I believe that God doesn’t exist the same way that I believe there’s not a Bengal tiger crouched behind me right now.
While I’m willing to concede that there’s a tiny chance I might be wrong in both instances, I’m still going to proceed as though both beliefs are absolutely correct. There are an infinite number of unlikely things that might be true. Life is too short to spend it worrying about unsupported hypotheticals.
No, but mine are. Which is a point you are entirely missing.
Umm…you do realize that you have not remotely demonstrated an “irrefutable and universal reality that there are no gods”…right?
Before you try to advance your view any further, you might wanna tackle that. It’s kind of a biggie. The rest of your argument is dependent on our accepting that fundamental premise.
We were talking about my belief that there are no gods. That’s an entirely separate issue from whether or not there are–in fact–any gods. “I disbelieve in all gods” is a true statement for me. What on earth is your point?
I don’t know why you keep getting confused on this.
Right, I haven’t. Most of my comments were about pointing out the crucial distinction between people just taking about their beliefs and that the universe and its laws are not dependent on the human awareness of them.
Fine. You believe that there are no gods. That much you’ve said more than once.
The next step for you is to figure out whether your belief happens to agree with the reality of the universe.
Well, I’ll assume Cyning hasn’t run into anything that can only be explained by invoking a god, but I’m sure we’d all like to hear another testing methodology if you know of one.
The existence of a Bengali tiger behind you can be falsified by looking over your shoulder, or (if it’s wearing an invisibility cloak) poking the air with a large, pointy stick. Additionally, whereas the presumed existence of God is generally irrelevant, being stalked by a crouching tiger is VERY relevant and requires immediate investigation! :eek:
I agree completely, but that’s not the current debate. Instead, what we’ve got here is a bunch of hysterical people blathering about the non-existence of God, with NO citations or other support, using juvenile arguments which basically boil down to, “I know you are, but what am I?” Frankly, I’m starting to regret broaching the subject. :rolleyes:
Ah, an English major. You’re still in college. That explains a lot. (Cf. my OP about me, back when I was in college.)
(Besides…English major? Really? You say that to express some kind of authority or to impress me? LOL! 
)
No, not really. True, the sentence can stand alone grammatically, but not conceptually. For that, we have to look at context. (Did they teach you about “context” in English Major school? :D) “Religion” is a term that is used especially–the dictionary’s word, not mine–with respect to the following dependent clause (which involves superhuman agencies, devotions/rituals, moral codes, etc, none of which atheism has).
But let’s put all that aside for a moment. Let’s instead–for a moment–go with that tiny rhetorical window that the comma and the “esp.” left you with…
x-ray vision has already addressed this. What remains is,
Atheism STILL can’t be considered a “religion” because it has nothing to say about the purpose of the universe. Please note–my esteemed English Major interlocutor–that the operative conjunction between “cause, nature, and purpose” is not “or” but “and”. “AND purpose.” Atheism has nothing to say about purpose, ergo it cannot meet even this artificially whittled down definition.
Ask for your tuition money back.
But let’s grant you the benefit of the doubt AGAIN, and assume for a moment that atheism met this definition (even though it doesn’t), and that an ideology needn’t have a doctrine on “purpose” to meet the definition’s requirements.
If then we’re only talking about cosmic CAUSE and NATURE, then guess what!
Physics is a religion!
You really wanna go there? :eek:
As I said, ask for a tuition refund. Either that, or at least abandon your silly, juvenilely convoluted attacks on atheism.
It ain’t a religion. Get a grip, and get over it.
Now you’re changing the subject at hand.
Interesting post. And I appreciate the measured tone.
I’m glad you included “(seem to)” in your post.
I do not think “witnessing” per se, is ever a liability. It speaks well of you that your convictions are such that you wish to share something you value with others; in this case your atheism.
Now of course, either there is a Capital G God, or there is not. If there is not, there may be no liability at all; you may live a happy life unencumbered with the [perceived] burdens of religion.
If there is a God, it is possible, if not likely, that your atheism may become a liability. There is no shortage of people to advise you as to how that liability may manifest itself; hell, destruction or other ways a living God may demonstrate his displeasure with you.
In any event, IMV your faith----or rather the ‘moral certainty’ of your atheism----is strong enough that it doesn’t allow the possibility that this God may actually exist. In other words, your post assumes that there is no downside to your atheism.
So…if it seemed I was “impugning” your atheism or motivations, I apologize. And I, like you, respect the act of proselytizing, and respect your OP. If while poking a little fun I appeared to be critical, then I apologize.
You’ve got every right to come here and share your views.
Even when they’re wrong. :D;)
It is the HEIGHT of hypocrisy to accuse us of “blathering about…with NO citations or other support”…
…when we are STILL waiting on your “evidence” for “higher intelligence”.
:dubious:
Thanks, raindog, for the sensible reply. 
I’m sure it quietly slinks away right before I turn around.
It is trivially easy to generate an unending stream of hypothetical propositions that are unsupported by empirical evidence:
“There’s a Bengal tiger crouched behind me.”
“There’s a teapot in orbit around the sun.”
“There’s a hidden cavern in Mt. Everest filled with peanuts.”
“There’s a supreme being who can perform miracles.”
“There’s a pig in Brazil who can speak Mandarin.”
…
If every unsupported hypothetical must be actively disproven in order to be discounted, then rational thought becomes impossible. We quickly find ourselves drowning in a sea of “maybes”. The only rational way to proceed is to treat all unsupported hypotheticals as provisionally false, but be willing to reconsider should new evidence present itself.
It’s also quite possible that God prefers skeptics to believers. After all, if he does exist he’s done a good job of hiding any evidence of himself. That suggests that he doesn’t want to be found. Perhaps Hell is full of the faithful and it’s only the atheists who (to their great surprise) enter Paradise.
You know, you really are running a terrible risk of eternal damnation by continuing to believe in God.
Are you seriously attempting to dissect the subtext of a dictionary? Maybe you dropped out of school before understanding this, but when it comes to precision of words, a dictionary text is about as black and white as it gets!
No, but apparently you do. :rolleyes:
And FYI, I earned my college degree many years ago…not that it did me much good, as any college grad will attest.
Exactly!
Which, of course, is what makes pure atheism no different than religion – or, at least, it’s a system of faith which requires no proof, no empirical support, and allows no room for contrary arguments – just like organized religion. At least, that’s what this current 3rd-grade recess spat has apparently devolved into. :rolleyes:
Atheism is not a belief, requires no faith and is absolutely open to evidence. Anytime you want to show us that evidence, we’re all ears.
Does this tactic of trying to pretend that atheism is a religion ever actually work to convert anybody?
Now of course, either there is a Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God, or another Capital G God…or there is not. The religionists get to worry about picking the right one for the rest of their lives, while the atheists worry about getting a parking spot next to entrance at work.
Guess which one is less stressful in the long run?
Which is why “pure atheism” is very rare. Most atheists are perfectly willing to admit that there’s a tiny chance they might be wrong. But, of course, that doesn’t mean much. Because there’s a tiny chance we might be wrong about EVERYTHING, not just the existence of God.
For example, I currently believe that I’m sitting on a futon in Los Angeles typing on a laptop. However, I’ll admit that there’s a tiny chance that I might be mistaken in this belief. Perhaps I’m really a disembodied brain in a Matrix-like simulation. Perhaps I’m really Louis XVI in the middle of a very elaborate dream. I can’t be absolutely certain that I’m not. In fact, if presented with the proper evidence (waking up next to Marie Antoinette, for example) I might even reconsider my current position on the matter. However, without any such evidence, I’ll stick to my current “sitting on a futon in L.A.” theory.
If you want to call my belief that I’m not Louis XVI in the middle of a dream a “system of faith”, you’re certainly welcome to. But it seems like an awful stretch.
The fact that you’ve been unable to prevail in this discussion does not mean that it’s a “3rd-grade recess spat”. If you’re uncomfortable arguing your position, perhaps Great Debates is not the forum for you.
I’ve noticed that most people on the atheism=religion side of the debate seem to simply not know how to reason. Not that they are stupid or anything, just that they don’t understand that the burden of evidence is on the guy with the claim.
Not believing a needlessly complex, physics-defying clam with no evidence to support it isn’t pig-headed or faith based. It’s reasonable.
Meh. They’ve been trained since childhood to believe in the sky pixie, and find it astonishingly self-evident that everyone else does, too, even the atheists who won’t admit it out of sheer stubbornness.
I think you miss the point. They understand that extremely well. That’s why they want to say that atheism is a religion in the first place. That’s why they want to kid themselves atheists are making a claim. The religious have no evidence for their claims, so they can only resort to the desperate suggestion the guys who doubt their claims are (by doing so) making a claim. Which is just breathtakingly stupid, but there you go.