ReplyDelete
  31. "Y'all have denominations, y'all organize camps to indoctrinate your philosophy to young children, y'all publish thousands of books and promote atheism. You definitely belong to a religion!"

    I responded to this before in some other post. In summary: Atheists have different opinions about things, Camp Quest is a secular camp where science and critical thinking are taught to children of non-religious parents as far as I know, atheists write books about the subjects they're interested in and atheists make groups so they can meet like-minded people.

    You're just taking things atheists do and coating them in religious languages to force your point. Atheists with different opinions become the denominations of atheism! Atheists with the same opinions form the orthodoxy of atheism! Atheists who put their thoughts in a book become the prophets of atheism! It's all very, very silly.

    "Engage in honest discussion for once. Please, pretty please, show me one Atheist then that does not believe in evolution, or even metaphysical naturalism. *chin on fists*"

    Please show me where I made the claim that I know of any atheists who deny evolution. I only made the point that evolution is not required if the definition of atheism is the lack of belief in a god. Do you disagree?

    Oh wait, I can think of quite a few atheists that DID not believe in evolution. How about every single atheist that lived before the year 1859? How'd they manage without their 'messiah'?

    ReplyDelete
  32.      "The definition of atheism that most atheists themselves use is lack of belief in a god."
         Only when they are trying to transform it dishonestly into a catch-all category. (Any definition that tries to portray infants, who cannot possibly make a decision on the matter, as atheists is dishonest. In all fairness, anyone trying to portray infants as christian, muslim, jewish, or hindu is equally dishonest.) An atheist is someone who believes there are no gods. I do not specificly believe that there is a god; but I don't specificly believe that there is no god either. For me, it is an open question. Therefore, I am neither theist nor atheist.
         Now, I am starting to see more atheists join up on that bandwagon. More are starting to claim it's a "lack of belief." But they will still slip up and say, for example that their belief could be wrong. Some who has only a "lack of belief" is not an atheist. Someone who has a "belief of lack" is.
         And seriously, what would be your response if christians started redefining "christian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief that the bible is fiction"? I'll tell you what I would think. I would think that they were engaging in a ruse to prevent dissenters from making general statements about christians by including a lot of people that should not fall under the term.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dan,

    A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    OK, so what is a "pure religion"? Roman Catholicism, which believes that the Pope is the anointed Voice of God? Mormons, with their extra books and magic underpants? Jehovah's Witnesses, who believe that only 144,000 souls will be saved? Pentecostals, who believe in "speaking in tongues" so much that they could end up with a Tourette's prophet? Fundamentalists, who believe that everything came into being 6000 years ago?

    Or further afield, the Christians believe that the Jews were given the Word of God, but they became outdated by the coming of a Savior. Well, the Muslims believe that Jesus was basically a prophet, not a full-fledged third-of-a-deity, and, much like God came down and promoted the Christians ahead of the Jews, He came down again and promoted the Muslims ahead of the Christians. (See, it's like the Theory of Religious Evolution...)

    So, which one is right? Kind of an important question, don't you think?

    ReplyDelete
  34. Pvb,

    As you know, I love your ability to articulate so well. I don't care what you say about it, its a gift. I believe we are born with certain talents that makes us individuals. Some are born with the gift of Comedy. You make things more intelligible. You do bring things home where the point is. Often you are against both sides of the coin here, which to me is refreshing.

    Now, even though I find you intriguing and an interesting person, you are not off the hook so quickly.

    You certainly do stand on one side of the fence when it comes to the discussion of Jesus Christ, as the Bible claims.

    There is no such an animal as "neutral" when it comes to Jesus Christ. That is part of your worldview.

    Even if you chose not to decide, you still have made a choice (Thanks, Geddy)

    I know you are not claiming otherwise, I just wanted to make that point to you personally, so things are perfectly clear. When Jesus says you are either with Him or against Him (Matthew 12:30, Luke 11:23) your decision was against Him. Fair?

    I just know someone that has such strong convictions, as yourself, would not be a fence sitter (neutral) on this subject.

    After all these years knowing each other, can you pretty please put a label on yourself. Deist, Agnostic, Pantheist? What meaningless label do you most identify with, for your worldview? Break it down for my simple mind.

    It just dawned on me that maybe I should visit your blog more. I forget you keep one, at times. OK, break it down for my lazy mind.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Nameless Cynic,

    >>OK, so what is a "pure religion"? So, which one is right? Kind of an important question, don't you think?

    Yes its absolutely the most important question in reference to all religions.

    Its stated right there. "In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    RCC = works
    Mormons = Works
    Jehovah's Witnesses = Works

    Does being YEC affect my Salvation? Nope, I could be wrong and certainly still be saved.

    Justification Christ alone saves us. Its not the Cross plus this and that.

    "Justification is not that the sinner is righteous because of his own works; rather, God declares the sinner righteous. It is a foreign righteousness. It is the righteousness of Christ that is given to us. This declaration of righteousness is based upon the work of Christ on the Cross. It is nothing that we earn; it is something we receive"(carm)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dan said to h_brummer:

    "Engage in honest discussion for once. Please, pretty please, show me one Atheist then that does not believe in evolution, or even metaphysical naturalism. *chin on fists"

    David Berlinski of the Discovery Institute claims to be agnostic and is certainly anti-evolution and anti-materialism.

    What about our very own Pvblivs - I think he might meet your criteria...

    ReplyDelete
  37. Pvblivs, it seems we agree on most things with the exception of the what the definition of atheism should be. I use the lack of belief definition because it makes more sense to me: A theist is someone who believes in a god. An atheist someone who doesn't. I want to keep it as simple as possible, and as I said, most people who call themselves atheists espouse this definition. I'm not attempting to be dishonest. I'd say someone who actively believes that no gods exist is a "strong atheist". The host of the Atheist Experience show, Matt Dillahunty, would be an example of such a person. He states he believes there are no gods but is not 100% certain of this, just as he believes no fairies exist without being completely certain. I could swing either way now that I think about it. There's no practical difference between lacking the belief that something exists and believing something doesn't exist.

    "And seriously, what would be your response if christians started redefining "christian" to mean "someone who lacks a belief that the bible is fiction"? I'll tell you what I would think. I would think that they were engaging in a ruse to prevent dissenters from making general statements about christians by including a lot of people that should not fall under the term."

    I suppose it is kind of silly to use a label that describes a position I don't hold instead of one I do. I'll have to think about this.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dan

    Y'all have denominations, y'all organize camps to indoctrinate your philosophy to young children, y'all publish thousands of books and promote atheism. You definitely belong to a religion!

    Sigh, this again? Haven't we been through this?

    To top this off, you said that exact same statement in the last comment of the very blog post where I shoot that shit down.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dan,

    "Justification alone"? Really?

    Well, let's consider some minor doctrinal points you're forgetting.

    Mormonism (LDS): The LDS have some good beliefs: the healthy lifestyle, the much mellower attitude toward strangeness - although they have damned little acceptance of outsiders, they do make some of the best neighbors of any "true believer," after Wiccans.

    But you pretty quickly get into weird ground. There's the spiritual aspects: the pre-birth life, the ability to have spirit children in one of the three heavens. But they believe that all other modern Christian faiths have departed from true Christianity, and the LDS church is a restoration of 1st century Christianity and the only true and authorized Christian church.

    They have a doctrine called "exaltation" which (as stated in the "Doctrine & Covenants") allows true followers to become gods in the afterlife.

    132:20: 20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them.

    They also believe that God (Elohim) lives with his many wives on a planet (or by a star) named Kolob, God wants you to wear special underpants, and Joseph Smith really did not want to start polygamy, but a powerful angel with a sword threatened him and made him do it.

    There's basic structural changes: Elohim wanted to build Earth, to give his billions of spirit children bodies. His two oldest sons, Jesus and Lucifer, offered plans on how to do this. Jesus was chosen, Lucifer got angry and started a big war with 2/3 of the other spirit children. After this war, any spirits that had stayed neutral were cursed to be born with black skin. (Hence the long-standing racism in the church.)

    Elohim and one of his wives came to Earth as Adam and Eve and had a buttload of kids. Centuries later, Elohim left Kolob again to have sex with the Virgin Mary, to give a body to Jesus. Jesus took three wives (Mary, Martha and Mary Magdalene), and had a bunch of kids with them; Joseph Smith was one of the descendants of Jesus.

    After the resurrection, Jesus came to the Americas to preach to the Indians, who the LDS believe are really Israelites (no, really!).

    You see where this doesn't fit in with your personal brand of Christianity?

    So, do the Mormons still fit?

    ReplyDelete
  40. H_brummer:

         "I want to keep it as simple as possible, and as I said, most people who call themselves atheists espouse this definition."
         It is still my experience that most people who call themselves atheists use the definition "believe no gods exist." And all people who call themselves atheist fit that definition. Furthermore, the group of people who believe that no god exists comprise a category that people might want to discuss. A catch-all category that includes infants and people in comas is not one that people want to talk about. So, it would be useful to have a single-word term for people that believe no gods exists. And there is really no call for any term for those who "lack belief."

    Rhiggs:

         "What about our very own Pvblivs - I think he might meet your criteria..."
         Pvblivs is not an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Pvblivs,

    Fair enough.

    You classified atheism as a religion earlier because it is a belief about gods (that they don't exist).

    Would you consider agnosticism a religion too? After all, it is also a belief about gods - that they might exist...

    ReplyDelete
  42. >>So, do the Mormons still fit?

    Dude, No they do not fit at all. That is what I said. False religions try to "justify" themselves through works. We, as Christians, are justified through Christ alone.

    Hopefully that will help you understand more. Thinking works will get you saved is a bad thing. Get it?

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sorry, I misunderstood. Thought you meant "IT (the religion) works."

    My mistake. I apologize.

    So, the Catholics, the single biggest religion in the world, are all going to hell. Boy, won't THEY be surprised?

    ReplyDelete
  44. rhiggs:

    Publius doesn't appreciate that question, any more than he did my earlier question about his position on fairies, elves, Formori, Thor, mermaids and the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    The life of a militant agnostic is a difficult one.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Nameless:

         "Publius doesn't appreciate that question, any more than he did my earlier question about his position on fairies, elves, Formori, Thor, mermaids and the Flying Spaghetti Monster."
         You have already misrepresented me. I identified beliefs about gods as religions ("Atheism is a religion because of the topic it addresses (whether or not there is a god.) Christianity is a religion because it addresses the same topic.") and you came back with "By your definition, these are beliefs held by people, which cannot be proven or disproven except by an act of faith." Since you are misrepresenting me, I can only conclude that the only thing you would look for in a response is something you can twist and ridicule. You may think it strange; but I have no desire to facilitate that.

         For those who are interested, I regard anything that attempts to answer the question of whether there is a god as a religion. I do not consider anything that does not address the existence or non-existence of anything supernatural to be a religion. And I have not been able to decide whether to classify beliefs that address the existence of things supernatural without addressing the existence of gods as religions or not.

    Rhiggs:

         "Would you consider agnosticism a religion too? After all, it is also a belief about gods - that they might exist..."
         I do not regard agnosticism as a belief about gods (whether they do or do not exist) because it says it can't answer the question. Since your question assumes as premise something I consider false, I cannot meaningfully answer it.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Cynic,

    >>So, the Catholics, the single biggest religion in the world, are all going to hell. Boy, won't THEY be surprised?

    Well I wouldn't go that far but yes to a degree. Wide is the gate. Don't misunderstand me though, I believe that there are truly regenerate Christians in the Roman Catholic church. But, they are truly Christians in spite of official RCC theology. They are moving away from orthodoxy and into apostasy. The RCC is no longer representing true Christianity.

    RCC states that it is not the Scriptures, nor tradition, nor the early church fathers, nor anything other than the Church’s Magisterium, personified in the pope, that is the ultimate and final authority and standard of truth. Crazy and certainly not Biblical.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Publius:

    Since you are misrepresenting me, I can only conclude that the only thing you would look for in a response is something you can twist and ridicule. You may think it strange; but I have no desire to facilitate that.

    Too late. You're the one who identified the statement "I don't have any interest in baseball" as being the same as "I love baseball with all my heart and soul."

    As I said, the life of a militant agnostic is a difficult one.

    Dan,

    Well, I guess it's good to know that you'd confine the majority of one billion people to Hell - you know, along with the 2/3 of the world's population you're already damning.

    Man, it must suck to be a good Hindu who's spent his life doing good works and looking out for his neighbor, huh?

    Unforgiving bastard, this God guy (and a little immature, to be honest...).

    ReplyDelete
  48.      "Too late. You're the one who identified the statement 'I don't have any interest in baseball' as being the same as 'I love baseball with all my heart and soul.'"
         No, Nameless, I have done no such thing. But it is my experience that those who appeal to ridicule in lieu of argument have no qualms about lying about those they wish to ridicule. Tell me, are you a secret christian pretending to be an atheist in order to give an "example" of how atheists are liars? If you are, then just leave the "militant agnostic" claims. I'm sure everyone will understand. If you're not, and that was just a mistake, take down those claims. They don't do atheists any favors.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bad news, pub old boy. I'm not a "secret Christian" - although, admittedly, I probably wouldn't admit it if I was...

    But there's no need to lie when I'm ridiculing people. There's usually too much already there to work with.

    Not sure I see your claim of this "giving atheists a bad name," though...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Nameless:

         "But there's no need to lie when I'm ridiculing people. There's usually too much already there to work with."
         Need or not, you have lied. In fact, I called you on a rather specific lie. And that is my experience with those who ridicule. When they don't have enough to work with, they will make something up.
         But I would say that you do need to lie when ridiculing. If you stuck to the truth, people wouldn't even recognize it as ridicule. If you had "too much to work with," you wouldn't need to ask a loaded question and later say "doesn't appreciate that question, any more than he did my earlier question about...." But that's what you did. The fact that you tried to dig for a response that you could twist shows that you think my position rational (if not necessarily correct) yet despite this (or, perhaps, because of this) you want to ridicule it.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Pvblivs,

    You said:

    "Atheism is the belief that there are no gods. As such, it is a belief about gods (that they don't exist) and qualifies as a religion. "

    and

    "I do not specificly believe that there is a god; but I don't specificly believe that there is no god either. For me, it is an open question. Therefore, I am neither theist nor atheist."

    Either way you look at it, you do actually have a belief about gods - that their existence is an open question. Thus, by your own definition, you are religious.

    ReplyDelete
  52. I am with rhiggs on this point Pvb.

    If you do not specifically believe that there is a God; but you don't specifically believe that there is no god either fine. That is why I addressed the specific point about Jesus Christ, which is an opinion you hold strongly.

    Lets take it with simple baby steps. First, would it be safe and fair to say that you are an anti-Chrsitian?

    ReplyDelete
  53. Rhiggs:

         "Either way you look at it, you do actually have a belief about gods - that their existence is an open question. Thus, by your own definition, you are religious."
         I, of course, disagree with you. It's not that I think there is anything wrong with being religious. (I don't.) It's not even that I think I can safely say that no belief of mine qualifies as religious. (I would not so presume.) But the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
         I'm going to use an analogy. Suppose you are presented with a black box and asked if there is a blue marble inside. Furthermore, let's say that anyone who has an opinion on the matter is conclusive. By the analogy, I have stated that believing there to be a blue marble is conclusive and that believing there to be no marble is also conclusive. Regarding it to be an open question is not conclusive.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Dan:

         You actually have a better case. Since I have decided that the biblical claims are false, I have expressed an opinion. It certainly qualifies as a religious belief.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Pvblivs,

    I was just going by your own definition that a position is religious if it includes a belief about gods. You then listed your beliefs about gods, making your position religious.

    Through your analogy, you are now adding the stipulation that the position has to be conclusive. Of course, we can all massage definitions until they fit our arguments, but that doesn't mean they are correct. In my opinion, a person can still be religious without their position being 100% conclusive - I'm sure many are. Would you consider someone who worships a god but has a small element of doubt as non-religious?

    Anyway, a conclusion doesn't have to be an absolute answer for or against a certain issue. Indeed, the position that the existence of the marble is an open question can be considered conclusive - the conclusion being that the existence of the marble is currently unknown. In your analogy, this would surely be the correct conclusion to make.

    Similarly, agnostics do have a conclusive position on gods - that the existence of gods is currently unknown.

    ReplyDelete
  56. "You actually have a better case. Since I have decided that the biblical claims are false, I have expressed an opinion. It certainly qualifies as a religious belief."

    There should be a distinction between a belief about religion and a religious belief, imo.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Rhiggs:

         And I would suggest that you have been trying to massage "I don't know" to be an actual belief one way or the other. I would say that hearing and failing to be able to determine an answer does not constitute a belief. You have taken a lack of conclusion and rephrased it as "they might exist." Logically, gods either do or don't exist. Similarly, logically it either is, or is not raining in London at this very moment. Does the mere fact that I can comprehend a question mean that I automaticly hold an opinion about the answer? The statement "it might be raining in London" expresses no opinion on whether it actually is raining in London.
         Again, I disagree with the premise on which your question is based. I, therefore, cannot meaningfully answer it. You may very well believe the premise to be true. But I have not been convinced that it is. Nor do I see myself as having added conditions but rather as clarifying my own viewpoint -- spelling out that which I originally held as intuitively plain.
         I hold that it is a consistent proposition for someone to have no belief on a subject. I accept that there are people who lack belief in gods without holding the belief there are none. I accept that there are people who hold no religious belief. If I did not accept that, If I thought lacking belief in gods was the same thing as believing there were none, I would not have objected to the claim that "atheism" meant "lacking belief." I object to that definition on the grounds that there are those who lack belief but are not atheist. And if I accepted what you are trying to portray as my definition of "religious," I would be claiming that anyone who draws breath is religious.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Dan +†+ said...

    Freddies Dead,

    "Flew was vilified. Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy."

    >>10 seconds on Google makes you a liar - the word has no religious connotation and your attempt to conflate it with one that does is dishonest... '

    Where did he say that?


    Right when he called it a "fancy word for apostasy"

    Oh and 10 seconds on Google makes you a liar.

    Synonyms: abandonment, dereliction, disaffection, estrangement, tergiversation


    Well it was the wiktionary link here which came up first on my search which doesn't have the synonyms (maybe more than 10 seconds is required in future)

    However, I believe my original point still stands i.e. apostasy has a very definite religious connotation whereas tergiversation does not, and it is still my opinion that Mr Childs' attempt to conflate the terms is misleading.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Pvblivs,

    OK, I'm convinced that if a agnostic truly has no position on the existence of gods, then they are not religious. However, I don't believe that anyone actually holds this position, except people who have never come across the concept of gods, such as babies.

    Agnostics and atheists ar not religious IMHO, with the possible exception of 100% strong atheists, although I'm not sure if religious is even the right word in their case. Maybe dogmatic?

    ReplyDelete
  60. Not only is Atheism a religion the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy

    ReplyDelete
  61. Not only is Atheism a religion the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy

    Oh, sweet jesus, Dan!! (So to speak...)

    The Negative Proof "fallacy"

    1. If X has been observed then X exists
    2. X has not been observed
    3. Therefore X does not exist

    There's a difficulty to that argument. You just complained about the theoretical concept of multiverses. You whine that they're science fiction, but... you know, at what point do you draw the line, Ace?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Dan +†+ said...

    Not only is Atheism a religion the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy

    Would you care to explain what you mean by this?

    ReplyDelete
  63. Dan +†+ said...

    Not only is Atheism a religion the entire premise is a negative proof fallacy

    Care to explain exactly what you mean by this?

    ReplyDelete
  64. What a poor article. You based opinionated assumptions by yourself without even knowing who you're talking about. When you want to profile someone, don't base it on your Prejudice, you have to interview them and ask them these question. I think Nameless Cynic had a good response on that, but I will blog about this article you apologists make and make a detailed rebuttal on your poor argument.

    ReplyDelete
  65. The Sojourner,

    >>I will blog about this article you apologists make and make a detailed rebuttal on your poor argument.

    I am sure you will base it on your prejudice, since you haven't interviewed and asked questions. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  66. Awesome Blog!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. A religion is used to help people explain what they don't know. The only people who aren't part of a religion are those who have absolute knowledge. Athiest do not have absolute knowledge of our universe, and therefore, athiesm is a religion.

    Plain and simple.

    ReplyDelete
  68. If atheism truly isn't a religion, you guys wouldn't have the freedom of religion you have. You guys have more rights than most of the religions out there, Atheism is at best just a theory, and illogical one at that, the universe making itself from an explosive nebula is as impossible as a tin can of coke creating itself from pencil shavings. Even Albert Einstein himself acknowledged such impossibility. Atheism is a THEORY at best, the only way to know there is no God, is to have absolute knowledge of the universe, and you guys are telling me you can understand our entire universe, when we hardly know how many species of deep sea creatures there really are on this space rock?
    There's so much living proof Atheism is just a religious belief, but you guys are too busy trying to tell us how wrong we are to realize your own faults, huh?

    Now I realize the question, I seem like a hypocrite, because I don't have absolute knowledge right? Well guess what, I may not be an absolute man, but I serve an absolute God.

    Which god you serve, who knows...because a god isn't necesarrily a super natural being....and think about that..

    ReplyDelete
  69. Atheists lack belief in gods, Natduv.

    It's a belief claim not a knowledge claim.

    ReplyDelete
  70. NatDuv,

    Welcome and well said.

    >>The only people who aren't part of a religion are those who have absolute knowledge.

    That's what, among many things, sets us apart from other religions. Because we understand the truth revealed to us by the ONE that possesses absolute knowledge. The Bible is true because it first makes the claim that it is true, proves itself internally, AND denial of the truth of the Bible leads to absurdity. It is also the claim of the Christian that God reveals the truth of His Word to us directly such that we can be certain of it

    An omniscient, omnipotent being [God] could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    ReplyDelete
  71. J.C.

    Like a said a god is a ruling figure that is worshiped, and isn't necessarily a spiritual being. Lots of people worship different people and different objects. People like Donald Trump worship money, and he has many people who worship him. Some people worship Superman, while some worship the car they own.

    Indian Buddhist worship Siddartha Gupta, who became known as the Buddha. He wasn't a spirit, he was a human being, yet they saw him as a god, same goes for the Pope and the Dalai Lama.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Christianity can not be labeled as a religion itself, because there's 2 types of Christians, there's the religious and the spiritual. A religious Christian is the type that recite the Lords prayer, everyday, even when it has no meaning to them. The ones who claim to believe in God and Jesus but never show anything for it. These are the religious.

    Now a spiritual Christian does not hesitate, to pour their heart out to God. They don't make a decision without asking Him first. They don't pray a prayer because it is the only one they know. They aren't afraid to enter the kingdom. Their lives have been changed for what God has done for them. They don't only pray when bad things happen and they thank God for the little things they have.

    ReplyDelete
  73. the universe making itself from an explosive nebula is as impossible as a tin can of coke creating itself from pencil shavings.

    Strawman.

    Even Albert Einstein himself acknowledged such impossibility.

    Where?

    Christianity can not be labeled as a religion itself.

    Wait. You think atheism is a religion and Christianity is not?

    ReplyDelete
  74. JC,

    Christianity can not be labeled as a religion itself.

    >>You think atheism is a religion and Christianity is not?

    Even I had to giggle at that one.

    No I think Nat has a hang up like I did all those years ago.

    Nat,

    I had a hang up about the word "religion", how we were linked with all the false religions out there. I said The Greek suffix “ism” means “the theory of” and “ity” on the other hand means “state or quality of being”. I believed religion destroys and keeps people away from God; I hated to be called religious, then someone wrote to me, which summed it up perhaps better then I could of said.

    "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation...

    ...A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.

    Don't let that word religion, be a hindrance. We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe, carm.org)

    ReplyDelete
  75. J.C.

    Christianity as a whole cannot be labeled as a religion, because like I said, there are 2 types of Christians.

    Albert Einstein is known to have believed in the Spinozan concept of God.

    http://www.adherents.com/people/pe/Albert_Einstein.html

    Don't let this be the only source you check.

    ReplyDelete
  76. You said Einstein didn't accept inflationary theory (which you 'strawman'ed as an "universe making itself from an explosive nebula")

    I asked you to show where Einstein said he did not accept inflationary theory (A.K.A. Big Bang).

    ReplyDelete
  77. I'm not wishing to add fuel to any fire here but I'm just curious; what is the benefit of having atheism conclusively categorised in either position?

    The only thing I've come up with so far is that if it were a religion it would be subjected to restriction in places where religious beliefs are not allowed to be taught and that if it isn't a religion it would be unrestricted in said places.

    Is this the main point for this discussion?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Karl,

    The main point of this discussion is to show you truth and that you are merely in denial that you do not follow a religion as you claim that you don't. You do.

    As far as the whole restrictions in places thingy. You do understand that since its a religion you are protected under our constitution to be free to practice said religion. I will fight hard to allow it. You have rights also.

    Also there is that point you made that appears that your conscious is getting to you.

    >>The only thing I've come up with so far is that if it were a religion it would be subjected to restriction in places where religious beliefs are not allowed to be taught and that if it isn't a religion it would be unrestricted in said places.

    Excellent point you have made here. If it were a religion then our public schools would be teaching a religion which was not allowed. So OBVIOUSLY you wish it not to be a religion so you can indoctrinate our children. Well not mine, since we Home School.

    As an American Humanist named John Dunphy said back in 1983:

    "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

    We all know what is at stake here. Sleep well that your religion is gaining a foothold and is here to stay. Just do not be confused and think that you do not adhere to a dogma. Which you do. Its healthier to live in truth.

    ReplyDelete
  79. This blog was so enlightening! It's amazing to realize that all atheists really just worship a spaghetti monster that flies around in the sky, how crazy!

    Not like us good 'ole Christians, we KNOW that our God is there, because we FEEL it!

    heil!

    ReplyDelete
  80. You're so wrong my friend. The definition of religion:

    - service or cult to a god or to any divinity through rituals and prayers; a conscient feeling of dependency or submission that connects the human criature to the creator;
    - an external or internal cult rendered to a divinity;
    - belief or religious doctrine;a moral and dogmatic system;
    - worship of sacred things;practice of divine principles;
    - fear of god;
    - order of religious congregation;
    - a set of rituals and ceremonies ordained for the manifestation of divinity's cult;
    - acknowledgement of a dependence of god;
    - social institution with beliefs and rituals;
    - social institution createad towards of an idea of one or several supernatural beings and their relationship with men

    As far as I can tell atheism is not religion since we atheists don't believe in god/gods; we don't perform any ritual or prayer; we don't have dogmas, we don't fear god, we don't perform religious ceremonies, we don't have a social institution with beliefs and rituals.

    - The definition of prophets: a person who has the gift of profecy; the one who annouces a divine message; someone considered by a group of followers as a supreme revelator of god's will; psychic, medium: Nietzsche, Russell, Feuerbach, Lenin and Marx were not prophets. They didn't tell the future and they didn't see and annouced messages from some god.

    - Messiah: the promised saviour in the old testament and that christians recognize and worship in Jesus Christ; social reformer; Darwin was in a way a social reformer because he proved through evolution that earth didn't have 6000 years old and that all the species we know today evolved from previous species and adapted to different environments and circuntances.

    - Preacher: a sacred public speaker - evangelist: author of the gospels; priest or cleric who sings or recite the gospel during a mass; the one who preconizes a doctrine. Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, and Hitchens didn't write the 4 gospels, they sure don't sing or recite the gospel in a mass, they are not sacred and atheism, secularism, materialism, evolution, science, critical thinking, evolution (that are some of the subjects they talk about) are not doctrines.

    Btw: I always say when someone always quotes the bible are not able of thinking for themselves. You're the living proof.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Eli,

    >>Not like us good 'ole Christians, we KNOW that our God is there, because we FEEL it!

    Is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them?

    ReplyDelete
  82. Michelle,

    >>As far as I can tell atheism is not religion since we atheists don't believe in god/gods

    Not true. You believe in the same god as satanists, self.

    You certainly can link Atheists to most of those bullet points. To save time here are a mere few,

    - service or cult to a god, self, through rituals (like denying their religion on blogs); a conscient feeling of dependency or submission that connects the human criature to the self;
    - an external or internal cult rendered to self;
    - belief or religious doctrine;a moral and dogmatic system;
    - worship of sacred things (evolution),...on and on, etc.

    >>I always say when someone always quotes the bible are not able of thinking for themselves. You're the living proof.

    “The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned.” ~1 Corinthians 2: 14

    "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his opinion." ~Proverbs 18:2

    Or her in this case.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Just briefly on the subject of 'tergiversation': just because a thesaurus lists it as a synonym of 'apostasy' DOES NOT mean that the two mean exactly the same thing or are entirely interchangeable.

    Furthermore, if one is to simply look in a dictionary at the definition of 'apostasy' one finds that it is not explicitly religious in meaning.

    The first result from dictionary.com defines apostasy as: "a total desertion of or departure from one's religion, principles, party, cause, etc." So use of the word could refer to religion, or equally it could refer to one's principles, cause, etc.

    But why would we even choose this roundabout route of defining 'tergiversate' via a synonym when it has its own perfectly clear entry in the dictionary? It reads:
    1. to change repeatedly one's attitude or opinions with respect to a cause, subject, etc.; equivocate.
    2. to turn renegade.


    "Richard Dawkins accused Flew of “tergiversation.” It’s a fancy word for apostasy. By their own admission, then, Flew abandoned their “faith.”"
    Let's be generous and call this erroneous, misleading statement an honest mistake on the part of the author, which I hope he will readily admit and retract immediately if he has any sense of decency and integrity.

    ReplyDelete
  84. KaiserBill,

    >>Let's be generous and call this erroneous, misleading statement an honest mistake on the part of the author, which I hope he will readily admit and retract immediately if he has any sense of decency and integrity.

    THAT is generous? *pshaw

    Besides how can it be a misleading statement and an honest mistake? Contradict much?

    Silly Atheist.

    I see no need to retract. I understood the POINT of what was said. We do understand your "resistance" though. Certainly wouldn't want your master, Dawkins, to be viewed in a bad light. Atheistic loyalty is cute.

    ReplyDelete
  85. *sigh*

    Erroneous: "containing error; mistaken; incorrect; wrong."

    Misleading: "tending to confuse or mislead; deceptive." (I was using the word in the first sense defined here, in that it was not a deliberate act.)

    'Misleading' does not equal 'dishonest'.

    Therefore, no contradiction. And the translation of 'tergiversate' is still incorrect.

    Furthermore, please do not resort to ad hominem arguments, they are full of fail. Whatever my beliefs may or may not be, and whomever is "my master" has no bearing on the points that I have made.

    ReplyDelete
  86. KaiserBill,

    *sigh*

    You just said dishonest and misleading are different. The two come in a pair. First of all misleading was defined as tending to mislead and being deceptive. Deception, dishonesty all the same. To be deceptive you have to be either dishonest or misleading.

    Ok, now seriously if disbelief is enough to denounce something as a religion, there must be no such thing. Atheist don't believe in the Christian God, Christian's don't believe in the Islamic god, Muslims do not believe in the Hindu gods, Hindus do not believe in Egyptian gods and goddesses. So I guess no one is a religion, because there are certain beliefs not everyone shares.

    And before I get another excuse about "Well, atheism lacks belief in God, period" has any one ever heard of the "Vampire religion"?

    This religion gives no doctrine and requires no belief. It's simply a group of people who aren't compelled to believe in a God, but simply believe there are vampires, and that they may be be vampires themselves. The religion gives no doctrine towards creation, or history. But they simply have oaths. One of them being "You are much more than your hunger". They of course don't bit necks or murder, but simply ask donors to lend them blood, as they really believe they need human blood to survive.

    Though the "Vampires" don't necessarily believe they were created by God, some even believe they are evolved from bats, yet they are still labeled as a religion, even though they don't believe, not that a so-called vampire would have reason to.

    Being labeled religion isn't exclusive to those who are polytheistic or monotheistic.

    ReplyDelete
  87. "Is it possible that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them? "


    That's what i said! The Mighty One has made it CERTAIN to us that he is there! I can feel it in my SOUL that Jesus has died for all of us. Whoever cannot understand that is simply crazy!

    What I always find peculiar though, is how the omniscient, omnipresent, omnipotent Being even bothers with humans. Well, or doesn't bother i guess; a few things off hand i can think of are the Holocaust and basically all of Africa.

    God works in mysterious ways!

    ReplyDelete
  88. Dan +†+, honey

    First: Satanism and atheism are different. Satanism is a cult where they believe and worship Satan. I don't and I don't worship god or satan. Maybe I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster and The Invisible Pink Unicorn.

    Second: I believe in myself, but not religiously speaking; I don't belive and worship myself like you believe and worship your god...I'm just a human being, I'm not a god and I don't think everything revolves around me.

    Do you know what is the definition of rituals? Rituals are rite of passages to confirm your connection and commitment to a religion and a god/gods. In atheism we don't have to be baptized or make the first communion to be an atheist.

    - We don't deny our religion, because we don't have one. Atheism is a philosophycal ideology and we sure don't deny our ideology in anywhere. I say I'm an atheist and I'm proud to be one. We are against religions: it could be christianity, islam, judaism, hinduism, budhism, etc...

    A dogma is set of unquestionable and unchangeable truths. Atheism is not a dogma and we atheists encourage people to question, to discuss...unlike religion. They don't like to hear someone saying Jesus didn't ressucted after 3 days rotting in a grave.

    - Evolution is not sacred. It's a scientific fact proved by Darwin.

    - Our morality doesn't come from a dogma or a religious book or a god. Our morality comes from our conscience.

    Btw, I'm fine without the spirit of god. I was miserable when I had to pretend and lie about being a religious person and god's believer to not make my family unhappy and angry at me.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Double *sigh*

    "dishonest and misleading...come in a pair"
    What, like a 2-for-1 deal in the supermarket? I really don't get wherefrom this idea of yours comes - the two different words exist because they have different meanings. 'Misleading' does not have to mean deceptive as well. Here is some clarity from the definition of the verb 'mislead':
    1. to lead or guide wrongly; lead astray.
    2. to lead into error of conduct, thought, or judgment.

    Nowhere does it state that misleading has to deliberate on the part of the one who misleads; one can mislead accidentally.

    You appear to be basing your argument here on the second definition of deception, but you've missed out the important word before 'misleading', and ignored the example afterwards. Here it is in full:
    "perceptually misleading: It looks like a curved line, but it's deceptive."

    But since this is such a sticking point that some people seem unable to get beyond then I shall retract the word 'misleading' from my argument. My argument does not need nor rely on it at all, so we'll just get rid of it for the sake of argument.

    The points I raised were that tergiversation does not equal apostasy and that the meaning of apostasy is not limited to a purely religious context, not since 1570 anyway!

    Please address these points instead of wasting everyone's time with straw men.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Michelle,

    >>Satanism is a cult where they believe and worship Satan.

    Bzzzzt wrong! Look it up. Satanism was founded by Anton LaVey.He was the one that wrote that Satanic Bible. Its called LaVeyan Satanism. they do NOT believe in Lucifer or devil or any of that. The majority of Satanists believe in this type of Satanism. I am sure there are 'cults' that may believe they are worshiping a devil, but that would give credibility to the Bible, and be counter productive. No, the majority worship self (LaVeyan Satanism).

    >>I don't and I don't worship god or satan.

    Denial doth not equate truth. You worship the same god as Satanists (LaVeyan). Live with it.

    >>I'm just a human being, I'm not a god and I don't think everything revolves around me.

    Said the humanist. *snicker

    >> In atheism we don't have to be baptized or make the first communion to be an atheist.

    But you must deny there is a God ritualistically in the community of Atheists. Or face being ostracized and excommunicated in said community. Make no mistake. You are part of a religion.

    >>We don't deny our religion, because we don't have one.

    Let me stew on this irony for a few. Hilarious!

    >>Atheism is not a dogma and we atheists encourage people to question, to discuss...unlike religion.

    Are you claiming that Christians do not question and discuss? Really?

    >>Evolution is not sacred. It's a scientific fact proved by Darwin.

    Metaphysical naturalism is your starting point. Evolutionary theory artificially rules out a kind of cause before it has a chance to speak by the evidence. Plus, we need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method. You're dogmatic. Live with it.

    >>Our morality doesn't come from a dogma or a religious book or a god. Our morality comes from our conscience.

    con- "with" and science- "knowledge" So tell me where did this "knowledge" come from within your worldview?

    >> I was miserable when I had to pretend and lie about being a religious person and god's believer to not make my family unhappy and angry at me.

    Again you were worshiping Jesus to make the ride better. That is not His purpose.

    I hope you read that last link. I am sure you would relate to it.

    ReplyDelete
  91. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Dan +†+

    >> About Satanism
    The Laveyan Satanism is just one form of Satanism. The same way Christianity is divided in a lot of branchs, so as Satanism.

    Let me show you:
    - Luciferianism; Palladists; Symbolic Satanism;
    - Since this is the one you're talking about - LaVeyan Satanism: it's a religion founded in the 1960's by Anton Szandor LaVey. Its teachings are based on individualism, self-indulgence, and eye for an eye morality. LaVeyan Satanists are atheists, agnostics and apatheists who regard Satan as a symbol of man's inherent nature. (IMPORTANT PS: not all atheists and agnostics are Laveyan satanists; I'm an atheist and I'm not a Laveyan satanist)

    I don't worship the same way LaVeyan does. I say again - I believe in myself but not to the point of worship.

    >> Said the humanist.
    I'm a secular humanist and there's nothing wrong with that.

    >> In atheism we don't have to be baptized or make the first communion to be an atheist.
    I don't belong to any religion. I'm an atheist and atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods; it's the opposite of theism. Since a religious system of belief depends on the belief/obedience on divine figure(s) to exist and atheists don't believe in a such divine figure (s), therefore atheism is not a religion and no atheist is excommunicated of some atheist organization. Why?
    I'm going to explain to you like you're 4 year old kid: Excommucation 101 - the formal exclusion of a person from a religious communion and religious privileges.
    How can I be excommunicated if I'm not part of any religion?

    >>Are you claiming that Christians do not question and discuss? Yes, exactly that. Some christians don't question their faith. If they do, they will see how flawed their religion really is. They may not become atheists or agnostics but they won't follow christianity anymore. Like a lot of people I know did.

    Some religious people - not only christians - discuss giving misleading and misinterpreted explanations.They deny evidences and don't think rationally; so they give wrong information about things they don't know. They turn a blind eye deaf everytime someone appears with critical thinking. But it's ok; after all what religious person likes to have their faith questioned? The close-minded ones hate it.

    >>I'm not dogmatic. I don't believe there's an unquestionable and unchangeable set of truths told by some religious authorities ruling everything.

    >> So tell me where did this "knowledge" come from within your worldview?
    It comes from my personal experiences, my way of perceiving the world, some of them come from the Constitution, come from my philosophy of life, from my ideologies.

    >> Again you were worshiping Jesus to make the ride better. That is not His purpose.
    - I was pretending to believe in god and have to follow a religion so my family wouldn't treat me like a degenerate. And you know what happens when you begin to hide who you really are? You begin to lie to others, but with time you begin to lie to yourself - and that it's the worse kind of lie there is. By denying who you really are you lose your identity, your true-self and that's hell, my friend. Thankfully I realized that before it was too late. Lying to myself to please others and lose my identity in the process is not my purpose in life.

    I've already knew for a very long time that LaVey wrote The Satanic Bible; there's nothing new in that.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Michelle,

    >>I don't worship the same way[god] LaVeyan does. I say again - I believe in myself but not to the point of worship.

    Said the humanist. Besides, of course not, if you did you would be worshiping LaVeyan since he worships himself. We all know that you, on the other hand, worship Michelle. Ignoratio elenchi

    >>I don't belong to any religion. I'm an atheist and atheism is not a religion. Atheism is the lack of a belief in god/gods; it's the opposite of theism.

    Say it over and over again, maybe you think someday it will be true? BTW, its called Staying on Message fallacy.

    >>Some religious people - not only christians - discuss giving misleading and misinterpreted explanations.They deny evidences and don't think rationally; so they give wrong information about things they don't know.

    As a Christian I say that all evidence is evidence of God, even one's very ability to reason about evidence.

    >>They turn a blind eye deaf everytime someone appears with critical thinking.

    Pot meet kettle. Denial of the Antecedent fallacy

    >>But it's ok; after all what religious person likes to have their faith questioned?

    Pot meet kettle. (See next quote below)

    >>I'm a secular humanist and there's nothing wrong with that.

    Psst, the Laveyan Satanists call themselves mere secular humanists. Live with it[them].

    >>It [knowledge] comes from my personal experiences, my way of perceiving the world, some of them come from the Constitution, come from my philosophy of life, from my ideologies.

    I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

    >>I've already knew for a very long time that LaVey wrote The Satanic Bible; there's nothing new in that.

    "A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his [her] opinion." ~Proverbs 18:2

    ReplyDelete
  94. Dan +†+

    Just some questions for you:

    You say humanists like it is bad thing, why?
    Being a humanist is not a sin or wrong.

    I don’t worship myself. That is being egocentric and I’m not egocentric.

    The founding fathers of US – based on what read about them in History books – were secular humanists and they were christians. So, your fallacy of every secular humanists being a Laveyan Satanist goes down the drain.

    >> I want to know how you know that your reasoning about ANYTHING is valid? Could you, for instance, be wrong about EVERYTHING that you know?

    How do you know your reasoning is valid and that you’re not wrong about everything you know? Being a christian makes you right and everybody else in the world wrong?

    Everybody here have different experiences, different worldviews, different ideologies, different philosophies, different creeds,etc. Expecting everyone to have the same notion of right/wrong as you is being naïve.


    >>"A fool takes no pleasure in understanding but only in expressing his [her] opinion."
    ~Proverbs 18:2

    That is valid for you, my friend. I made an affirmative about knowing about the Satanic Bible being written by LaVey and then you came quoting a chapter and a verse from the bible. Learn how to think for yourself first – without turning to a book everytime you’re questioned – and then come back to me…ok?

    ReplyDelete
  95. Michelle,

    Dan doesn't care about what you say. We all know you don't worship yourself, but that doesn't fit in with Dan's preconceived notions of what an atheist is, so he will ignore you and simply say things like:

    Say it over and over again, maybe you think someday it will be true?

    That is his general level of argumentation, and he can keep it up for months and years.

    Just giving you a heads up...

    ReplyDelete
  96. rhiggs

    That's why I said to him to come back to me when he starts thinking for himself instead of turning to his bible everytime someone questions him(which will be probably never, lol)

    ReplyDelete
  97. ...still waiting for a response that addresses the points I made, i.e. tergiversation =/= apostasy, and apostosy has a broader definition than purely religious abandonment...

    ReplyDelete
  98. KaiserBill

    You are going to wait for a loooooooooong time since he can't think outside the box of religion

    ReplyDelete
  99. Atheism is a religion because it is the belief in no god/gods goddess/goddesses.

    Religion is about BELIEF. I would say belief is your own individual PERSPECTIVE.

    Additionally, there is a huge difference between religion and ORGANIZED religion.

    The only neutrality is being Agnostic, which it is laughable Atheists compare themselves to Agnostics.

    You know you are Agnostic, when you understand that it is simply impossible to know whether there is or is not a God/Gods Goddess/Goddesses. In my opinion, Agnostics make the best scientists, because they do not try to twist science in any aspect to fit their belief, because they do not have a belief.

    Guess what, Einstein wasn't an Atheist, he was Agnostic. So stop fucking using him in some sort of demented fashion to validate your intellectual *superiority* to those that disagree with you. Additionally, Nikolai Tesla was very spiritual, which it is highly probable he was Agnostic. Am I a hypocrite? No, I'm making a point.

    Really? What does it matter if you are right or wrong? It doesn't, so stop using Science as some sort of justification. Science has theories based on facts contrived through human perspective. Human perspective is flawed, which the universe is full of illusions.

    No one truly knows and it is impossible to know. Sometimes, the biggest breakthroughs in Science is due to a leap of faith...



    I'm a spiritual Agnostic. If the universe is infinite, then there are an infinite number of illusions.

    "As we become more sophisticated, the universe becomes more sophisticated."

    -Me

    ReplyDelete
  100. AAA,

    >>Guess what, Einstein wasn't an Atheist, he was Agnostic.

    Guess what, Einstein was either Pantheist or Deist but my bets with Deist.

    What does it matter if we are right or wrong? The end result is the same.

    "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" ~Mark 8:36

    ReplyDelete
  101. Dan +†+

    Einsten was pantheist for most part of his life:

    His own words:

    " My religion is really the universe - in other words, nature, which is our reflection of the universe."

    "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.''

    But, there's a letter that Einsten wrote on january 3, 1954 to the philosopher Eric Gutkind which became public in 2008 that lead to the hypothesis he became an atheist in the end of his life:

    In his words again:
    "The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this."

    ReplyDelete
  102. Atheism is a religion? Then not collecting stamps is a hobby. Evidently, you don't know what atheism actually IS. Atheism is merely the rejection of the claim that god(s) exist, because there is no evidence for any gods. That simple. It has no dogma, and no tents. As such, it is not a religion.
    Epic fail!

    ReplyDelete
  103. Kimpatsu,

    >> Atheism is merely the rejection of the claim that god(s) exist, because there is no evidence for any gods.

    Are you certain there is no evidence for God? If so, how are you certain? How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    If you cannot answer then its your dogma that God does not exist. You place your full faith in it. You are dogmatic about it enough to tell everyone that counters your beliefs.

    Is it wrong to be wrong? If so, how? How can anything be "wrong" in your worldview?

    ReplyDelete
  104. Dan

    Okay, I'm just gonna go and say it. Who says we have any real passion for denying God? I have conviction in God's non-existance in the same way I have conviction in The Easter Bunny's non-existance. I don't believe either of them exist, but I don't go door to door telling people that the guy who created rock and roll is going to set them on fire and stab them with a pitchfork for eternity if they don't come and not believe in them with me. I don't have any particular faith or religious zeal for atheism, outside of defending my views as completely valid to people like you who tell me that no matter how much good I do, I'm doomed to damnation, as opposed to anyone who kisses the feet of some big invisible man who shits all over humanity and free will. It's just something I accept in my everyday life.
    From the age of Five, I had zero belief in the existance of god. I also had no idea who Darwin was, so there goes that whole messiah thing. I still havnt read anything by those so called prophets, so good-bye to that. And if you can find someone who can excommunicate me from the church of anti-santa clausism, I'll gladly admit that Atheism is a religion.
    All jokes aside, by your logic, any belief in ANYTHING becomes a religion. Political Parties, Book clubs, all now are members of their own little church. But in a little thing I like to call reality, joining a religion implies a certain amount of intent. At five years old, the only thing I did with any intent was play pokemon.
    I don't know what neighborhood you live in, but there is no international atheist community/cult that I'm a part of. Not everyone on the street who thinks the same way as me is on my mailing list. Sure, there are Atheist groups, but there are also
    international star wars fan organizations.
    Now, my last major point, and I'm sure you and all your book quoting buddies will get all excited by this one. Even if, in some bizarro world, God decided to pop in on us Earthlings and say "Hey guys, I'm real! Please worship me and kill in my name!", I'd still give less than a shit about him. Omnipotence does not grant the right of dominion. In fact, if this so called divine being, in who's name millions have been slaughtered, revealed himself to me and asked me to worship him, I'd spit in his face. Even if my creator is a God, I never had the choice to choose the manner of my birth. What I DO have is the ability to choose the manner in which I live my life, and the manner of my death. I also have the clarity of mind to see that subserviance to a so called higher being is just a facade to rob people of their free will, and that even if there were such a higher being, it would have to do something to prove itself worthy of worship in my eyes.
    Finally, please don't tell me im in denial, or that by saying it over and over again I'll be able to convince myself. I have complete security in my views.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Dan +†+

    We don't have evidence for the existence of god/gods that's why we don't believe in them.

    For me to believe in god/gods I have to see evidence for it and all the arguments I heard and saw about the existence of god/gods were based on faith alone and that is not reliable.

    Now, that there is an evidence for god? How are you certain? This evidence is based on some research, scientific experiment or study? In case of an affirmative answer, what are the methods you used? Where is your data so I can read it and be convinced of the existence of god?

    I cannot answer if god exists or not, neither can you. Nobody can.
    For example, if I say to you I'm sure that god doesn't exist so I have to have evidence that proves my claims.

    If you say god exists, you have to have some evidence that proves that.

    I'm not afraid of saying "I don't know". It's not wrong or a sign of stupidity to not know something.
    What is wrong is the attitude "I don't have an answer for it, so I'm just going to make stuff up and the burden to prove my claim wrong or right is on others, not on me..."

    ReplyDelete
  106. Technically speaking a religioun is a belief system, therefore anything can become a religion. Humans idolizing other humans can be a religion, humans idolizing an idea can be a religion, humans idolizing a concept can be a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  107. NatDuv

    But saying atheism is a religion is just plain wrong.
    Religion has to do with a cult/worship to divine entities through rituals, ceremonies and prayers; has to do with being dependant on some god/gods; have some connection with them. Atheism doesn't fit that criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  108. Like I said earlier, to say that any belief system is a religion is absurd. By that same logic, a political view or a philosophy would be called a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  109. Morality_by_choice,

    >>Like I said earlier, to say that any belief system is a religion is absurd.

    Saying Atheism is a mere "belief system" is being dishonest. Its just your worldview (belief system) has in it, the religion of Atheism.

    Its a dogmatic approach to God. To me, that defines religion.

    ReplyDelete
  110. Look up "Christianity", "Judaism", "Buddism", or any religion. Their definitions explicitly define these terms religions. Look up atheism: no mention of religion. Look up "religion" and it states Christianity as an example, it states that religion has a set of "moral standards" and "a "belief in a supernatural creator". Atheism lacks moral standard and a belief in a supernatural creator. Many atheists CHOOSE to have morals, but they don't HAVE to in order to be considered an atheist. If they do believe in a God, well then they aren't an atheist. As for all this evolution debate, atheism says NOTHING about requiring a belief in it so that argument is invalid. There is only one requirement: no belief in a god.

    I find it funny how now-a-days Christians are arguing that Christianity isn't a religion and that atheism is. How ironic.

    Even if atheists accepted that atheism is a religion, what would that do? Atheists will still be atheists and the lack of belief in God will be as well. So why even try to convince atheists that atheism is a religion? It's a lost cause and is still no proof that God exists in anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  111. http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/ath/blathm_rel_religion.htm

    ReplyDelete
  112. Indigo,

    >>If they do believe in a God, well then they aren't an atheist... There is only one requirement: no belief in a god.

    Really? Scotsman claim? They are not true Atheists™

    You are certainly not helping your case here. On a fundamental (intentional use of the term) level there is criteria to become a part of the body of Atheists. An Atheist that claims there may be a God would be excommunicated from that body. Sure sounds like a religion to me. A dogmatic one at that.

    >>Even if atheists accepted that atheism is a religion, what would that do?

    Its a tool to simply show that you reject the Savior for a false religion and a false god. One that will destroy your soul. Its to help you understand you. That's all.

    Forgive me for repeating this but its too important not to.

    Even an Atheist friend of mine said, "In actual common usage, atheism means the specific belief that there is no god. (Personally, I prefer Webster's myself, but dictionary.com is easier to link to.) Simply put, some people want to broaden the category of atheism so as to make the category to which people want to refer in such discussions too cumbersome to specify. If, for some reason, one wishes to identify himself only as not a theist, the term non-theist will suffice. But the term is not often used, as the category is useless to discussion. And that is why I regard the attempt to broaden "atheist" to be synonymous with "non-theist" to be dishonest. "

    There is a HOST of reasons why you have faith in a religion, called Atheism. You certainly cannot claim there is no evidence for the existence of God, because there is. But because you deny the evidence, its what makes you follow a dogma called atheism.

    Van Til said it this way "If God's authority must be authorized or validated by the authority of human reasoning and assessment, then human thinking is more authoritative the God Himself-in which case God would not have final authority, and indeed would no longer be God."

    You see you have created a god to suite yourself (breaking the 2nd Commandment) and the name of your god is "self". You are placing God in the defendant chair and placing yourself in the judges chair. What you don't realize is that you are the criminal, and God is the Judge. Once you realize that in light of God's Word then you begin to understand Him.

    ReplyDelete
  113. Dan +†+

    Etymology 101: atheism comes from the adjective atheos that means godless, without god.

    We don't excommunicate anyone. If an atheist decides to believe in god, ok. We are not going to kick him out of our organization, because we don't have one like religious people have (we have non-governamental associations that represent agnostics and atheists) or stop being their friends. It's his/her choice to believe in god and - if he/she participates in some atheist association/ they will leave on their own, if they want...we are not going to say to him or her: "You're no longer welcome...blah blah blah..."

    ReplyDelete
  114. Dan, you just proved your point wrong. According to you, atheists are required a set of fundamental list of criteria. And yet, I personally do not have certain Atheistic traits that other atheists have. Well, according to you, im not an atheist anymore. Also, you can't be excommunicated from a non-existant body that you aren't a member of in the first place. In religion, different branches of, say, christianity all require specific forms of faith in god. In atheism, however, there is only one requirement, as stated before, and that is to believe that god does not exist, end of story. That is the one belief as an atheist that I have, and if soemhow I'm not an atheist because of that, please, feel free to tell me what I am.
    In all honesty, instead of arguing about something so trivial, I'd much rather argue how religion is all bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  115. Atheism IS a religion.

    Thank God you put the "is" in bold there. Otherwise I wouldn't have taken it as proof. But seeing as you did, that pretty much seals it.

    ReplyDelete
  116. They have their own worldview. Materialism - This is a branch of philosophy. It is also not true, today there is a hypothetical dark energy and dark matter introduced, so matter is not all there is.

    They have their own orthodoxy - Someone needs to tell me those in that case, so that I may become a good atheist and not a godlesser heathen.

    They have their own brand of apostasy - Yes this is true. And we call it facepalm. Whenever someone does or says something stupid, I facepalm.

    They have their own prophets - Those guys are not prophets, they are boatloads of crazy. Oh wait, I guess they are prophets then. Nice find!

    They have their own messiah - Darwin - Charles Darwin was a naturalist that developed a theory. I personally favor Newton's third law of action and reaction.

    They have their own preachers and evangelists - The function of a preacher is to convince the listener of a certain world-view or belief. Before ever having heard these guys, I didn't believe in a God. In fact, they are not preaching to atheists, they are preaching to theists in hopes of making them start thinking again.

    They have faith... Evolution has no explanation for why our universe is orderly, predictable, measurable. In fact (atheistic) evolutionary theory has no rational explanation for why there is such a thing as rational explanation. - you are basing this entire statement on the premise that there is a "why". Evolution never claims to give a "why" to things being as they are. It only gives a "how" things became what they are.

    Also, it's all wordplay. If I wanted to I could make my family a religious group of the "quanko" faith. It all depends on how you define a religion, and what it means to what people.

    ReplyDelete
  117. Such weak points against atheism. You clearly do not know the concept or definition of the word. Not worth a debate due to your inability to understand.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Fyi, "The Seventh Judicial Circuit of the Court of Appeals of the United States held that atheism is a religion and therefore it cannot be promoted by a public school. Currently public schools are promoting atheism through a dogmatic and uncritical teaching of materialistic theories of origins."

    Atheism is anything BUT mere lack of belief.

    http://borne.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/is-atheism-mere-lack-of-belief-2/

    What a dishonest cop-out atheists use to avoid having to prove their faith in nothing.

    ReplyDelete
  119. Amen Gary, I am sure everyone understands that Atheism is a chosen position instead of a blind monkey as they try to lead us to believe.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Natduv, have you heard of freedom from religion? It is in the constitution. Atheists do not share one set of unified beliefs. Therefore, atheism is not a religion. When one thinks about religion as a whole, it may be difficult to believe that such a large group of smart, well-educated, critically thinking people all share identical or very similar beliefs. Those who think atheism (notice the lower-case "a") is a religion are simply ignorant and inaccurate.

    ReplyDelete
  121. DJ,

    >>Natduv, have you heard of freedom from religion?

    Apparently you have not heard of the Constitution because NOWHERE does it say that.

    Freedom from religion is ENTIRELY different from freedom of religion. Look it up again.

    >>Those who think atheism (notice the lower-case "a") is a religion are simply ignorant and inaccurate.

    Our Government concluded the same thing.

    So, if you depend on that Constitution to be right then Atheism is indeed a religion.

    ReplyDelete
  122. If atheism was a religion, then it would be a proper noun, which it isn't. It's a philosophical view just like naturalism. Would you consider theism a religion? Didn't think so.

    ReplyDelete
  123. Michael,

    This blog is called Debunking Atheists as a direct conversation with the individual and their beliefs. I speak to John the Atheist. Some people like to label it as a common noun but it goes much, much, further these days. I do not seek to just debunk the beliefs in atheism. My target is the individual. The label they use called "Atheist".

    A conversation:

    "Did you hear what John said?"
    "Which John?"
    "The Atheist."

    You will get me in real trouble here trying to answer this because some days I was, hmm lets say "busy", during English classes at school, but I am not afraid of truth. So lets flesh this one out. In this case, isn't Atheist a proper noun?

    Now, at dictionary.com we see that religion is:

    "1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe,..."

    If we stop here we get a real relation to the term Atheist, then it goes on to say:

    "...especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

    Now it states this part with the words "especially", "usually", and "often" but not 'always'. That is to say, that Atheists do have a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs. One without the nuisance of God.

    I believe that secularity is the generic cloak for atheism in many disciplines and fields. (education, science, government) Its cultic, its dogmatic.

    "2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion."

    Yes, Atheists have a set of beliefs that are agreed upon. One glaring one is there is not God. Otherwise, you could not be part of their groups. I should know as I have tried to join many. I even tried to join a local meet up group and they said that I cannot join because I do not share the same beliefs as they do. I received a response of, and I am paraphrasing, 'We are a group of like minded individuals and you do not fit into that category.' Also, as John Gray pointed out, they even have denominations.

    Dr. Bahnsen pointed out, "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism."

    If that is not dogmatic, nothing is.

    So give it time. The term Atheist will be known as a proper noun very shortly. Just look how quickly the word "google" went from merely just a noun, to a verb also. It won't be long now. I have used the term "Atheist" with an uppercase "A" for years now. It deserves that distinction and category. Funny how Atheists will not give God the same distinction. Maybe they wish that distinction to go away.

    Can I go to bed now?

    ReplyDelete
  124. Atheism is not a group, but simply the apparent result of reasoned people who individually decide on a common basis for their beliefs.

    ReplyDelete
  125. DJ,

    >>Atheism is not a group, but simply the apparent result of reasoned people who individually decide on a common basis for their beliefs.

    Apparent "result" huh? Of course not. For me it sounds like Atheists are more in a cult, then anything else. :7) See you at T.A.M.

    ReplyDelete
  126. I agree that atheism should be defined as a religion. The analogy "atheism being is a religion is like not playing baseball is a sport" is an ignorant charge and here is why. When you say "not playing baseball", that requires you to NOT BE INVOLVED IN THE BASEBALL GAME. As an atheist, you are ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING in the religious debate, by providing your firm belief that there TRULY IS NO GOD. It's like saying that black, which is defined as the absence of all colors, is not a color. If black is a color then atheism is a religion. IF YOU HAVE CLOSED YOUR MIND TO ALL OTHER POSSIBILITIES IN THE UNIVERSE, YOU HAVE SETTLED INTO A RELIGION. Period. A truly non-religious person does not take any firm stance; they have NO BELIEFS. That's not something an atheist can say, because they think they know FOR SURE that all other religions are false.

    ReplyDelete
  127. Let me break down your points, they are invalid, but let me explain why.
    1.On the subject of a world view. We don't have a set or organised world view. We just don't have faith, so what's left is the material world which explains itself better and better the more we observe it.
    2. On Orthodoxy. I'll give you this one simply because we all agree we don't believe in gods, if you can prove it scientifically then it's true and we don't know how life started, even though we know how it continues.
    3. On Apostasy. Once again there is no organisation between the normal people atheists, our reaction is solely based on how much we care and how much it will affect us, and for the most part. Most of us don't couldn't care less then we already don't.
    4. On prophets. 98% don't care about these people or their opinions, 1.9% hate them, 0.1% love them.
    5. On Messiah. He not really a messiah so much as the first person to publish evolution. Microbiology would have proven evolution on it's own at a later time, that's why we have swine flu, avian bird flu, a new brand of common cold every year, antibiotic resistant diseases etc... could go on forever.
    6. On evangelists. I agree with you.
    7. On faith. Faith has many definitions but the most important to us is dictionary.com's 2nd definition of faith: Belief that is not based on proof. Also, evolution is just a tacit of understanding a world with no god, just a tiny piece of a 1,000,000 piece puzzle. Secondly, we are self aware because we have brains, any animal with a brain is able to process external and internal inputs and is self aware. Consciousness is the bi-product of thought based decision making based on external inputs to the brain and how those inputs are dealt with by neurons. The universal sense of right and wrong is there because humans are pack animals and behaviors which benefit the pack usually benefit the individual.

    ReplyDelete
  128. Alexander,

    1. How do you account for immaterial concepts in a material universe?
    2. If you can prove it scientifically then it's true? As far as science goes, science is dependent on the uniformity of nature, or no scientific prediction could be made. Problem is, no atheistic worldview can account for the uniformity of nature, the very foundation of science.
    3. Are you speaking for all Atheists here? If so the 'organization' is quite apparent.
    4. Does rejection of evidence eliminate said evidence?
    5. Proven evolution? Projecting much? We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" (like evolution) misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.
    6. Nice!
    7. Faith is trust. You place your faith in things and people all the time. Just NEVER the concept of God. "In fact, that cannot be evidence for God if he is a naturalist, or an atheist. Because according to him its not possible to have evidence for God. If he is in fact an atheist in terms of his views on reality, then all of these things must be reinterpreted so they are regimented, or will conform to, will comport with that man's naturalism, or atheism." ~Dr. Bahnsen

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  129. Believing in God is believing he will judge, right? What is keeping you from letting us atheists slip into Hell as we are supposed to? Our non-existence under the category of the belief in a god leaves us free to judge. You, however, shall not. For He will. :)

    ReplyDelete
  130. You need not cross-examine my previous post, for i was merely demonstrating how someone can so very intensely contradict themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  131. Pearywinkle,

    >>You, however, shall not. For He will. :)

    You are obviously under some misunderstanding that Christians are not to judge, yet the Bible says to judge to see if its from God or not. To see if we ourselves, and others, are evil. To rebuke evil...How do you do that without judging?

    Your argument falls apart from there.

    >>You need not cross-examine my previous post, for i was merely demonstrating how someone can so very intensely contradict themselves.

    Oh, like you just did. Yea great example. :7)

    ReplyDelete
  132. Yes, "for i was merely demonstrating" was the key statement.

    >>Your argument falls apart from there.

    That is if it was not a faux argument only used to demonstrate contradiction on either side of the fence. It was not mine.

    Here's another one sort of like it...

    >>You are obviously under some misunderstanding that Christians are not to judge...

    Maybe i have only understood what I wanted to understand.

    Supposing both of my "arguments" were merely that and not completely true convictions (for the sake of argument, if you will), I have not disclosed my stance in this matter. I know what I know in my heart and my spirit.

    I know you are Christian, but I am not evil.

    ReplyDelete
  133. Pearywinkle,

    >>I know you are Christian, but I am not evil.

    How do you know? Scripture says none do good, no not one. I know that I am the most wretched human I have ever known, and that is why I need Christ.

    Insert DC Talk here: "What's going on inside of me? I despise my own behavior and this only serves to confirm my suspicions that I'm still a man in need of a Savior! I wanna be in the Light, as He is in the Light. I wanna shine like the stars in the heavens Oh, Lord be my Light and be my salvation. Cause all I want is to be in the Light. All I want is to be in the Light!"

    BTW, If you lied even once, you're evil. So I think what you believe is not evil (subjective) is actually evil (objective).

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  134. If everyone were evil, it would take all of the reason for the word away and we would have no need, for it would be simply synonymous with Human. There are, however, morals that are largely accepted to be good or evil.

    Claiming you are the most wretched person you have ever known says wonders about your good intent. Now, is that not a good moral in and of itself?

    I am simply saying that you can be an "evil person" while still living along the lines of a widely accepted moral standard. Do these moral instances need to be forever marred by a grand evil inside us all?

    Jesus Christ or not, many can do much good and be viewed by many as just as good.

    >>How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    I feel as though I need more than ONE source for anything to really be debunked. Of course, the Bible can cover for itself time and time again, so long as you stay between its covers.

    Also, I find it very unlikely that atheism will be recognized as a great world religion.. No matter how widespread it becomes.

    There is a difference between disbelief and lack of belief. I would dare say that most atheists have a lack rather than a refusal of belief. I am sure most of them are not thinking to themselves that they refuse to believe it, it is just a simple lack.

    Looking upon the clear night sky, we call them not types of clouds.. Rather, we call them benchmarks of discovery.

    ReplyDelete
  135. Pearywinkle,

    >>There are, however, morals that are largely accepted to be good or evil.

    Ray has an analogy: "A little girl was once watching a sheep eat grass and thought how white it looked against the green background. But when it began to snow she thought, "That sheep now looks dirty against the white snow!" It was the same sheep, but with a different background. When we compare ourselves to man's standard we look pretty clean, but when we compare ourselves to the pure snow-white righteousness of God's standard—His Law, we can see ourselves in truth, that we are unclean in His sight. That Law is the holy standard by which humanity will be judged on Judgment Day." ~tinyurl.com/bornevil

    >>I feel as though I need more than ONE source for anything to really be debunked. Of course, the Bible can cover for itself time and time again, so long as you stay between its covers.

    While the Christ the Word is my ultimate authority, it is not the only means by which God has revealed Himself to us. It is through God's collective natural and special revelation that I know for certain my senses are reliable and can account for truths that are absolute, immaterial, universal like the laws of logic and reason.

    >>Also, I find it very unlikely that atheism will be recognized as a great world religion.. No matter how widespread it becomes.

    You are making me curious as to your worldview or religion. Care to share? I like to know who I am talking to.

    >>I would dare say that most atheists have a lack rather than a refusal of belief.

    Nope, its denial. As a Christian, its my position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    ReplyDelete
  136. I would like to know the number of converts in each direction when it comes to atheism and Christianity alone. How many leave each and how many join each.. and even more difficult to exact, how many from Christianity to atheism exclusively and vice versa. I feel as though very few do in either direction. Or maybe many do in one direction but the spaces are filled with almost equal numbers in the opposite direction.

    With that, I come to Pride. Each side has support. Each side has pride. Some pride can be of a person's nature, while other pride can be purely of demeanor. If it is of demeanor, then there is yet another feeling or aspect of Nature coming into play. Perhaps stubbornness. It is different than pride, for stubbornness suggests a certain force is present. This force would be another worldview or religion, in this case, calling and waving their hands to invite you to the other side.

    Is a person ever really changed within? Or are they simply "fitting in" or "giving in"? I see this all the time with people suppressing their own beliefs. Of course, many do not and are outwardly spoken ;). However, that is only how I feel about that. I can never state anything with certainty and it may, indeed, take a mixture of pride and/or stubbornness and a gentle tweaking of perceived evidence in order to come to stating something is absolutely certain in front of opposition. I know there may be many that object to the "gentle tweaking" part of that but with such intense opposition, I can't help but feel that somebody's doing it. Unless, of course, we are all right... That brings me to my next observation or feeling.

    As I was reading on this entire topic, I was thinking to myself the entire time, "What is the meaning of grey?". Grey can mean that something is in the middle or even close to either end. You were speaking of the "white" sheep that "became" grey or dirty after a backdrop of beautiful fresh snow had fallen around it. Well, suppose atheism was held up next to Christianity, which is so unarguably a religion. Would atheism suddenly appear a little grey? Just a little? For there are, indeed, people who feel it is not a religion. It absolutely MUST be more grey, definitions aside and popular belief in place. My stance in this particular debate is quite literally in the grey area. Atheism is lacking one big thing but all other things seem to be adequate for some.. but are they? There is such a disagreement on whether or not it is a religion that it cannot possibly be a religion as we know them. I am talking about popular belief. If you ask anyone and all if they feel Christianity to be a religion, it would seem more undisputed than this. Perhaps atheism is close! I mean, you can have your views on figures and orthodoxy. Among atheists, it is not perceived as such. It may seem as though it is organized as a religion would be, however, you can get an atheist that really fits none of that criteria. Also, you can get an atheist that does fit the bill entirely. There is a wide range there. Which leads me to believe it is grey. You cannot have a religion unless it is undisputed like Christianity. I am not talking about the rightness or wrongness of either but simply whether it is a religion or not. Christianity in unarguably a religion in a great majority of eyes. I think whether or not atheism is a religion goes well and far beyond a simple definition's criteria.

    ReplyDelete
  137. Although I haven't read ALL the comments above, it seems from what I have seen that nobody has pointed out that there are three kinds of atheists : those who simply don't care about religion or God and have no interest in talking about it, those who do care about what their view implies (I'm one of those), and those who hate any religious belief like it's a dog which ate their grandmother yesterday.

    For the latter, atheism is indeniably a religion, just as is anything you fight for. I read the article and found it perfectly right in almost every point (except for a metaphor or two, but the arguments were solid.)

    I think it was aimed at the atheists who seem only to live to criticize religion. It's a criticism back, and well deserved. Although this fight seems to be a vicious circle of attacks, when we could just cohabitate peacefully.

    In the past, the all-powerful church ran unchecked, annihilating without a thought any freedom of belief. Now that it's losing ground, does it mean that it's payback time ? Really ?? As much as I respect both faith and "non-faith", I hate to see atheists taking revenge for tragedies they didn't experience. Modern times tell believers that they are not worth more than unbelievers. An equality can now easily be reach in mutual respect, more than at any point in the past. But both some believers and unbelievers are still working to thwart that.

    However, as I said, most atheists I know either don't care about the debate (therefore atheism is not a religion for them, they just live it), or are happy to exchange views about the "God problem". Does that make us a little bit believers, in so far as we are in a way, still open to the possibility that we could be wrong ? Certainly. It doesn'y bother me at all to see it that way. I don't care for extremism ; I care for dialogue.

    In all the fights about religion, something has always seemed strange to me : why do Jesus or Darwin HAVE to be right ? Think about it : how does what Jesus said (or "what was reported hundreds of years later says Jesus said") prove the existence of God ? And how does what Darwin said disprove it ? How does ANY science disprove it, by the way ? It can only disprove some of the stupidities you can find in the Bible, dating back to when man thought the Earth was the center of the universe. But the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution will never bring down God. Why couldn't God be the instigator of both the Big Bang and natural evolution of species ? I guess I'm probably missing some dogma which HAS to be followed in order to condider oneself a true believer.

    Bottom line : anything anyone says for or against God doesn't resolve the eternal question, and as such, the only factor that comes into play in whether we believe or not, is what we feel. For the time being, I don't believe. But things can always change, through personal development or through enlightened dialogue (no Bible quotations please), and it would be stupid of me to assert that I detain the ultimate knowledge of what is true and what isn't.

    If my phrasing is sometimes awkward, my apologies ; English is not my mother tongue.

    Respect to all of you.

    ReplyDelete
  138. 1cello,

    That was well said and honest. I like that. Welcome.

    ReplyDelete
  139. This is where I also state my case as to why i think Atheism is a religion:

    http://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-585245.32.html

    Now i ain't pushing to impress no one but i did not initially view Atheism as seriously spreading or even a religion. i had a rethink after Richard Dawkins talk on 'militant atheism' on TED - definitely smacks of fanaticism.

    ReplyDelete
  140. Man this is wrote bad.
    you messed up anyone believing it when you said athiests have prophets and a messiah. are you kidding?
    Athiests don't have to believe in evolution. Darwin is not our god because he thought of it (He didn't evolution has been a theory longer than that)
    and we don't have faith. That's the whole point.
    i don't have faith that a god is there and i don't have faith that a god isn't there.
    i'd just rather live my life not worried about a god rather than living in fear and wasting my sundays.

    Then you insult it in the end saying its nothing more than a negative proof fallacy.
    Yet right before that you say. well i just KNOW god is there.

    ReplyDelete
  141. "An atheist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see....." ~O.A. Battista

    ReplyDelete
  142. It's amazing. It's like Christians are just incapable of understanding something that is a "non-religion" so they believe people have to worship SOMETHING to exist. Wtf? Humans don't need to worship anything to exist. Before the deity Yahweh came about people were diverse and believed in many gods. How did Yahweh, the Jewish god, succeed? Massive murder, rape, massacre and genocide. The brave soldiers who fought back for their rights were murdered (martyrs) and the cowards who converted to the new religion "Christianity" were the ones who remained (our ancestors) So much for not believing in "survival of the fittest," eh? Ah well...

    I'm no atheist, but I support Atheists 100% .. why? Because instead of bitching about "Who's invisible sky fairy is real" ("My invisible entities are REAL but yours aren't. Bwahahaha") they're actually teaching CRITICAL THINKING, KNOWLEDGE, FACTS, TRUTH, VALID ASSUMPTIONS, ETC. Which do you prefer? To debate an atheist.. or debate someone like me? Who has her OWN "invisible entities that 'I feel' are there.. so that's my proof.." ?

    They (the atheists) are not saying they have THE ENTIRE UNIVERSE FIGURED OUT (Like Judeo-Christians/Muslims do.) They know what they know to be facts. The opposite of faith. And they're not going by some shitty 2,000 year old book that's been tampered with so many times you'd be a FOOL not to know you're believing in TRUE myths created out of THIN AIR. No joke.

    "This Jesus myth has served us well." ~ Pope Leo X

    Again, I'm no atheist. I have many myths I hold sacred to my heart. But I'm not going to use ad hominems on those who don't believe like I do. And if you believe this Entire Universe was created by some penis god who hates women and homosexuals... prove it. Why that specific god from Judaism is the one true god, even though humanity is approximately 200,000 years old... and your bible was written by 6,000 year old savage brutes?

    ReplyDelete
  143. Lady Ariana,

    >>Because instead of bitching about "Who's invisible sky fairy is real" ("My invisible entities are REAL but yours aren't. Bwahahaha") they're actually teaching CRITICAL THINKING, KNOWLEDGE, FACTS, TRUTH, VALID ASSUMPTIONS, ETC. Which do you prefer?

    How do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  144. save the lost???, hahahahaha, you people are so arrogant, i guess that goes hand in hand with stupidity, how can people today be so stupid, hahaha, its almost surreal, hahaha, perverts, hahaha.

    ReplyDelete
  145. How do you know that your reasoning about god, the bible and atheists is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  146. HaiserBill,

    >>How do you know that your reasoning about god, the bible and atheists is valid?

    Same way I can be certain of anything, revelation. The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

    ReplyDelete
  147. I was touched by His noodly appendage and my eyes were opened.

    Now respond to the nice lady's points instead of brushing them aside and ignoring them in favour of epistomological obfuscation.

    "An astrophysicist is a man who looks through a telescope and tries to explain what he can't see....like black holes." ~KaiserBill.

    ReplyDelete
  148. KaiserBill,

    >>I was touched by His noodly appendage and my eyes were opened.

    So the ONLY way you can know anything for certain is through revelation. I think we are through here.

    You see? Obviously you are being coy with the FSM but that is is ONLY way you can make sense of things.

    God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing Atheist's contempt toward God.

    ReplyDelete
  149. No Dan, I was being facetious. >.<

    The point was that anyone can claim to have had a divine revelation. In fact, many people do claim just that. But they don't all agree with each other so it must either be the case that God is deliberately feeding at least some people falsehoods, OR they didn't really have a divine revelation.

    Your divine revelation feels just as real and authentic to you as the next person's does to them. Let us say that the next person believes in Hinduism - a belief system which is incompatible with Christianity. You can't both be right. You can't both have had a genuine revelation from the one true god. To an impartial outside observer both of your truth-claims hold the same weight. The only thing which can be said is that at least one of you is wrong.

    So it is perfectly possible for a human to absolutely and completely believe in something so strongly that they'll stake their (possibly eternal) life on it, even though we can see they are wrong. So it is clear that we cannot trust revelation as a source of proof. It is invalid as a means of determining truth.

    Empirical evidence and testable theories are far better ways of determining truth. They are independently verifiable by anyone and everyone: clearly we can all see that gravity exists, for example.

    So I must ask you: why does your (presumably omniscient, omnipotent & omnibenevolent) god allow people to believe false 'revelations' which feel as true to them as your revelation did to you?

    ReplyDelete
  150. This whole debate can easily be settled by looking in the dictionary.

    re·li·gion
       [ri-lij-uhn]
    –noun
    1.
    a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    ReplyDelete
  151. This person is obviously a moron and has no clue what he is talking about. I especially like what h_brummer said, which is a good point; if I don't believe in a god and I don't believe in atheism then what do I believe?

    Atheism is not the belief that there can be no god its just that we don't believe in gods. We aren't making the claim that we "KNOW" there are no gods. Can you prove unicorns don't exist? No you can't but you still don't believe in them, well you are ignorant enough so maybe you do.

    ReplyDelete
  152. Brandon,

    >>if I don't believe in a god and I don't believe in atheism then what do I believe?

    Well if you are suppressing the truth about the only possible source for the logic YOU ARE USING, then its no stretch that you would deny other things, like your atheistic worldview.

    >>Atheism is not the belief that there can be no god its just that we don't believe in gods

    Wrong!

    Atheism
    a·the·ism

    –noun
    1.the doctrine or belief that there is no god.
    2.disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

    Disbelief
    –noun
    1. the inability or refusal to believe or to accept something as true.
    2. amazement; astonishment:

    By definition alone Atheism is a 'denial of the evidence', its a refusal to believe.

    "Atheism is a chosen metaphysical position, therefore a religious position." ~bit.ly/lackofbelief

    >>Can you prove unicorns don't exist?

    Erm...unicorns did exist at one time.

    >>No you can't but you still don't believe in them, well you are ignorant enough so maybe you do.

    Are you absolutely certain that I can't? If so, how are you certain? If not, you have no argument.

    Have you ever heard of Rhinoceros unicornis? Folk stories pointed to the Elasmotherium. Look it up.

    It is your ignorance that is showing...student.

    ReplyDelete
  153. If Atheism is a religion then why aren't we allowed to form atheist organizations and have a tax exempt status?

    ReplyDelete
  154. Elgmalone,

    Obviously you have not read my earlier post. The US Supreme court identifies Atheism as a religion for that exact purpose!!!

    ReplyDelete
  155. I would suggest that you make your own research for the truth and the real meaning why we all exist..why do we have emotions?..what is our purpose..do we just live here and die?..and when we die thats the end of our own evolutions?...try to research for those who was nearly died and came back to life..and hear their amazing the same experiences..about life after death...it is in the heart that one can see rightly what is essential is invisible to the eyes..

    ReplyDelete
  156. sometimes we should try to examine our ownself,,always begin with yourself..stands and face the mirror..and look at your outside body structure...and all of these have different functions and purpose..even the inner part of your body has its own functions..arent you amazed you are perfectly made.. then ask yourself how do I acquired this...how about my parents etc..who originates everything that exist on earth,,in this modern time..many do not believe that God exist...because to some they say to see is to believe..its true!..God does not exist now a day..but it can be felt by the heart.

    ReplyDelete
  157. You have committed probably every fallacy used in any argument, Dan, and the only thought I can come up with is, that your uneducated, and afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  158. Miss,

    >>You have committed probably every fallacy used in any argument, Dan, and the only thought I can come up with is, that your uneducated, and afraid.

    That ITSELF is called an "argument from fallacy" So join the uneducated, and afraid, by your reasoning.

    Speaking of reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning about this or ANYTHING is valid?

    ReplyDelete
  159. It doesn't take any faith to reject something that is not proven to you.

    And yes most atheist have their own worldviews, but we don't share the same worldviews and we don't have to. Religion on the other hand, forces believers to share the same worldviews.

    ReplyDelete
  160. "There are days when evil and suffering are hard to explain"

    False. Evil and suffering with the presence of an omnipotent and omnibenevolent God is not hard to explain. It is unexplainable.

    ReplyDelete
  161. Shi,

    >>It doesn't take any faith to reject something that is not proven to you.

    I reject that. The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

    It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    >>And yes most atheist have their own worldviews, but we don't share the same worldviews and we don't have to. Religion on the other hand, forces believers to share the same worldviews.

    That is just false. Take William Craig and myself. He believes in evolution and I believe in Biblical Creationism. We both believe in Christ sure but if that is what you meant then you are in the same boat. If a Christian worldview is believing in Christ, then an atheistic worldview commonly hold there is no God. You all share the same worldview. Live with that, and your new found religion called Atheism. We both worship something. The difference is that you warship the same god as Satanists, and that is the god of "self".

    ReplyDelete
  162. Hi, This may have been mentioned (I haven't read all comments).

    The American Supreme Court and Court of Appeal have held and confirmed that atheism IS indeed a religion under the American Constitution. In Kaufman v McCaughtry (7th Circ, 2005) the CA held (1) that atheism IS indeed a religion; (2) it can be practised alone without forming a group; (3) but if other religions are allowed to form groups, the atheism religion too, in similar circumstances, must be allowed to form groups as well.

    In that case Kaufman, an atheist, argued that his religion of atheism was discriminated against because other religions were allowed to form groups; the Court of Appeal agreed with him.

    Thus as usual the atheists, especially evangelical atheists, remain as duplicitous as ever.

    ReplyDelete
  163. "Thus as usual the atheists, especially evangelical atheists, remain as duplicitous as ever."

    The point you try to make about atheists here is about as cogent as someone talking about "the leader of Anonymous." Atheism has no official spokesperson. Some atheists will push for atheism to be recognized as a religion so that they can take advantage of the advantages extended to Christians and other theists. Others (like me) see this sort of action as disingenuous and would prefer that the laws be made fair and impartial with regard to religion, rather than try to change the legal definition of atheism to something many atheists would not agree with.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Ryepdx,

    >>Atheism has no official spokesperson.

    Hogwash! We call him Satan. 1 John 2:22, 1 John 4:3

    Your sour grapes is noted though. You want to have the rights and freedoms from other religions in public areas but cry foul when we notice that our public schools are infiltrated with an atheistic, secular, religion. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

    An American Humanist named John Dunphy said in 1983:

    "I am convinced that the battle for humankind's future must be waged and won in the public school classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach, regardless of the educational level--preschool day care or large state university. The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new--the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism."

    We are on to your agenda and you get all mad when everything does not go your way. Do not fret though, the Bible says you will indeed get very far in deceiving the masses. Be proud of your master. Satanist and Atheists worship the same god, the god of "self". Live with that truth, or what I would rather prefer you do is repent.

    ReplyDelete
  165. Wow this anti-atheist blog totally made my day. The sheer concentration of religious trolls posting on here is utterly incomprehensible. Just hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  166. Just like religious people would defend themselves when their faith is attacked, I see a lot of atheists here too are defending their faith.

    Atheist can't prove that there is no god or some sort of deity, they'll try to reason with you but that is not the same as proof. It is a deep belief that there is no supreme being. The flipside arguement is true for religious debate as well.

    To arrogantly arbitrarily claim that Empiricism is the absolute truth is ridiculous (consider that there's been many paradigm shifts throughout our history as to what is considered scientific truths). Most of the elements in this universe is still unknown to us, and there's a possibility that we may not have the Senses to detect it.

    But there's this illusory superiority thing in the human condition that makes us to always have to be right, to always one up each other, that we're better/smarter than other people, now isn't there?

    ReplyDelete
  167. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

    The claim is that God has revealed Himself to EVERYONE, and that this is exposed with every truth claim, every knowledge claim, and even every rational thought you have.

    You can reveal this by telling us one thing you know and how you know it?

    ReplyDelete
  168. Copy-paste is such a lame way to construct your opinions.

    ReplyDelete
  169. Kaiser,

    >>Copy-paste is such a lame way to construct your opinions.

    Is that absolutely true or merely your arbitrary opinion?

    Since all you have is opinion, you could not CERTAINLY deny that an omniscient, omnipotent being could reveal things to us, such that we can be certain of them.

    c/p: The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. It is the Christian position that God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

    Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

    ReplyDelete
  170. I cannot say for certain that there is (or was) no creator-god. But I also cannot say for certain that there is (or was) such a being. This uncertainty does not bother me.

    But with regard to your certainty, is it not also that the Muslim and the Jewish tradition (to name but two) can claim the same font of knowledge as yours? So why is it that you are a Christian and not of another faith? How were you certain that you could believe in its certainty?

    ReplyDelete
  171. A friend put it this way:

    We accept the Christian faith as the grounds of all logic, because we accept the notion that scripture teaches there is only one God, he's the creator of all things and thus he created logic. For the unbeliever, he/she must first believe in Christ and repent before they can ever come to any conclusions at all about anything at all. If they have no basis in which to place their faith in logic or exists then they've yet to understand that logic or matter exists because their faith is based in logic and reason itself, yet you can't use either to explain where either originated from (enter circular reasoning). They must assume and accept that both logic and reason originated from a single omnipotent source because without that source, there is no logic or reason, man didn't create logic or reason, we only use them as the tools that were provided to us by God. If we say there is no God, then we put the cart before the horse and look pretty stupid... As for which God (which I believe is where this argument gets hung up) that falls to the legitimacy of the scriptures and the foundation of where the God you serve comes from. I lean on the God of the Bible, not only because he revealed himself to me and I chose to accept and believe on his son, and because the endless truth IN scriptures let alone the countless prophecies that God's word has spoken that have come true and are still coming true. The God of Israel and the Bible is real and the only true God, not because I say so, but because He does.

    ReplyDelete
  172. Religion: Believing in something base on faith instead of proof.

    If God exist. Non believing in God will not make God disapear.

    If God does not exist: Believing in God will not make God appear.

    If God does not exist, an entity with better technology than we have can make us believe its God.

    If God exist, no mater what God does it will be disgregarded as a being with better technology.

    Thereof, the existence or nor existence of God cannot be proven. Thus the only non-religious view on the subject is:
    "I do not know."

    Everything else is a religious point of view. Thus a religion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Religion: a system of beliefs
      Athiesm: a system of beliefs
      Athiesm=Religion by definition

      Delete
  173. rxantos,

    >>Thereof, the existence or nor existence of God cannot be proven.

    Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how?

    ReplyDelete
  174. Calling atheism a religion? So what deities are atheists praying to? What is the common dogma of atheists? For those of you purporting atheism to be a religion, Qui Gon Jin said it best, "The ability to speak does not make you intelligent".

    ReplyDelete
  175. Brian,

    >> So what deities are atheists praying to?

    Same as Satanists

    bit.ly/AtheistsSatanists

    ReplyDelete
  176. quick question to you atheists out there, atheism believes there is no God. Correct? can you prove there is no God? if so I would like to see the evidence, technically if you believe there is no God than it means you have faith that you are right because there is no evidence to back you up. and btw if you are a true atheist than you HAVE to believe there is no god it leaves no other conclusion. there are other people out there called agnostics who say they really don't know weather there is a god or not. they still are religious
    because they have their own beliefs system but do not rely on faith therefore technically they are a religion too. any time you have a system of believes than we call those beliefs religion. science cannot prove that the earth formed over millions of years so therefore that belief is a religion too. but yea atheism is a religion. you call it science but technically it doesn't fit the real definition of

    science: "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."

    evilution cannot be tested through a scientific method of any kind and therefore does not qualify as science.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Atheism believes there is no GOD?

      Quit trying to word it to sound like we have a belief system.

      Atheists don't believe in ANYTHING!

      That is not a fucking religion!

      You don't believe in homosexuality? OMG you must be a cock sucking faggot then!

      Delete
  177. The only reason dumb fucks like you try to push this non-argument is because you cant debate the real point at hand which is whether or not there is a god.

    ReplyDelete
  178. Whane,

    So you believein the concept of truth? Apparently yes by your comment. Is truth absolute?

    ReplyDelete
  179. I don't believe in anything. Quit assuming that all Atheists think the same way. I guess diversity defies your logic. Assuming that Atheism is a religion would mean that religion is constant and a requirement.

    Religion was invented, therefor not everyone is religious.

    That is like saying "People who don't play sports are lying because they walk on a daily basis" or "Even though you don't have a car you still have a car because you thought about having a car one time"

    It just makes no sense! I really dislike people like you.

    ReplyDelete
  180. None of the arguments that you atheists gave here worked with the courts, and therefore are meaningless here. Those courts stating that that Atheism IS a religion and should be treated as such.
    But, I suppose some think they know more than the lawyers that tried to argue the case or the learned judge(s) that decided this matter.
    Face it...the courts say your wrong. Get over it.

    ReplyDelete
  181. In it ruling, the Seventh U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Wisconsin prison officials were mistaken when they did not recognize atheism as a religion. The court stated that atheism is inmate's religion and that the group he wished to start "was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being."

    ReplyDelete
  182. The main problem with your argumentation is that you misunderstand and misrepresent atheism itself.
    An "atheist" is not even a thing. A buddhist could be an atheist. Or a Bahá'í follower. Atheism simply and ONLY means a lack of a belief in a deity.
    It does not follow that an atheist must be a materialist (since the lack of a deity does not mean giving up belief in the supernatural) or believe in evolution.
    And no, atheism does not take faith. Because atheists don't actually deny that there is a God, they just don't choose to believe that there is a God. Get the difference?
    It's one thing to believe there is no God, and another not to believe that there is a God. Technicality, yes, but an important one.
    I know many unreligious people who cannot abide Dawkins, Dennett, Harris or Hitchens, and I know of quite a few religions which have atheist members who don't believe in evolution.
    If you're going to categorize a term, at least look up the definition first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >>Atheism simply and ONLY means a lack of a belief in a deity.

      Yes, we understand that is the claim YET, even the dictionary of terms disagree. I show you in the following post:

      bit.ly/lackofbelief

      >>If you're going to categorize a term, at least look up the definition first.

      My irony meter just broke. Thanks a lot.

      Delete
  183. Dan-

    Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

    This seems to be the biggest problem you are having to discern. It's not the illusion of whether an atheist is religious or is a religion, but whether they are agnostic or gnostic.

    Most atheists are agnostic (at least, the sane ones). Likewise, most theists are agnostic (again, mostly the sane ones). Gnostics promote "absolute knowledge". But aren't we on a subject which no one has absolute knowledge because we're speaking on terms of beliefs? ... and not of absolute certainty?

    Even in the field of science, there are what we call "theories" rather than "absolutes". Theories best describe how to use what we do know in practicality. Are theories absolute truth? No. They are the best explanation of truth that we currently have, but could very easily change based upon other circumstances. One specific example is this one: Did Einstein prove Newtonian gravity wrong? In the extremely large and extremely small scale, yes he did. But in Newton's time, there was no concept of multi galaxy sized black holes, or things like neutrinos or quarks. Newtonian gravity equation (f=ma) is still widely used because of it's practicality, therefore, no-Einstein did not prove Newtonian physics wrong (which is why Newtons Theory of Gravity is still taught ... for it's practicality).

    An atheist can profess either one of two things: Either he "knows" there is no god, or that he does not have sufficient reason to believe in one. The first stance, is a gnostic atheist, the second stance is the agnostic atheist.

    Gnostic atheists, are just as detrimental to society as evangelists. They shun others into claiming absolute certainty, when the only way to have a civilized discourse on "belief" is to remain agnostic.

    This sounds to me, the burden you are having, and I hope to have cleared up some of the ambiguity.

    Just to keep in mind though, my main point: Atheism and Agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We know God exists. I don't think this, I know it for certain, as it is impossible to know anything absent certainty.

      I'll show you what I mean: tell me one thing that you know absent certainty?

      >> Most atheists are agnostic (at least, the sane ones).

      Are you absolutely certain of this? If so, how?

      >> Did Einstein prove Newtonian gravity wrong?

      Did a priest give evidence that revealed that Einstein's theory of a steady state universe was incorrect and did Einstein deny said evidence? Yes. I digress.

      We need to bear in mind that anyone who claims science "proves" anything as "true" misunderstands the basic tenets of the scientific method.

      >> An atheist can profess either one of two things: Either he "knows" there is no god, or that he does not have sufficient reason to believe in one. The first stance, is a gnostic atheist, the second stance is the agnostic atheist.

      I reject that premise, as it's my position that you already know God exists. It is the Christian position that God has revealed Himself to all mankind so that we can know for certain who He is. Those who deny His existence are suppressing the truth in unrighteousness to avoid accountability to God. It is the ultimate act of rebellion against Him and reveals the professing atheist's contempt toward God.

      The revelation is not something you can escape. Even if you deny a special revelation, like the Bible you are still in the world of natural revelation. Bahnsen said,

      "Man was created as the image of God (Gen. 1:16-27) and thus cannot escape the face of God. There is no environment where man can flee to escape the revelational presence of God (Ps. 139:8). God’s natural revelation goes out to the end of the world (Ps. 19:1-4) and all people see His glory (Ps. 97:6). Therefore, even when living in open (idolatrous) rebellion, men are in the condition of “knowing God” (Rom. 1:21)—the living and true God, not merely “a god.” Christ enlightens every man (John 1:9), and so Calvin declares: For we know that men have this unique quality above the other animals, that they are endowed with reason and intelligence and that they bear the distinction between right and wrong engraved in their conscience. Thus there is no man to whom some awareness of the eternal light does not penetrate...the common light of nature, a far lowlier thing than faith (Calvin’s Commentaries, tr. T.H.L. Parker; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans 1959)." ~Bahnsen, Greg; Booth, Robert (2011-03-03). Always Ready: Directions for Defending the Faith

      In other words, you know He exists and by crying "where is the evidence" is denying your own existence. Its absurd to reason with someone that is actually denying their own existence, all the while, demanding evidence for God.

      Basically, you're absolutely wrong and you know it, but deny it. So answer this, how do you know what you claim to know, and how are you certain your reasoning is valid? Also, is it viciously circular to reason your reasoning is valid? If not, why not?

      Delete
  184. Do you at least understand the notion that I am making?

    That agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive?

    If you can't understand, then perhaps not.


    And no, I truly do not know if he exists. If i did, I'd be a gnostic, but since I don't, I remain agnostic. This is where "faith" comes into play. You either have faith, or you don't. Faith and trust are two seperate things as well. Faith must be blind, or else faith and trust would be the same definition. Trust however is not blind. Trust is earned.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. My main point and focus is that when a religious person claims absolute certainty on a "belief", what does that mean?

      I mean really, all that tells me is that they are an asshole and that you have no respect for the beliefs of others.

      Belief is not the same thing as certainty. In fact, many people will say they "believe" something precisely when they don't feel certain enough to say they "know" it.

      Delete
    2. >> Do you at least understand the notion that I am making?

      Well, if you don't see the futility of explaining something to someone who cannot account for knowledge, I can't help that. You see, without such an account you can't justify knowing that I have not already answered all of your questions.

      >> Belief is not the same thing as certainty.

      Are you certain of this? If so, how are you certain of it? If not, you have no argument.

      How do you know? How do you know that your reasoning about this, or anything is valid?

      >> I mean really, all that tells me is that they are an asshole and that you have no respect for the beliefs of others. Belief is not the same thing as certainty. In fact, many people will say they "believe" something precisely when they don't feel certain enough to say they "know" it.

      You are confusing a feeling of certainty with actual certainty. One cannot BE certain of something which is not true. Since you admit that one can BE certain, then that some feel certain does not defeat actual certainty.

      Besides that, God does not send people to Hell for denying something they are not certain about.

      >> People believe things all the time without being absolutely certain.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how? If not, you have no argument.

      Delete
  185. People believe things all the time without being absolutely certain.

    When the lotto chances are shown (1 in 6 billion chance to win), do you believe in the odds?

    What about when someone tells you that fluoride is good? Or when they tell you that fluoride is bad? Do you believe them?

    Which Beatles song was the greatest? Do you believe Paul McCartney to be more talented of a singer than John Lennon?

    Honestly, your religion isn't going to answer these questions. They are beliefs. Not facts. You can feel strongly in a belief, but as far as actual knowing the direct answer to every question, they are too subjective.

    Your religion isn't very much different than the other Abrahamic religions, and thats why to atheists and agnostics alike, they can't seem to understand why when something is so similar such as these three that people are willing to die to justify their beliefs. It's absurd, and scares the crap out of us.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you certain that God cannot reveal some things to us such that we can know them for certain, if so, how are you certain of this?

      I understand your resistance to knowledge though.

      You fail to see that the very making of an assertion implies that it is true, and not relatively true. For instance ... "all men are mortal" implies that every man, in every case, is mortal. "God exists" implies that God exists, not just "for me". That's the nature of making unqualified assertions such as "nothing is absolute"; they imply that what is being stated is absolutely true.

      The entire atheistic worldview is necessarily based upon a relativistic worldview, and due to that, they must necessarily deny the existence of absolutes. These obviously ridiculous claims stem from the fact that they do not believe in a universal, abstract higher authority that has defined absolutes.

      The only possible way that we can know anything for certain is by Divine revelation from One who knows everything. God has revealed some things to us so that we can be certain of them.

      Now, your turn. How is it possible for you to know anything for certain?

      Delete
  186. I don't know anything for certain.

    Anyone who claims otherwise, would vouche that strapping a bomb to themselves in the name of their god would be a worthwhile venture.

    It's because of people like you, that Osama Bin Laden, Anders Breivik, Fred Phelps, and even Hitler exist. Because they can't seem to understand the difference between a belief, and a certainty, and that they can't live peacefully with others, because their dogma denies it.

    If God has shown you the way, perhaps you'd entertain whether how moral your god is. One who condones slavery, rape, casting aside people for their sexuality, or even genocide, would not be one which I'd be a part of even if he did exist. My morals are higher than these claims and if you want to do some research in your own book you so want to adhere and cling to, I'll provide reference:

    Condoning Slavery: Leviticus 25:44-46
    Condoning Rape: Deuteronomy 22:28-29
    Kill All Homosexuals: Leviticus 20:13
    Murder and Genocide: Joshua 6:17-21

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >> I don't know anything for certain.

      Are you absolutely certain of that? If so, how?

      You see, I am merely showing the absurdity of your atheistic worldview.

      Delete
  187. Before we address the verses you have made some assumptions of your point that you will have to defend before the claim is even valid. Like Razi Zacharias said that I highlight in one of my posts, you have just invoked a moral law, or standard in raising that claim that your worldview cannot account for. That is your presupposition of the claim, is it not? Otherwise, the claim self destructs.

    ReplyDelete
  188. How can I claim that I don't know anything for certain?

    Because I'm agnostic-- that's the point.

    I really truly don't know!

    I "tried" to know, by reading the bible, twice actually, but my own morals from modern society tell me that killing and raping is not a very good thing to do! Anders Breivik's court case is coming up, perhaps he'll get around their laws due to his Christian faith and militance?

    =)

    ReplyDelete
  189. Why are you asking if I am absolutely certain about not knowing anything?

    I already discussed that I don't believe in absolute certainty. Why would I be absolutely certain of that notion?

    Of course I'm not.

    “ Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. ”
    — Voltaire

    “ There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. ”

    — John Stuart Mill

    ReplyDelete
  190. Just because my worldview is that I see the world as a cruel and dark place, does not mean that I choose to advocate it's natural goal or process.

    You're confusing atheists with social darwinists, and it's despicable. Social Darwinism was thrown out and dismissed a long time ago by the sane.

    All religion attempts to do is to list a set of unchanging morals. 6000-2000 years ago, those morals were likely the earliest ground work for a basic set of morals for that time period, but unlike religion, societies morals evolve, just as we do. To disprove social evolution, you'd have to disprove evolution itself (however it is welcome to the challenge, unlike a god which isn't falsifiable by design).

    Let me ask you a simple question. Since god is presupposed, do you also suppose free will exists? If so, how?

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>