3/24 acknowledging God != religion
\_ More to the point, acknowledging God != establishing religion
Religion is a very exact way of trying to approch God.
Atheist acknowledge the absence of God , whether he exists
or not, they are establishing the fact that he could exist
and that is either religious or not religious, Either way,
not stating God is either establishing atheism as a religion
or stating God is not religious but acknowledging he could
exist.
\_ Not stating God is not stating Atheism.
Stating there is no God is stating Atheism.
\_ I think you're confusing Atheism with agnosticism. Atheism is
a religion.
\_ 'Strong' Atheism = "There is no God."
'Weak' Atheism = "The case for God remains unproven."
\_ I think you're confusing Atheism with agnosticism. Atheism
is a religion.
\_ Religion: 1. The outward act or form by which men
indicate their recognition of the existence of a
god or of gods having power over their destiny.
So, atheism is by definition not a religion. -tom
\_ Definitions of religion and atheism are fluid and
sticky. Here's one way to look at it: religion can be
defined as a belief system based on faith, not proof.
An atheist believes God doesn't exist even if it can't
be proven that God doesn't exist. A Christian believes
God exists even if it can't be proven that God exists.
So both are religions. Agnostics are actually less of
a religion, since agnostics aren't sure either way and
need some sort of proof to make up their minds.
\_ alt.atheism agrees with you, tom is a twink
\_ alt.atheism claims that atheism is a religion?
I think not.
\_ Well I believe religion involves a system of belief.
Not just existence/nonexistence. You could say that
simple theism isn't a religion, and I'd could agree,
but who is just a theist without any further belief?
You'd be believing there's a god without any notion
or system of behavior associated with it, which is
pretty rare, basically impossible depending on your
definition of what god is.
\_ Religion cannot be defined as "a belief system based
on faith, not proof." Well, you can define it that
way, but your definition will have no validity
outside of your own skull.
\_ m-w has 4 definitions for religion, one of them
is "a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held
to with ardor and faith", and one of the
definitions of faith is "firm belief in something
for which there is no proof", so I don't think
the definition given is "invalid". I understand
that it's not your definition, and that's fine.
\_ In addition to having no clue theoolgically,
you also can't read a dictionary. -tom
\_ Good point. And while I do not believe in
Santa Claus, I have no definitive proof that
the occasional present that noone has any
idea who gave it is not, in fact, from
Santa. So, I guess I am religious.
In addition, believing something *does* exist, with
no proof, is not the same as believing something
*doesn't* exist. The burden of proof is on the
person who claims that something exists--if there's
no evidence that something exists, why should
anyone believe it does? So atheism isn't even
a belief system--it's just an examination of the
available facts. -tom
\_ Why is it more natural to assume that something
doesn't exist than to assume it does? -- ilyas
\_ because the set of things that exist is
finite, and the set of things that don't
exist is infinite. -tom
\_ The set of things that exist is not
necessarily finite. No one knows how large
the Universe is. Also, a more reasonable
rule is that the burden of proof is on
the person whose hypothesis is more
'expensive'. For instance, I think the sun
exists, and someone might not. The burden
of proof ought not be on me, it seems.
You can argue that God is more expensive to
assume than no God, but that's a whole
separate discussion. Personally, I believe
even that rule is too rigid, and that
the burden of proof is on anyone who
proposes anything, regardless of what
their hypothesis claims. -- ilyas
\_ Just because a set is finite doesn't
mean you can't add to it. Besides,
God is more expensive because he
wants 10% of your income.
\_ huh? how can you quantify things that
do not exists?
\_ set of possibilities != existing
\_ take a math course please
\_ haha= so ZERO = INFINITY?
\_ Because there's no evidence for it. Things that
exist have evidence for their existence.
\_ so why do you ignore the fact that millions
if not billions of people believe in God?
That was be circumstantial evidence to prove
that you must as an atheist acknowledge the
the possibility that God does exist.
\_ What other people believe isn't relevant to
truth. We know lots of cases in history
where people believed something untrue.
Additionally, the fact that all these people
can't agree on the nature of god, and have
lots of variations, and often don't act as
if they truly believe what they say, and
when asked admit they don't really know for
sure and rely on faith, can be seen as
against the existence of god. In fact,
observational evidence tells me there's no
sign of any god and never has been.
\_ Are you trying to convert me by speaking in
tongues? Millions of people believe that
Britney Spears has talent, that doesn't make
it true. -tom
\_ alt.atheism agrees with you, tom is a twink
\_ I'm not confusing anything. I simply offered a definition
that you disagree with.
\_ him and the entire secular society that knows anything
\_ "There is not Santa Claus" -Would you say this is also a
religion, by your above definition? How about "There are no
underpants gnomes"?
\_ just stating the existance of something doesn't make that
a religion.
\_ I'm not entirely sure what you're getting at here. All
I'm saying is that it's difficult to prove the
nonexistance of anything. Atheists believe there is no
God. Religion is just a question of existance that is
so important it defines a person's view of the universe.
I don't think the existance or nonexistance of Santa
Clause carries the same wieght.
\_ Huh? What kind of circular run-on talk is this?
\_ If you're not informed enough to know the distinction between
an atheist and an agnostic, why should we listen to your poorly
worded and convoluted thoughts on religion and presumably its
role in government? |