What are your thoughts on Atheism?

[Crysuko]

Religion is a conspiracy? Really?

Yes something made thousands of years ago to fool the beguile into doing what is best for society.

"A sucker is born every minuite" -P.T. Barnum

[Megali Helles]

Religion is a conspiracy? Really?

Yes something made thousands of years ago to fool the beguile into doing what is best for society.

.... are lizard people real too?

[Bottany Bay Colony]

Any religious people towards there religious authorities and governments, read the word towards very carefully and twice

I see, so docile towards their authority but easily turned against others?

[Transyl]

I fail to see your point

If you fail to see my point, you have a problem because religions definition is: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, or a particular system of faith and worship, and also the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheism is a pursuit of beliefs, and a system of faith. So therefore under that definition Atheism is in fact a religion and we do follow a religion. With that said if you still disagree with me, you are arguing against the definition of religion, which is pointless.

[The Rich Port]

No this belief was originally made so people remain docile, calm lambs, it was need to keep and maintain political order. As science progresses belief in a god will diminish but until science does not reach a certain level, where it functionally makes god redundant we would still need an imaginary god

Religion is a conspiracy? Really?

... Not a new one, either.

I wouldn't say it's an organized conspiracy.

In fact, it's probably a very disorganized, multiple sets of conspiracies, especially in Protestant countries like the U.S.

I doubt televangelists, weaselly as they are, are smart enough to actually participate in a global conspiracy.

[Thama]

Gnostic Atheism is as irrational as any other faith. The only scientific faith is Agnostic Atheism. Science can't disprove the existence of a god, but it can disprove the proactive involvement of any such creature.

[Manisdog]

Any religious people towards there religious authorities and governments, read the word towards very carefully and twice

I see, so docile towards their authority but easily turned against others?

Yes that would be right...

[Megali Helles]

Religion is a conspiracy? Really?

... Not a new one, either.

I wouldn't say it's an organized conspiracy.

In fact, it's probably a very disorganized, multiple sets of conspiracies, especially in Protestant countries like the U.S.

I doubt televangelists, weaselly as they are, are smart enough to actually participate in a global conspiracy.

Can you offer substantive proof of this claim?

[Communal Ecotopia]

I think we've been here before, but here we go. I am an agnostic atheist because, as an empiricist, I require demonstrable, repeatable, and independent proof of God's existence. Similarly, my agnosticism derives from my empiricism because I would also require gnostic atheists to provide demonstrable, repeatable, and independent proof of God's non-existence.

[Manisdog]

Yes something made thousands of years ago to fool the beguile into doing what is best for society.

"A sucker is born every minuite" -P.T. Barnum

That really helps my arguement

[Crysuko]

I fail to see your point

If you fail to see my point, you have a problem because religions definition is: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, or a particular system of faith and worship, and also the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheism is a pursuit of beliefs, and a system of faith. So therefore under that definition Atheism is in fact a religion and we do follow a religion. With that said if you still disagree with me, you are arguing against the definition of religion, which is pointless.

wrong again. when will the LACK of belief defintion sink in?

[New Socialist South Africa]

1) I do not have all the evidence related to the sinking of the Titanic and I did not see the Titanic sink. Therefore, I must be absolutely agnostic on whether the Titanic sunk.

2a) You clearly don't understand the scientific method.

2b) Yes it is illogical.

3) Right. I know that I exist and I know that things with evidence backing them are true unless that so called evidence is false. If you don not know those two facts, then there is a good chance you don't actually exist.

1. There is evidence of the titanic in our natural world. Unless you are admitting god exists in the natural world, there is no way this statement can be logically correlated with this argument.

2a. You clearly don't.... Stop right there and just back up what you say, will ya?

2b. Being skeptic of evolution is illogical now? Perhaps I should just indoctrinate myself with evolutionist propaganda because we all know it's true, anyway. Right?

3. Evidence that is false isn't evidence, genius. There's evidence for god, there's evidence for evolution, evidence for just about anything. How do you know which "evidence" is "evidence". Because your science teacher told you so? Do you think that mankind will believe in evolution forever?

Science always changes. That's what makes science so great, to know that no matter what you think, you will eventually be proven wrong by a generation way smarter and more advanced than you (even Einstein will be disproved one day, I'm sure of it)

1) No. Your statement was "if you don't have ALL the evidence, you can make no claims unless you have personally witnessed it". I have some evidence that the Titanic sunk, but not ALL evidence related to it, and further I do not know every fact there is. Based on the available evidence I reach the conclusion that the Titanic sunk when it struck an iceberg that tore several holes in it causing it to flood, destabilise and sink, but that if evidence was provided proving that the evidence formerly presented was incorrect and the Titanic did in fact not sink, then I would have to change my view if this evidence were clearly more convincing. Similarly, based on the available evidence I do not have any reason to believe a god exists, but if evidence was provided showing that in fact there was one, I would change my belief appropriately.

Another way of putting this argument is this. John tells me he has a friend called Mike. He then explains that his friend Mike is invisible, immortal and exists beyond time and space. I have never come across anyone like Mike, nor indeed anyone with even one of his traits. When I ask John if he can get Mike to at least make his presence known to me, John tells me that Mike already does so and presents a whole bunch of arguments, none of which convince me. I then ask John if Mike will just talk to me and let me know he exists. John says that Mike already does so and I'm clearly just not listening.

I reach the conclusion that Mike probably doesn't exist and that John is probably just imagining him. However, if evidence were provided to me that Mike does exist, I would know he existed.

Thus I am an Agnostic Amikeist. I don't believe in Mike, but if evidence could be provided proving his existence I would believe in him.

2a) The scientific method is a system whereby we reach conclusions based on observable evidence. We have a massive amount of observable data in the form of fossils, carbon dating and case studies of survival of the fittest in action. Based on this ton of data backing up the hypothesis presented by Charles Darwin, we accept evolution as a scientific theory, that is to say that every piece of evidence we have found backs up evolution and no piece of evidence contradicts it. Thus we accept it as true until evidence to the contrary can be presented.

2b) No. We believe it is true based on the fact that all available evidence supports it. In the same way I believe Daniel Craig is a man and that Jennifer Lawrence is a woman based on the fact that all available evidence supports these conclusions.

3) Well yes that's the point. If the arguments presented are observable, consistent, believable and seem to be true we call it evidence. If it is later disproven then we no longer call it evidence. As such, there is no evidence for god, only arguments, by comparison there is evidence of evolution. This is in the form of observable and consistent data.

[Manisdog]

Yes something made thousands of years ago to fool the beguile into doing what is best for society.

.... are lizard people real too?

Ah well so you claim that lizards have religious beliefs

anyways I feel debating your beliefs and I am in fact delighted you have them

[Megali Helles]

"A sucker is born every minuite" -P.T. Barnum

That really helps my arguement

Can you point to examples of this conspiracy? Or am i to assume religion is a part of the Cathedral? Ephemeral and without physical form?

[Megali Helles]

.... are lizard people real too?

Ah well so you claim that lizards have religious beliefs

anyways I feel debating your beliefs and I am in fact delighted you have them

.... have i offered you an explanation of my particular beliefs?

[Transyl]

If you fail to see my point, you have a problem because religions definition is: a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance, or a particular system of faith and worship, and also the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods. Atheism is a pursuit of beliefs, and a system of faith. So therefore under that definition Atheism is in fact a religion and we do follow a religion. With that said if you still disagree with me, you are arguing against the definition of religion, which is pointless.

wrong again. when will the LACK of belief defintion sink in?

We do not lack in belief, our belief is that god doesnt exist and that we dont believe in heaven nor hell, nor Jesus and all that other stuff. Just because our beliefs are to not believe in such things, doesnt mean we dont have beliefs. We do have traditions, we do have beliefs. So saying that we have no beliefs is a false statement dont you get that. Gosh when is this legit information going to get through your thick skull. I just think your saying this just because you dont want to look like an idiot who doesnt know what he's talking about, am i right? Cause i think so, now just stop talking about something that you have no knowledge in. Your like a 5 year old trying to talk about what high school is like. You utterly dont even know what your talking about obviously otherwise you would know for a fact that Atheism is a type of religion, and needs to be recognized as such.

[Bottany Bay Colony]

Yes that would be right...

then perhaps a lamb isn't the animal your metaphor is looking for.

A lamb does not just refrain from ravaging the shepherd, or the flock. When was the last time you heard of an attack lamb? and sure, a wiley mountain goat or a ram is something formidable but a sheep [amb] is hardly an aggressive creature.
A sheep does not attack it's neighbors, a sheep does not fight for its rights, a sheep does not wonder, a sheep does not stray it does not claw or scratch or conquer it's neighbors at the orders of the shepherd.
A sheep clings to the flock and tries not to get eaten by wolves...

That doesn't sound like many religions I know of.

No, it seems to me that in Sumeria, Assyria, Jerusalem, Byzantium, Rome, Tenochtitlan, Khazar, France, Britain, Germany, America, the Ottoman and just about the whole world (central Asian Diaspora exempt,) religions and religious peoples are the wolf... Not the sheep.

[Crysuko]

wrong again. when will the LACK of belief defintion sink in?

We do not lack in belief, our belief is that god doesnt exist and that we dont believe in heaven nor hell, nor Jesus and all that other stuff. Just because our beliefs are to not believe in such things, doesnt mean we dont have beliefs. We do have traditions, we do have beliefs. So saying that we have no beliefs is a false statement dont you get that. Gosh when is this legit information going to get through your thick skull. I just think your saying this just because you dont want to look like an idiot who doesnt know what he's talking about, am i right? Cause i think so, now just stop talking about something that you have no knowledge in. Your like a 5 year old trying to talk about what high school is like. You utterly dont even know what your talking about obviously otherwise you would know for a fact that Atheism is a type of religion, and needs to be recognized as such.

The "herding cats" metaphor suddenly becomes appropriate. Atheism does not define traditions, doctrines or anything else other than one simple definition. Lack of belief in any god or deity. That's it. clear as crystal, nothing more, nothing less.

[The Rich Port]

... Not a new one, either.

I wouldn't say it's an organized conspiracy.

In fact, it's probably a very disorganized, multiple sets of conspiracies, especially in Protestant countries like the U.S.

I doubt televangelists, weaselly as they are, are smart enough to actually participate in a global conspiracy.

Can you offer substantive proof of this claim?

... Of disorganized, multiple conspiracies?

Here's a list of 4 televangelists caught and imprisoned for fraud. Popoff, in particular, has been apprehended more than twice for defrauding his followers.

[Vazdaria]

Gnostic Atheism is as irrational as any other faith. The only scientific faith is Agnostic Atheism. Science can't disprove the existence of a god, but it can disprove the proactive involvement of any such creature.

Science can't comment on the existance or lack thereof of God

[Crysuko]

Gnostic Atheism is as irrational as any other faith. The only scientific faith is Agnostic Atheism. Science can't disprove the existence of a god, but it can disprove the proactive involvement of any such creature.

Science can't comment on the existance or lack thereof of God

but logic can: http://godisimaginary.com/

[Vazdaria]

Science can't comment on the existance or lack thereof of God

but logic can: http://godisimaginary.com/

Its logical to assume that God exists.

[Crysuko]

but logic can: http://godisimaginary.com/

Its logical to assume that God exists.

*facedesk*

read the site.

[Vazdaria]

Its logical to assume that God exists.

*facedesk*

read the site.

By the title I can assune its highly biased. Soooooo ill not waste my time with it.

[Creepoc Infinite]

Gnostic Atheism is as irrational as any other faith. The only scientific faith is Agnostic Atheism. Science can't disprove the existence of a god, but it can disprove the proactive involvement of any such creature.

It depends on what you mean by God.


If God has no definition that can be tested, then of course he can't be proven or disproven.
This is what we call a Deist God.

What happens when we can disprove a god? When it IS a testable definition. The gods of almost all religions ever are dis provable depending on how much is known about this god of theirs.

The more information known about a god, the less broads and mysterious the definition is.
Which is why it is more sensible to say that, without a doubt, all known religions on earth can be proven wrong. And all but one are wrong. It is definitely not the Christian god that exists, for he is the one we know the most about (depending on what you study).
The o,rigging of the bible and the stories within are well known, known to be plagiarized from older religions.