Atheism is a religion!

[Frank_apisa]

@whorfin

So to ask a follow-up question: Frank, should we be agnostic about gravity? After all, we can’t prove it will be here in the morning.

I’ve never asked anyone for proof of anything…nor have I faulted them for not having proof. I do not think theists can sustain their assertions that there are gods to anywhere near the point of proof…and I do not think atheists who assert there are no gods can sustain their assertions to anywhere near the point of proof.

When theists tell me they “know” there is “a GOD”…I normally just laugh it off and disengage from further conversation or debate. A theist doing that is not going to budge…and I’m not interested in hearing the silly tales of “gaining knowledge” theists use. If there were the kind of GOD who wanted to pretty much establish ITS existence…that could fairly easily be done. In the most technical sense…I guess it wouldn’t be “proof”…but if a GOD informed all of humanity it was going to remove the planet Jupiter from our solar system next Monday at 9:00 AM Eastern Standard Time…and return it to its orbit exactly one year later…I’d probably take that as pretty good evidence. Getting through a bout with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma after drinking water gotten from Lourdes….is not going to do the job.

The “evidence” theists use to substantiate their assertions that there are gods are, in my opinion, laughable.

The “evidence” atheists who assert there are no gods (or who assert it is highly improbable that there are no gods) is every bit as laughable to me.

I understand decent, well-intentioned, honest people can differ with me in both those cases…but that is how I feel.
In my opinion…any theist asserting the existence of gods assumes the burden of sustaining that assertion with reasonable evidence.

In my opinion…any atheist asserting there are no gods assumes the burden of sustaining that assertion with reasonable evidence.

[begbert2]

@Frank_apisa

The “evidence” atheists who assert there are no gods (or who assert it is highly improbable that there are no gods) is every bit as laughable to me.

I wanna hear some of this evidence.

“My god flooded the planet” “Then your god doesn’t exist” seems pretty solid to me. What have you heard that’s flimsy?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Atheists don’t make any assertions. They just make the observation that theists can’t prove their own assertions.

[begbert2]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

Atheists don’t make any assertions. They just make the observation that theists can’t prove their own assertions.

Naw, I make assertions all the time. “Omnimax gods are self-contradictory and therefore don’t exist” is just one of them.

“Chocolate tastes better than charcoal” is another.

[Stealth_Potato]

Some assertions can be sensibly made, even given the absolute understanding that it is possible for even the most well-supported assertions to be incorrect. It is quite sensible to assert X when not-X would be ridiculous to suppose without any evidence, and when such evidence does not and has never existed.

What Frank apisa is arguing – which is the ridiculous epistemological equivocation I addressed in post #122 – is essentially that every assertion of fact is always laughable. I humbly suggest that only some assertions are laughable, and that Frank’s is one of them.

@Frank_apisa

The “evidence” atheists who assert there are no gods (or who assert it is highly improbable that there are no gods) is every bit as laughable to me.

There is no Easter Bunny. Do you find that claim laughable?

[The_Hamster_King]

@Frank_apisa

In my opinion…any atheist asserting there are no gods assumes the burden of sustaining that assertion with reasonable evidence.

Are you also agnostic about Santa Claus? After all, we can’t PROVE that Santa Claus doesn’t exist … .

[figure9]

Since nobody is taking a clear lead in this thread I suggest we settle it once and for all. Whoever uses the most big words in a single sentence wins! Ready set go!

[whorfin]

Frank, I’m not sure you ever answered the question I asked. Let me ask it again, in more detail.

There is no affirmative “evidence” (as you seem to use the term) that, come tomorrow morning, gravity will exist as it does now. All we have is the absence of anything to the contrary.

To expand that: now, there is a theory of gravity that explains why the earth orbits the sun as it does.

We also have billions of years of evidence that that theory described how the universe worked, with no suggestion of an outside force or mechanism that changes how gravity works (if you use the proof astronomers can provide, say from stars far enough away that the light has traveled for billions of years).

We also have hundreds or thousands of years of direct observation that shows (1) that in the past, gravity worked as we think it does, and (2) that there is no observed mechanism that could make it work differently–the same things we get from astronomical observations.

Notably, there is nothing beyond that to prove it’ll be the same tomorrow. All we have is the evidence that gravity always worked that way–that the forces on masses in the observable universe can be explained without needing any unknown mechanism–or nay suggestion that they are affected by some unknown mechanism.

We also have no evidence that there isn’t some unknown mechanism that will change how gravity works at 9.00 AM tomorrow. Why? Because it hasn’t affected us yet–and can’t be detected till it does.

So now the question: Is that sufficient for a reasonable person to assert that gravity will exist tomorrow as it does today?

Second, should a reasonable person remain agnostic, as you describe it, to whether tomorrow, gravity will change in a way inexplicable by modern physics?

You’ve requested on more than one occasion to keep the issues narrow, to ease discussion. I’ll ask you the same thing–right now, I’m asking about gravity, not atheism or gods. I would greatly appreciate it if you’d answer the question I’m actually asking, as I’ve posed it-- even if you disagree with the assumptions I make (that (1) we have plenty of historical and circumstantial evidence that gravity works as we expect, without any influence by an unknown force or unknown mechanism changing how it works, but (2) no evidence other than that as to how gravity will function tomorrow, and no evidence as to whether there is or is not some mechanism that has not affected how gravity works for billions of years, but will do so tomorrow). Doing so would greatly help me understand your argument.

[The_Hamster_King]

@figure9

Whoever uses the most big words in a single sentence wins! Ready set go!

It is incumbent upon those who are aggressively agnostic about the ontological status of deities to elucidate why they refrain from applying their epistemology to more mundane hypotheticals.

[Der_Trihs]

@iophobon

@kanicbird

Atheism is a belief system which one uses to chose certain paths in life. Atheism places the state as the highest authority one can appeal to, and the legal system one falls under. As such it does have rules and laws to follow, and a higher authority to call in times of trouble. In many ways Atheism is a religion of the flesh, it is a very unspiritual religion in general, but does have all the factors of a religion.

I noticed no one had responded to this post a while back so I thought I’d give it a crack.

The first sentence is true but is such a vacuous statement that it literally has no meaning.

Actually, I disagree; it’s flat out wrong. Atheism isn’t a “belief system”; it’s one belief, that gods don’t exist. And that is where the rest of kanicbird’s claim fails; atheism doesn’t say anything about the government, or higher authority. It doesn’t say anything at all, except that there are no gods.

[kanicbird]

@Der_Trihs

Actually, I disagree; it’s flat out wrong. Atheism isn’t a “belief system”; it’s one belief, that gods don’t exist. And that is where the rest of kanicbird’s claim fails; atheism doesn’t say anything about the government, or higher authority. It doesn’t say anything at all, except that there are no gods.

Atheism is as broad and diverse as Theism, as such Atheism should not be compared directly to theistic religions, but to Theism in the broad sense. The subsets of Athestic beliefs can be compared to religions. One that I stated above (The state is the highest authority)

[Der_Trihs]

@kanicbird

Atheism is as broad and diverse as Theism, as such Atheism should not be compared directly to theistic religions, but to Theism in the broad sense. The subsets of Athestic beliefs can be compared to religions. One that I stated above (The state is the highest authority)

No, that’s not atheism. Atheism has nothing to do with your opinion of how the government is supposed to work.

[Fantome]

@kanicbird

Atheism is as broad and diverse as Theism

That’s true. One simply means belief in a god or gods and the other means being without belief in a god or gods.

The subsets of Athestic beliefs can be compared to religions. One that I stated above (The state is the highest authority)

Nope. There are no subsets and an atheist need not have any beliefs about “the state” being the highest authority.

[RitterSport]

@Frank_apisa

I’ve never asked anyone for proof of anything…nor have I faulted them for not having proof. I do not think theists can sustain their assertions that there are gods to anywhere near the point of proof…and I do not think atheists who assert there are no gods can sustain their assertions to anywhere near the point of proof.

OK, well if you find any atheists asserting that and claiming proof, please report back.

@The_Hamster_King

It is incumbent upon those who are aggressively agnostic about the ontological status of deities to elucidate why they refrain from applying their epistemology to more mundane hypotheticals.

This is outstanding. You win!

I hope this isn’t stepping over the line, but it seems clear from this thread that Frank apisa knows he doesn’t know anything, thinks that no one can know anything, and doesn’t want to be told otherwise. It seems like a lost cause to me.

[RitterSport]

@Fantome

Nope. There are no subsets and an atheist need not have any beliefs about “the state” being the highest authority.

Well, you know what they say…there are no atheists in anarchies.

[Czarcasm]

@RitterSport

I hope this isn’t stepping over the line, but it seems clear from this thread that Frank apisa knows he doesn’t know anything, thinks that no one can know anything, and doesn’t want to be told otherwise.

I already knew that, though.

Or did I?

[Der_Trihs]

@RitterSport

I hope this isn’t stepping over the line, but it seems clear from this thread that Frank apisa knows he doesn’t know anything, thinks that no one can know anything, and doesn’t want to be told otherwise.

[Sergeant Schultz]

“I know nothing! Nothing!”

[/Sergeant Schultz]

[DanBlather]

@kanicbird

Atheism is as broad and diverse as Theism, as such Atheism should not be compared directly to theistic religions, but to Theism in the broad sense. The subsets of Athestic beliefs can be compared to religions. One that I stated above (The state is the highest authority)

Not believing in Unicorns is as broad and diverse as Theism. Not believing in Unicorns should not be compared directly to theistic religions, but to Theism in the broad sense. The subsets of not believing in Unicorn beliefs can be compared to religions.

Makes no sense, does it?

[gonzomax]

@kanicbird

Atheism is as broad and diverse as Theism, as such Atheism should not be compared directly to theistic religions, but to Theism in the broad sense. The subsets of Athestic beliefs can be compared to religions. One that I stated above (The state is the highest authority)

How do you make stuff up like that? Almost every country has lots of religions. There are thousands of them fighting for souls and donations. Do you actually believe that atheism, which is simply the rejection of religion, has some kind of complex and varying subsets . Most atheists don’t care what others believe. There is no money in converting the religious nuts to a more logical and ordered world. There is no incentive. No one to please. No reason to do it at all.

[figure9]

I think that before we can decide whether atheism is a religion or not we need to define what a religion is.
A simple definition of religion would be a belief or set of beliefs. This is too simplistic however because it would include people who believe a rabbits foot brings them good luck, or an evil Jewish cabal secretly rules the Earth. Neither of these things would be accepted as a religion.
My definition of a religion is: A belief system based on mythology that provides moral guidelines, has defined rituals, and is organized.
Atheism has no mythology, unless you count the Big Bang, and that is a bit of a stretch.
Atheism provides no moral guidelines that I am aware of.
There are no Atheist rituals.
There are no Atheist ministers, gurus, imams, or popes. In fact there is no organization of any kind.
By my definition Atheism is not a religion. When I looked up religion in the dictionary Atheism did not meet its criteria. Look up religion in your dictionary and see what you think.