Atheism is a religion.
Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.
Posts
Total:
317
-->
@borz_kriffle
"If you would like to discuss the actual question in the title, I can explain how that is a terrible statement, but that has been bugging me this whole time."
Go ahead and explain please, you have the floor, you are on the air .
It's called weak atheism and the term weak atheism is not an insult. What a weird way to bring tjisnup
-->
@Mall
OMG, are you really pastor Jim Bakker? You are obviously no Nietzsche.
-->
@Mall
Atheism is a religion
Isnt Christianity a religion too?
Like, what part of your brain needs to die to think that "it is a religion" is actually a valid argument against atheism but not against Christianity?
-->
@Mall
So, which of the 3000 Gods did you choose to believe in?
-->
@Mall
“No evidence” is actually the main way we dismiss everything in this world, and it works pretty great. Let’s give some examples:
Your phone glitches out randomly, becoming unresponsive for a couple seconds. You are worried it might do this again, so you check the WiFi connection to make sure that didn’t mess up. There’s nothing wrong with your WiFi, the router seems normal, so you go to your friend who works as a technician at the local phone repair place, and he does a free evaluation. He says it’s a touchscreen issue, and offers to repair it for a beer.
Tell me, would you still insist that it could just be the router?
You’re the judge for a murder case, and you have a bad feeling about the defendant. However, once you need to deliver a verdict, there’s only 2 pieces of evidence, and both seem to point towards his innocence. Not to mention that many character witnesses attested to his gentle and loving personality.
Would you still say he’s guilty?
Finally, you’re enjoying a hot cup of joe when your 8 year old runs into the room and says that he saw a unicorn outside. When you go to its supposed location, there is no trace of anything.
Would you even entertain the thought that there’s a unicorn in your backyard?
All of these situations illustrate different situations in which you lack evidence for a conclusion. In the first, you have an expert telling you the true cause of something and have seen nothing that might prove them wrong, much less you right. Very similar to the evolution “debate”. In the second, you have a pre-existing belief with no real evidence backing it. Then, you receive some imperfect evidence to the contrary. Still, no rational person would stick with their prior feeling, especially with human suffering on the line. Reminds me of the homophobic rhetoric the Christian’s regularly support. Finally, in the final example, we have a truly supernatural occurrence witnessed by a less-developed human, and there appears to be no evidence behind both belief or disbelief. So why, then, do most people choose disbelief in this situation? The answer is quite simple: in some cases, the lack of evidence for an event is actually evidence for the contrary. It may seem like neither side has solid footing here, but the lack of hoofprints, droppings, or hairs from the unicorn actually count as evidence against it, due to the fact that we have never observed instances in which an event in our realm left no evidence of itself behind. Not to mention the innate fallibility of your source here, which leads me to the disbelief of all holy books that describe effectual supernatural events.
To conclude, the Antitheist position that I hold, which asserts that there definitively is no god and if there is they are not worthy of worship, is admittedly a very strong stance to take on something widely debated. But the experts have explained the events, the many tiny flaws in most religions show its unlikeliness to be true, and the fact that the only evidence we have for miracles is anecdotal and reliant on comparatively uneducated witnesses just makes it easier and easier for me to definitively state that god does not exist.
-->
@borz_kriffle
Finally, you’re enjoying a hot cup of joe when your 8 year old runs into the room and says that he saw a unicorn outside. When you go to its supposed location, there is no trace of anything.Would you even entertain the thought that there’s a unicorn in your backyard?
Yes I would. I am going outside to investigate. He likely saw something and used the language available to him to express that. Language is a tool and is not meant to be taken so literal.
This is what fundamentalist and militant atheists get wrong. Language is a tool that expresses the meaning and not the meaning itself.
The universe quite obviously has a creator BTW.
-->
@WyIted
You seem to have misunderstood. You have already investigated, and there is not a single thing that suggests the presence of any kind of hoofed creature, much less a mythical one. In the same way that I can look at the Bible and prove many of its passages factually incorrect or lacking evidence. I have done my research, investigated the scene, and nothing suggests even a minor amount of supernatural influence.
And that’s a helluva claim to throw in there, are you about to contingent me to death? Because… not necessarily lol.
-->
@borz_kriffle
You seem to have misunderstood. You have already investigated, and there is not a single thing that suggests the presence of any kind of hoofed creature,
This comes down to linguistics. You are picturing language as a solid thing. If you hear the word sun, you probably have a very solid picture of "the sun" in your head. However language is not the truth and it is incapable of precisely describing truth. It is a tool. When the kid says unicorn, he probably saw a guy outside his window with his dick out and thinks the penis is a unicorns horn. This is why you take the kid seriously. No there is not a unicorn if you view language as an exact science, which it isn't, but if you see it as a tool for the 8 year old to tell me something is off outside of his window, than I grab my gun and head to the back yard to make sure everything is okay.
Language is neither a hard thing or a completely chaotic thing. It is a soft indicator of reality and carries a meaning that is imprecise. The fundamentalist and militants see it as an exact thing and are wrong, while your Marxist and leftist types see language as chaotic, which it is not.
-->
@borz_kriffle
And that’s a helluva claim to throw in there, are you about to contingent me to death? Because… not necessarily lol.
I don't have time to explain actually but if you just trust it is true and observe the universe with that presupposition, things begin to make more sense, but then again it depends on how you interpret the word "creator"
-->
@WyIted
it depends on how you interpret the word "creator"
Whoever created this world is either insane either psychopath, and since Christian God fits both of those descriptions, one can conclude he probably exists. Problem solved.
I am a Christian by the way.
-->
@Mall
Atheists do not believe.
That there is a known deity.
Because deistic hypotheses are based on weak evidence.
And the title would benefit from a bit of grammatical tinkering.
Though for sure, in terms of lexical definition, any repetition of thought or behaviour can be regarded as religious.
Such is the variability of words and definition.
-->
@borz_kriffle
You’re the judge for a murder case, and you have a bad feeling about the defendant. However, once you need to deliver a verdict, there’s only 2 pieces of evidence, and both seem to point towards his innocence. Not to mention that many character witnesses attested to his gentle and loving personality.Would you still say he’s guilty?
It wouldn't' be up to the judge , would it? It would be up to the most powerful people in the court room: the Jury, to conclude innocence or guilt..
It would be right that the Judge in his summing up to point out the "two pieces of evidence that seem to point to the defendants innocence". For the Judge not to do this could lead to a miscarriage of justice.
Your phone glitches out randomly, becoming unresponsive for a couple seconds. You are worried it might do this again, so you check the WiFi connection to make sure that didn’t mess up. There’s nothing wrong with your WiFi, the router seems normal, so you go to your friend who works as a technician at the local phone repair place, and he does a free evaluation. He says it’s a touchscreen issue, and offers to repair it for a beer.Tell me, would you still insist that it could just be the router?
😂 It would depend on you accepting the free offer by the friend to repair the phone and its outcome?
Unicorn
How old are you?
-->
@Stephen
Wow, thanks for refusing to interact with me on any meaningful level. I’m 20, and I don’t give that much of a shit about how court works. Maybe if you took that stick out of your ass you might be able to understand where I’m coming from, but I can tell you like the prostate stimulation.
-->
@FLRW
Ok do you agree with the topic statement as true?
-->
@Best.Korea
No part .
-->
@Best.Korea
The same one atheist does, the belief in yourself, belief in man . Not to the same extent but just like what the scripture says, ye are gods.
-->
@Mall
Atheists that believe no God exists due to no evidence known is a weak basis.Atheism is a religion.
Sorry but your atheist test came in. You’re 99.99…% atheist.
-->
@Mall
The same one atheist does, the belief in yourself
Ah yes, do that which gives you highest chance of survival.
On the other hand.
Theists that belive a God exists due to no evidence known is a strong basis.
I mean.
Weak basis
Actually.
Its not weak nor strong.
Its fucken mental.
Oh thats unlessssss, you've actually meet god.
Then my bad.
But you have to of meet him.
And asked him or he told you . ( What religious group should i be in )
Becauseeeeeeee.
If god didnt personaly tell you what religious group you should be in , and you just kinda like picked it.
Went like . IMA JOIN THATA ONE.
And you are gonna follow every word that group to a T, for the rest of your entire life
Thennnnnnnnnnnn.
Your a fucken mentel.
Believing in a God is piss easy.
I can do it watch. Hummmmmm.
Bam, see i belive.
Butggttttt.
Picking a religious group.
Men
Fucking
tell.
Ya Freestyling
Atheists know full well that the ( abs of evi ) is NOT the ( evi of abs )
Thats , " Whithin reason "
Ifffff you belive in god...
And fill up a hat with alllllllll these different religious groups.
Ya won't pick out atheist.
As it wouldn't be in there wouod it.?
Nor would you pick out audio electrician.
-->
@borz_kriffle
You’re the judge for a murder case, and you have a bad feeling about the defendant. However, once you need to deliver a verdict, there’s only 2 pieces of evidence, and both seem to point towards his innocence. Not to mention that many character witnesses attested to his gentle and loving personality.Would you still say he’s guilty?It wouldn't' be up to the judge , would it? It would be up to the most powerful people in the court room: the Jury, to conclude innocence or guilt..It would be right that the Judge in his summing up to point out the "two pieces of evidence that seem to point to the defendants innocence". For the Judge not to do this could lead to a miscarriage of justice.Your phone glitches out randomly, becoming unresponsive for a couple seconds. You are worried it might do this again, so you check the WiFi connection to make sure that didn’t mess up. There’s nothing wrong with your WiFi, the router seems normal, so you go to your friend who works as a technician at the local phone repair place, and he does a free evaluation. He says it’s a touchscreen issue, and offers to repair it for a beer.Tell me, would you still insist that it could just be the router?😂 It would depend on you accepting the free offer by the friend to repair the phone and its outcome?UnicornHow old are you?Wow, thanks for refusing to interact with me on any meaningful level.
It was meaningful. You made errors with your examples causing them to be redundant.
I’m 20, and I don’t give that much of a shit about how court works.
Well you should have at least know what the fk you were talking about before using a redundant subject as your example /s
Maybe if you took that stick out of your ass you might be able to understand where I’m coming from,
I don't have a stick up my ass, but a do have a reasonable head of common sense that was able - in your case - to show you that your examples are redundant.
but I can tell you like the prostate stimulation.
Indeed you have claimed to have been able to "tell us" and "explain" without effort many things as to where you are "coming from", but have failed miserable thus far.
So, prostate aside, were exactly are you "coming from"? What are you trying to convey exactly?
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
It would be funny if you googled "List of religions" and found atheism on the list which first comes up.
Being an atheist is hard. You have bunch of religious people who stereotype you into oblivion so to them you are either possessed either evil with no 3rd option. Might as well be Satanist.
If it was a religion.
Female atheists would be less ummmmm, "important" then Male atheist.
And id be like a level 5 atheist.
Thats a dubbie bop..
The grand master Atheist would be known assss a ( blank. )
-->
@Stephen
Since you seem to have failed to comprehend any of the last 2 paragraphs, I’ll spell it out for you:
We have found explanations for almost everything in this world. With research, we continue to find more. The evidence always points away from the supernatural. The only people who recorded miracles did so on paper and had the education of a 12th grader at most, not to mention that they didn’t have glasses. That is the reason that I don’t believe in a god, and actively assert his nonexistence. Because everything leaves evidence except for him.
If you asked every theist on site.
Are they in a religious group ?
What might you expect the answer to be. ?
If you ask every atheist on site .
Are they in a religious group. ?
What might you expect the answer to be. ?
Just have it a guess.
Buttttttttt
People that believe no unicorns exist due to no evidence known.
Is not a weak basis.
What are Some things that don't exist.
Give me 5.
What about things that don't exist With evidence that they do.
-->
@Deb-8-a-bull
What are Some things that don't exist. Give me 5.
More than 5 regular/symmetrical and convex polyhedra cannot ever exist anywhere anytime.
God = finite, occupied space Universe. Simple not that complex to grasp by logical, common sense critical thinking humans
However, if we want to also include the two other catagories of Cosmic Trinary Set/Outline, then we put the word God in italics because of Meta-space.
God = 1 } the eternally existent, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego--- ex humans who conceptually place their conceptual self outside of conceptually finite Universe as if they exist are a conceptual God looking back in a that finite Universe, held in its conceptual his/her/their hands,
2} the eternally existent, macro-infinite truly non-occupied space, that, embraces/surrounds the following,
3} the eternally dynamic { in motion } --aka the only perpetual motion machine--- finite, occupied space Universe, and then begins its three primary subcatagories
....Gravity ( )....reality ^v^v....Dark Energy )( ergo a gross generalization as > ..........space.............( ^v^v)(^v^v)..........space....... simplistic concept
Some might say its is 3's all way the down { subcatagories } --instead of turtles--- and that is certainly true with the following fermionic matte subcatagory of observed -reality- time;
Some might say its is 3's all way the down { subcatagories } --instead of turtles--- and that is certainly true with the following fermionic matte subcatagory of observed -reality- time;
3 particle 3 anti-particle --electron family
3 particle and 3 anti-particle --- neutrino family
6 quarks and 6 anti-quarks ---" The six quark types are named "up," "down," "charm," "strange," "top," and "bottom. "
And that above is a set of three of in-of-itself also.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there are the bosoninc force particles;
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Then there are the bosoninc force particles;
Weak interaction force is W-, W+ and Z naught { 0 } and their three anti-particles total 6
Gluons { bosonic strong force } that binds quark together are mathematically potentially nine { 3 - 3 - 3 and 3 - 3 - 3 anti-particle } and for some reason beyond my grasp, only 8 gluons are manifest. And of course the 8 anti-particle gluons.
Mesonic force is weird as it is are two matter quarks being exchanged between the three quark heavy particles like proton and neutron
This leaves us with the odd-ball out of the above set of three --tho Mesons are odd-ball out also-- the Electro-magnetic { photons bosons } is a two-some not a trinary three-some. Photons considered non-charged particles and are their own anti-particle and primarily interact with electrons and 2ndarily with any charged particle.
I would love to find a third property of the photon so as it fits into a trinary subcatagory. Perhaps none exist.
-->
@Mall
Ok do you agree with the topic statement as true?
No