Is it just me or is Atheism a religion?

Philosphy Forum ^ | FR Post 12-6-2003 | "A Sloth"

[Loc123]

Thank you for being honest on your source.

Like my example and the many examples of humanist/liberal bias in the media, I would be skeptical about such claims. This is especially so if the researcher's meal ticket is dependant on sensationalism/their research has no practical application.

[#3Fan]

I don't remember what the show was but it seemed credible and they weren't liberal since liberals are anti-Christian, not pro-Christian. Liberals would never admit that animals can sense God. Again if you want to think they were lying, that's fine with me, it was just a minor sidepoint of the larger point I was making that university atheists are indeed preachers, they worship physical laws shortsightedly, and preach their beliefs.

[elfman2]

”A true theist would not take the hypothetical money from the drawer because ”

People are weak, irrespective of their ideology. Attempts to rationalize this away or pitiful.

[wizardoz]

Both are faith based views, mine allows for supernatural events, yours doesn't...but when one backs it up far enough the requirement for one to have transpired is demanded by logic.

I'm sorry, but I can't understand the second half of your response.

[stanz]

There are far worse crimes than saying God doesn't exist. Case in point....certain Roman Catholic priests.

[wizardoz]

1) Science is still based on the faith that our eyes/other senses accurately report the universe. We also assume our brains themselves accurately synthesize those stimuli. For practical purposes we are correct--still, it is a faith.

No, we don't have faith in any such thing. If our eyes tell us something that doesn't jibe with what we already know, we test it by other means. If you saw a bar of lead floating in water, you wouldn't think, "Oh, I guess lead floats after all." You'd test by other means. We subject things to tests all the time. If they behave in a consistent manner we decide that that is what can be expected of them. But there's no faith involved, there is a constant testing and re-testing.

2) Actually, we never imagine infinite. We can right symbols that to us mean "really big number." But no, we cannot actually grasp infinite.

Well, "imagine" and "grasp" aren't the same thing.

3) The Law of Identity is not a law, it is a philosophical criterion. Interestingly, the "law" itself falls before its own assumptions; it cannot explain anything metaphysical.

Can you give me an example?

[Consort]

If you believe in multiple deities, you are probably a long way from atheism. If you believe in one deity, then you might be one short step away from atheism, but you are still in violation of atheism.

[jwalsh07]

Well, if you want to use science and I want to use philosophy, we aren't going to be able to continue. I might as well speak to you in French and have you answer in Chinese. Oh well. We tried.

Right, science has no place in a discussion about the creation of the Universe and the possibilities for the Creator.

[breakem]

It's just you.

[#3Fan]

There are far worse crimes than saying God doesn't exist.

Far worse than killing souls? That's permanant death.

Case in point....certain Roman Catholic priests.

Catholic priests were singled because they're Christian. If you look into the school system, I think you'd find a lot of decadent teachers. They never get bad press though. I live in a mostly Catholic area (although I'm not a Catholic) and I know that in the last few years I've seen more teachers lose their jobs for pedophelia than members of the Catholic Church. As a matter of fact I haven't heard of anyone connected to the Catholic Church here get in any kind of trouble. I think about three teachers have been fired for it though. If the liberal press didn't protect the teacher's union, I'm sure they'd be up there with the Catholic Church making headlines on this issue.

[wizardoz]

"Science" is nothing but the application of scientific theory. As I said, if you apply scientific theory to mysticism, you get scientific-sounding mysticism. No point in that.

[jwalsh07]

And like I said, sophistry is you.

[stanz]

Certain Catholic priests are homosexuals and and/or pedaphiles. I'm not concerned with the soul as much as I am concerned with how we treat each other here and now. That's what matters to me.

[#3Fan]

Certain Catholic priests are homosexuals and and/or pedaphiles.

As are teachers, but teachers don't make national headlines.

I'm not concerned with the soul as much as I am concerned with how we treat each other here and now. That's what matters to me.

How we treat each other and what we believe determines what happens to the soul. You may change your mind about what happens to the soul soon when there will be nothing but the soul.

[#3Fan]

"The Wizard of Oz" was on tonight, did you catch it? :^)

[Loc123]

How would animals being able to "sense God" be pro-Christian?

Also, I brought up my Sagan claim because that too "seemed" credible at the time. Only when--miraculously--a Dr. who studies this very behavior visited our school (he's married to a teacher) did we learn the truth.

[Loc123]

True Christians are not. You are right that most "Christians" are not true and therefore your generalization stands.

None-the-less, true Christians don't care about mammon. One good examples is the Christians fed to the lions.

[#3Fan]

How would animals being able to "sense God" be pro-Christian?

Liberals accept that animals sense things. They wouldn't want to admit they sense God.

Also, I brought up my Sagan claim because that too "seemed" credible at the time. Only when--miraculously--a Dr. who studies this very behavior visited our school (he's married to a teacher) did we learn the truth.

I can't even remember what you said about Sagan. If you don't want to believe what I said, that's fine with me, I know what was said though. It was just a sidepoint to your ridiculous claim that "cavemen" were atheists, ridiculous because there's no way to know.

[Loc123]

1) I think you are misunderstanding my point. We have a level of faith that our eyes accurately report our scientific measurements. We have faith our brains accurately synthesize the info from those measuring devices. I am not talking about mirages here.

2) I'm sorry, but infinite is beyond any understanding. To us it will seem like a huge number, but being infinite we cannot truly even think about it. If you truly believe you can understand, think about--whatever the word-- about infinite then you are either crazy or the Creator. I mean this as a throwback jest, not an insult.

3) Sure. From what I've read, this "law" is basically explaining the limits of our measurement of the universe. It states we cannot measure something that is not in the universe; we cannot measure something metaphysical. Therefore, it is beyond our comprehension. If you truly have faith in this philosophical idea, then you cannot then imagine (or whatever word you want) infinite. But if you believe this in addition to believing you can imagine infinite, then that is cognitive dissonance (agreeing with something but not following it).

Anyways, these are really minor points in the larger debate. If you have any questions about Christianity or the probability of a Creator I would love to answer them :)

[11th_VA]

Put me down as an Orthodox atheist. "...absolutly steadfast in their disbelief in god ...."

You sound pretty dogmatic ...