Why Do Atheist Care So Much About...

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

Oh, come now, squire. We're only endulging in a squint of fun. Don't take it to heart.

Oh, and even though Jesus may well have existed, the miracles and resurrection are certainly in question and the Bible is not proof or evidence because that is circular logic.

Like I said, I only assert that there is no God, of Allah or Santa because of the rules governing the burden of proof. It's a natural conclusion. Do you have a problem with that?

LJS9502_basic

I will submit that you do hold his existence and witnesses as proof. But like I say, they are not what would be deemed as evidence from an objective standpoint. As Funky_Llama stated earlier, "spiritual proof" simply does not exist and was coined by theists to explain their beliefs away. But that is a side issue.

As I have said, Jesus could well have existed as a person, but his miracles and other neat tricks are wide open to debate. There is no way to know that he did what has been claimed and, like I have also said, the Bible does not count as evidence because of circular reasoning.

Imagine this:

Someone: "Luke is the Messiah. He performs miracles."
LJ: "How do you know?"
Somebody: "Luke says so."

That's the same reasoning that the Bible uses to try and assert its validity, and you cannot do that.

So in conclusion, you could say it was a tad harsh of me to state that no evidence at all exists, but I would certainly stick my neck out and say that no proper, convincing and unequivocal evidence exists.

If such evidence did exist, we would all be of one belief. Even those of other religions.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]Not all atheists do that... Yay generalizations... :|LJS9502_basic

Would I ever do that? ;)

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]Not all atheists do that... Yay generalizations... :|LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]:lol: Oh crap, look who's here!Funky_Llama

Oh noes. Man the cannons. :P

The cannons are broken; you can't prove otherwise. ;)

:lol:

I'll go get some on eBay.

I will submit that you do hold his existence and witnesses as proof. But like I say, they are not what would be deemed as evidence from an objective standpoint. As Funky_Llama stated earlier, "spiritual proof" simply does not exist and was coined by theists to explain their beliefs away. But that is a side issue.

As I have said, Jesus could well have existed as a person, but his miracles and other neat tricks are wide open to debate. There is no way to know that he did what has been claimed and, like I have also said, the Bible does not count as evidence because of circular reasoning.

Imagine this:

Someone: "Luke is the Messiah. He performs miracles."
LJ: "How do you know?"
Somebody: "Luke says so."

That's the same reasoning that the Bible uses to try and assert its validity, and you cannot do that.

So in conclusion, you could say it was a tad harsh of me to state that no evidence at all exists, but I would certainly stick my neck out and say that no proper, convincing and unequivocal evidence exists.

If such evidence did exist, we would all be of one belief. Even those of other religions.

luke1889

Doesn't matter. In a court case witnesses are acceptable evidence.

As for your analogy it is flawed since the witnesses were independent and not the individual. Bad argument there.

Did it ever occur to you that a God would not wish to show the proof....as He wants it to be faith and not fact? Hmmm

You are welcome to believe what you want but insulting beliefs of others only makes the one doing the insulting look bad...and not the one insulted. Tolerance for people is a virtue....and when you can't absolutely say they are wrong...scientifically a better stance.;)

Here is the FIRST description at Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That right there is proof that Atheism is a religion.
P.S.- Thanks for also proving my point about maturity. At least we agree on something.

FatMan1945

You forget to relaise that atheism is not a set of beliefs but a viewpoint manifested from the application of the burden of proof rule. It requires zero belief.

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Religion is based on faith, but not irrationality.

luke1889

Look up the definition of irrational.

Clicky

Couldn't it also be said that Atheists are irrational thinking that this world, and our existance came by accident?

I have NEVER rejected science. I believe in evolution and the big-bang is still a theory.

FatMan1945

Look up the definition of a scientific theory.

I did. What does that change?

The thing that most atheists can't see is the fact that Science and Religion can co-exist peacefully.

FatMan1945

I guess they can but science does not assume religion.

And yes, Atheism is a religion, whether you want it to be or not.

FatMan1945

No it is not. Here's why:

- No god,
- No common belief (elaboration: we simply do not believe in anything)
- No laws,
- No churches,
- No rituals,
- No conception of spirituality,
- No scripture,
- No priesthood,
- No tradition,
- No holidays,
- No religion-specific clothing,
- No afterlife concept,
- No creation myth.

Your assertion that we (or some of us) openly state that there is no god is governed by the rules of the burden of proof as we have discussed earlier.

Now let me leave you with a favourite quote amongst us atheists:

"I submit that we are all atheists; I just believe in one less god than you do."

I realize that we have the burden of proof, but you also cannot say that there is not a God just because we can't prove him. We can't prove that the big-bang happened, yet many atheists believe in the theory.

Also, the quote you mentioned is EXACTLY what I am talking about. We are all the same, no matter what we believe in. It does not make any one group smarter than another. We are just different, yet we are still equal, both physically and mentally.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

I will submit that you do hold his existence and witnesses as proof. But like I say, they are not what would be deemed as evidence from an objective standpoint. As Funky_Llama stated earlier, "spiritual proof" simply does not exist and was coined by theists to explain their beliefs away. But that is a side issue.

As I have said, Jesus could well have existed as a person, but his miracles and other neat tricks are wide open to debate. There is no way to know that he did what has been claimed and, like I have also said, the Bible does not count as evidence because of circular reasoning.

Imagine this:

Someone: "Luke is the Messiah. He performs miracles."
LJ: "How do you know?"
Somebody: "Luke says so."

That's the same reasoning that the Bible uses to try and assert its validity, and you cannot do that.

So in conclusion, you could say it was a tad harsh of me to state that no evidence at all exists, but I would certainly stick my neck out and say that no proper, convincing and unequivocal evidence exists.

If such evidence did exist, we would all be of one belief. Even those of other religions.

LJS9502_basic

Doesn't matter. In a court case witnesses are acceptable evidence.

As for your analogy it is flawed since the witnesses were independent and not the individual. Bad argument there.

Did it ever occur to you that a God would not wish to show the proof....as He wants it to be faith and not fact? Hmmm

You are welcome to believe what you want but insulting beliefs of others only makes the one doing the insulting look bad...and not the one insulted. Tolerance for people is a virtue....and when you can't absolutely say they are wrong...scientifically a better stance.;)

:lol: On the basis of witnesses alone, a case would be thrown out.

And what makes you think that Jesus' followers would be objective?

What would God want it to be faith and not fact?

He's not insulting anyone there.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Religion is based on faith, but not irrationality.

FatMan1945

Look up the definition of irrational.

Clicky

Couldn't it also be said that Atheists are irrational thinking that this world, and our existance came by accident?

I have NEVER rejected science. I believe in evolution and the big-bang is still a theory.

FatMan1945

Look up the definition of a scientific theory.

I did. What does that change?

The thing that most atheists can't see is the fact that Science and Religion can co-exist peacefully.

FatMan1945

I guess they can but science does not assume religion.

And yes, Atheism is a religion, whether you want it to be or not.

FatMan1945

No it is not. Here's why:

- No god,
- No common belief (elaboration: we simply do not believe in anything)
- No laws,
- No churches,
- No rituals,
- No conception of spirituality,
- No scripture,
- No priesthood,
- No tradition,
- No holidays,
- No religion-specific clothing,
- No afterlife concept,
- No creation myth.

Your assertion that we (or some of us) openly state that there is no god is governed by the rules of the burden of proof as we have discussed earlier.

Now let me leave you with a favourite quote amongst us atheists:

"I submit that we are all atheists; I just believe in one less god than you do."

I realize that we have the burden of proof, but you also cannot say that there is not a God just because we can't prove him. We can't prove that the big-bang happened, yet many atheists believe in the theory.

Also, the quote you mentioned is EXACTLY what I am talking about. We are all the same, no matter what we believe in. It does not make any one group smarter than another. We are just different, yet we are still equal, both physically and mentally.

You didn't until I pointed it out. Before it was 'You can't prove that God doesn't exist!' The Big Bang has been proven by blueshift and redshift.

As I said before, and provided evidence for, atheists are more likely to be intelligent.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="MattUD1"]Not all atheists do that... Yay generalizations... :|MattUD1

*whistles*

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Here is the FIRST description at Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That right there is proof that Atheism is a religion.
P.S.- Thanks for also proving my point about maturity. At least we agree on something.

luke1889

You forget to relaise that atheism is not a set of beliefs but a viewpoint manifested from the application of the burden of proof rule. It requires zero belief.

Atheism is the beleif in Non existence of God or gods, of course it recquires beleif.

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Here is the FIRST description at Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That right there is proof that Atheism is a religion.
P.S.- Thanks for also proving my point about maturity. At least we agree on something.

luke1889

You forget to relaise that atheism is not a set of beliefs but a viewpoint manifested from the application of the burden of proof rule. It requires zero belief.

Just saying the terms they are a changing.:)

"Doesn't matter. In a court case witnesses are acceptable evidence."

Yes, but hearsay isn't acceptable evidence...and considering that there is debate on exactly who wrote the New Testament and when (some believe the New Testament was written decades after jesus died)...accepting the Bible as evidence is sketchy at best...

Doesn't matter. In a court case witnesses are acceptable evidence.

LJS9502_basic

Woah, nelly, You almost got me there, dad. :lol:

Except court witnesses are not summoned with respect to supernatural events.

As for your analogy it is flawed since the witnesses were independent and not the individual. Bad argument there.

LJS9502_basic

My analogy was getting at the fact that "God inspired/wrote the Bible and the Bible says God is real."

Please tell me you can see the flaw with that.

Did it ever occur to you that a God would not wish to show the proof....as He wants it to be faith and not fact? Hmmm

LJS9502_basic

There's that speculation I keep telling you about. It's a childish game and you have no reason to try and speak for him to validate your reasoning.

You are welcome to believe what you want but insulting beliefs of others only makes the one doing the insulting look bad...and not the one insulted. Tolerance for people is a virtue....and when you can't absolutely say they are wrong...scientifically a better stance.;)

LJS9502_basic

Hey, I am tolerant. I'm holding my opinion without compromising the freedom and or rights of others. I trust that's okay with you?

Oh and one last thing, that constant winking at the end of your posts in religious thread is terribly belittling. Could you possibly refrain from doing it?

"Doesn't matter. In a court case witnesses are acceptable evidence."

Yes, but hearsay isn't acceptable evidence...and considering that there is debate on exactly who wrote the New Testament and when (some believe the New Testament was written decades after jesus died)...accepting the Bible as evidence is sketchy at best...

fat_rob

This also.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Here is the FIRST description at Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That right there is proof that Atheism is a religion.
P.S.- Thanks for also proving my point about maturity. At least we agree on something.

123625

You forget to relaise that atheism is not a set of beliefs but a viewpoint manifested from the application of the burden of proof rule. It requires zero belief.

Atheism is the beleif in Non existence of God or gods, of course it recquires beleif.

Why does no one understand the principle of the Burden of Proof? :roll: If God is not proved to exist, it is assumed because of the burden of proof that he does not.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Here is the FIRST description at Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That right there is proof that Atheism is a religion.
P.S.- Thanks for also proving my point about maturity. At least we agree on something.

LJS9502_basic

You forget to relaise that atheism is not a set of beliefs but a viewpoint manifested from the application of the burden of proof rule. It requires zero belief.

Just saying the terms they are a changing.:)

I don't give a crap about what the supreme court thinks. It's not a religion.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Here is the FIRST description at Dictionary.com

1.a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

That right there is proof that Atheism is a religion.
P.S.- Thanks for also proving my point about maturity. At least we agree on something.

LJS9502_basic

You forget to relaise that atheism is not a set of beliefs but a viewpoint manifested from the application of the burden of proof rule. It requires zero belief.

Just saying the terms they are a changing.:)

:lol: On the basis of witnesses alone, a case would be thrown out.

And what makes you think that Jesus' followers would be objective?

What would God want it to be faith and not fact?

He's not insulting anyone there.

Funky_Llama

That's not true. I won a case with witness testimony only.

What makes you say they were all only His followers or that they they weren't objective. As a man...He was dead. Many of those followers were put to death for their beliefs. I'd say most would say...forget this...I'm not putting myself in danger. Must have been conclusive and important to them.

Because God wants us to believe. Come on dude.

Calling the beliefs of someone illogical and irrational is insulting and offensive.:roll:

the supreme court can be wrong you know...matter of fact, many times they often are...fat_rob

Two problems with this argument. One the case was brought by an individual that obviously felt atheism was his religion. Second, the defintion of religion is a shared set of beliefs etc. Back in the day an atheist used to one who just didn't believe. However, that is changing to group efforts and shared sets of beliefs. There are websites devoted to spreading the word of atheism. There is a movement among some to convert. I see it here actually.

I'm not saying all atheists are like this..but there is enough that it wouldn't surprise me to see atheism recognized some day as a religion...the case was merely the start.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: On the basis of witnesses alone, a case would be thrown out.

And what makes you think that Jesus' followers would be objective?

What would God want it to be faith and not fact?

He's not insulting anyone there.

LJS9502_basic

That's not true. I won a case with witness testimony only.

What makes you say they were all only His followers or that they they weren't objective. As a man...He was dead. Many of those followers were put to death for their beliefs. I'd say most would say...forget this...I'm not putting myself in danger. Must have been conclusive and important to them.

Because God wants us to believe. Come on dude.

Calling the beliefs of someone illogical and irrational is insulting and offensive.:roll:

Even that guy who thinks dinosaurs were around in the times of man?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

:lol: On the basis of witnesses alone, a case would be thrown out.

And what makes you think that Jesus' followers would be objective?

What would God want it to be faith and not fact?

He's not insulting anyone there.

LJS9502_basic

That's not true. I won a case with witness testimony only.

What makes you say they were all only His followers or that they they weren't objective. As a man...He was dead. Many of those followers were put to death for their beliefs. I'd say most would say...forget this...I'm not putting myself in danger. Must have been conclusive and important to them.

Because God wants us to believe. Come on dude.

Calling the beliefs of someone illogical and irrational is insulting and offensive.:roll:

OK, there might be a few exceptions but... hey, would that make you a lawyer?

People have died for Judaism, and Islam, and Hinduism, and every other conflicting religion in the world. They can't all be right, so we'd have a contradiction if that were true.

I would believe if he proved it. Belief doesn't have to be on the basis of no evidence at all. And if your point is true, why did God used to intervene, thus proving his existence?

Only if they take it too seriously. If you take part in a debate, you submit your beliefs to criticism. If you can't take that, why bother?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]Why does no one understand the principle of the Burden of Proof? :roll: If God is not proved to exist, it is assumed because of the burden of proof that he does not.

Was merely pointing out the definition, and it does recquires beleif.

Even that guy who thinks dinosaurs were around in the times of man?

Oriental_Jams

You don't have to agree..but you shouldn't insult.

Off to work.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

[QUOTE="FatMan1945"]

Religion is based on faith, but not irrationality.

FatMan1945

Look up the definition of irrational.

Clicky

1. Couldn't it also be said that Atheists are irrational thinking that this world, and our existance came by accident?

I have NEVER rejected science. I believe in evolution and the big-bang is still a theory.

FatMan1945

Look up the definition of a scientific theory.

2. I did. What does that change?

The thing that most atheists can't see is the fact that Science and Religion can co-exist peacefully.

FatMan1945

I guess they can but science does not assume religion.

And yes, Atheism is a religion, whether you want it to be or not.

FatMan1945

No it is not. Here's why:

- No god,
- No common belief (elaboration: we simply do not believe in anything)
- No laws,
- No churches,
- No rituals,
- No conception of spirituality,
- No scripture,
- No priesthood,
- No tradition,
- No holidays,
- No religion-specific clothing,
- No afterlife concept,
- No creation myth.

Your assertion that we (or some of us) openly state that there is no god is governed by the rules of the burden of proof as we have discussed earlier.

Now let me leave you with a favourite quote amongst us atheists:

"I submit that we are all atheists; I just believe in one less god than you do."

3. I realize that we have the burden of proof, but you also cannot say that there is not a God just because we can't prove him.

4. We can't prove that the big-bang happened, yet many atheists believe in the theory.

5. Also, the quote you mentioned is EXACTLY what I am talking about. We are all the same, no matter what we believe in.

6. It does not make any one group smarter than another. We are just different, yet we are still equal, both physically and mentally.

1. Accident? More like basic cause and effect.

2. Scientific theories are not simply hairbrain ideas, like you suggest. They are tried and test and are the best plausible explanation we have for things at a given point in time.

3. We very much can because of the natural assumption following the burden of proof. That's the whole point or our stance.

4. The big bang theory has quite a wealth of evidence behind it. However, I would never state that it is absolute truth. It's a damn good stab at an answer though.

5. Again, atheism requires no belief.

6. I never suggested anything about intelligence.

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] the supreme court can be wrong you know...matter of fact, many times they often are...LJS9502_basic

Two problems with this argument. One the case was brought by an individual that obviously felt atheism was his religion. Second, the defintion of religion is a shared set of beliefs etc. Back in the day an atheist used to one who just didn't believe. However, that is changing to group efforts and shared sets of beliefs. There are websites devoted to spreading the word of atheism. There is a movement among some to convert. I see it here actually.

I'm not saying all atheists are like this..but there is enough that it wouldn't surprise me to see atheism recognized some day as a religion...the case was merely the start.

What, so if one atheist thinks atheism is a religion, it must be?

Atheism is completely at odds with the definition of a religion.

You didn't until I pointed it out. Before it was 'You can't prove that God doesn't exist!' The Big Bang has been proven by blueshift and redshift.

As I said before, and provided evidence for, atheists are more likely to be intelligent.

Funky_Llama

I still think you can't prove that God doesn't exist, which means you cant say for sure either way.

Blueshift and redshift does not prove that the big bang happened, only that the galaxies are moving.

I looked at your "evidence" of IQ vs Religiosity, and that is horrible evidence. It has one major variable that completely changes the whole chart, and that is countries. People in the USA are generally going to be smarter than a 3rd world country because of the education system, regardless of Religion. That is like me saying whites are generally smarter than black because they have a higher average IQ world wide. That is only true because you are factoring all those countries with a poor education system in africa into the equation.

[QUOTE="Oriental_Jams"]

Even that guy who thinks dinosaurs were around in the times of man?

LJS9502_basic

You don't have to agree..but you shouldn't insult.

Off to work.

Have fun, big man.

^_^

Was merely pointing out the definition, and it does recquires beleif.

123625

Ah, no. A lack of belief in God requires no justification.

Atheism is the beleif in Non existence of God or gods, of course it recquires beleif.

123625

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

This argument about atheism being a religion.....a case was brought to court by an atheist in prison stating he was not able to practice his religion in prison. The Supreme Court upheld his right to practice his religion...atheism.

Just saying the terms they are a changing.:)

LJS9502_basic

Hmm, interesting. Were they forcing him to practice another religion or prejudicing him somehow?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

You didn't until I pointed it out. Before it was 'You can't prove that God doesn't exist!' The Big Bang has been proven by blueshift and redshift.

As I said before, and provided evidence for, atheists are more likely to be intelligent.

FatMan1945

I still think you can't prove that God doesn't exist, which means you cant say for sure either way.

Blueshift and redshift does not prove that the big bang happened, only that the galaxies are moving.

I looked at your "evidence" of IQ vs Religiosity, and that is horrible evidence. It has one major variable that completely changes the whole chart, and that is countries. People in the USA are generally going to be smarter than a 3rd world country because of the education system, regardless of Religion. That is like me saying whites are generally smarter than black because they have a higher average IQ world wide. That is only true because you are factoring all those countries with a poor education system in africa into the equation.

It means, according to the principle of burden of proof, that one should not believe in God. That's how logic works.

Blueshift and redshift demonstrate that the galaxies are all moving away from one central point. What do you suggest happened there?

[QUOTE="fat_rob"] the supreme court can be wrong you know...matter of fact, many times they often are...LJS9502_basic

Two problems with this argument. One the case was brought by an individual that obviously felt atheism was his religion. Second, the defintion of religion is a shared set of beliefs etc. Back in the day an atheist used to one who just didn't believe. However, that is changing to group efforts and shared sets of beliefs. There are websites devoted to spreading the word of atheism. There is a movement among some to convert. I see it here actually.

I'm not saying all atheists are like this..but there is enough that it wouldn't surprise me to see atheism recognized some day as a religion...the case was merely the start.

A shared set of beliefs...that means EVERYTHING can be a religion...that definition is entirely too broad to hold any water in any intellectual discussion.fat_rob

Yep, that means that console fanboyism is a religion. They all think their console is...the "true one". :lol:

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

luke1889

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

[QUOTE="123625"]

Atheism is the beleif in Non existence of God or gods, of course it recquires beleif.

luke1889

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

This argument about atheism being a religion.....a case was brought to court by an atheist in prison stating he was not able to practice his religion in prison. The Supreme Court upheld his right to practice his religion...atheism.

Just saying the terms they are a changing.:)

LJS9502_basic

Hmm, interesting. Were they forcing him to practice another religion or prejudicing him somehow?

1. I still think you can't prove that God doesn't exist, which means you cant say for sure either way.

2. Blueshift and redshift does not prove that the big bang happened, only that the galaxies are moving.

FatMan1945

1. That's neat little lacuna that religion has to try and curb the outcries of any opposition. "Hey...if we make it so you can't disprove it, we're home and dry." :lol:

Yeah, except, on this sketchy basis, Pastafarianism and Jedi holds as much water as any other religion. It's also the basis on which all mythical creatures operate.

2. They show that the galaxies are moving apart from an apparent single point. A singularity as it were. Movement requires acceleration and fast movement requires massive acceleration. An explosion perchance.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

123625

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

Hey, that's fine. Do note the list I provided earlier though as to why it isn't a religion.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

luke1889

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

Hey, that's fine. Do note the list I provided earlier though as to why it isn't a religion.

I agree, atheism is not a religion, though there are religions that have atheistic beliefs, just as there are religions with Theistic beliefs.

no...the man wanted to create a atheist group, but the prison would not let him. The SC ruled that the prison infringed on his 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion. However, in the court opinion they did specifically state that they were considering Atheism a religion STRICTLY for legal purposes...in order to protect the rights of Atheist.fat_rob

Oooooh, ok. Yes, in order to protect his right under the first Amendment, they would have had to say that atheism was a "religion" purely for legal purposes.

Otherwise, it would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.

[QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

123625

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

According to Wikipedia, you're both right; there's weak atheism - Luke's definition - and strong atheism - your definition.

[QUOTE="luke1889"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

123625

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

Hey, that's fine. Do note the list I provided earlier though as to why it isn't a religion.

I agree, atheism is not a religion.

That's all I needed to hear.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"]

You didn't until I pointed it out. Before it was 'You can't prove that God doesn't exist!' The Big Bang has been proven by blueshift and redshift.

As I said before, and provided evidence for, atheists are more likely to be intelligent.

FatMan1945

I still think you can't prove that God doesn't exist, which means you cant say for sure either way.

Blueshift and redshift does not prove that the big bang happened, only that the galaxies are moving.

I looked at your "evidence" of IQ vs Religiosity, and that is horrible evidence. It has one major variable that completely changes the whole chart, and that is countries. People in the USA are generally going to be smarter than a 3rd world country because of the education system, regardless of Religion. That is like me saying whites are generally smarter than black because they have a higher average IQ world wide. That is only true because you are factoring all those countries with a poor education system in africa into the equation.

I've already done the Big Bang, but I forgot to mention religiousity. There have been domestic studies of intelligence that reveal the same. Besides, your point there is irrelevent; it still shows that less intelligent people are more likely to be drawn towards religion.

[QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

Funky_Llama

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

According to Wikipedia, you're both right; there's weak atheism - Luke's definition - and strong atheism - your definition.

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

fat_rob

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

According to Wikipedia, you're both right; there's weak atheism - Luke's definition - and strong atheism - your definition.

Wikipedia is good. :?

[QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

fat_rob

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

According to Wikipedia, you're both right; there's weak atheism - Luke's definition - and strong atheism - your definition.

Contrary to a possible general consensus, wikipedia is a very reliable source of information. The complex articles are written by experts in the field, and the articles are heavily monitored by the staff.

[QUOTE="fat_rob"]no...the man wanted to create a atheist group, but the prison would not let him. The SC ruled that the prison infringed on his 1st Amendment rights to freedom of religion. However, in the court opinion they did specifically state that they were considering Atheism a religion STRICTLY for legal purposes...in order to protect the rights of Atheist.luke1889

Oooooh, ok. Yes, in order to protect his right under the first Amendment, they would have had to say that atheism was a "religion" purely for legal purposes.

Otherwise, it would have been a gross miscarriage of justice.

[QUOTE="fat_rob"][QUOTE="Funky_Llama"][QUOTE="123625"][QUOTE="luke1889"]

It's not a belief in the non-existence, it's a non-belief in the existence. ;)

luke1889

According to my definitions, its how i said it. Any way, I don't really want to argue the definition of Atheism.

According to Wikipedia, you're both right; there's weak atheism - Luke's definition - and strong atheism - your definition.

Contrary to a possible general consensus, wikipedia is a very reliable source of information. The complex article are written by experts in the field, and the articles are heavily monitored by the staff.

It's still a crappy ruling that sets a horrible precedent...but I'd have to fully read the court opinion and opinion's of other relevant cases to see if it logically stacks up...but, considering that the court labeled secular humanism as a religion for legal purposes...I can see why they would deem atheism as one...fat_rob

Yeah, it is a pretty dire ruling, but for the purposes of justice, as you say, it was rather necessary.

Wiki is probably the best encyclopedia, but encyclopedias in general make me laugh...fat_rob

Haha, why? :lol:

[QUOTE="Matt-4542"]

Why do Christians talk trash about us Athiests?

Seriously though, I have several friends who are christian and 1 who is muslim and theyre awesome but then sometimes I run into the HxC christians that shove it down my throat that Im going to Hell. That makes me wanna kill them and talk trash.

nirvana563

I sense that you've made up your mind already ...