Atheism vs. Christianity

[Immoren]

Not necessarily, but there is one set of religious beliefs that completely describes the way things are with no falsehoods.

"Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the gods themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know"
Rigveda - Nasadiya Sukta

[Neutraligon]

He's just improperly calling a set pertaining to religious beliefs a set of religious beliefs. He's basically looking in a room full of boxes labeled with "APPLES" and calling them all boxes of apples, even when he knows some of them are empty. They are NOT necessarily boxes of apples, though calling them apple boxes is a logical thing to do. It's an accidental fallacy of the fourth term/equivocation.

When it comes to sets, aren't "pertaining to" and "of" the same thing? And in any case, if a person is asked to present the set of their religious beliefs, and they are atheist, then the empty set that they present is absolutely the set of their religious beliefs.

Again no, because atheism is not a belief at all. Since it is not a belief at all it cannot be a religious belief since religious beliefs are a subset of beliefs.

[Transyl]

It is an empty set of religious beliefs. I didn't say it was a belief.

...to be a religious belief it must also be a belief since religious beliefs are a subset of beliefs. Since atheism is not a belief it cannot be a religious belief.

Atheism is the "belief" that there is no god, which counts as a belief, as well as a belief that there is no afterlife. So....

[Zottistan]

It is an empty set of religious beliefs. I didn't say it was a belief.

...to be a religious belief it must also be a belief since religious beliefs are a subset of beliefs. Since atheism is not a belief it cannot be a religious belief.

I didn't say it was a religious belief.

...to be a religious belief it must also be a belief since religious beliefs are a subset of beliefs. Since atheism is not a belief it cannot be a religious belief.

Atheism is the "belief" that there is no god, which counts as a belief, as well as a belief that there is no afterlife. So....

Atheism is the absence of belief in a god, not the belief that there is no god.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

In a way Atheism and Christianity have no proof to back up what they believe. In fact no religion can actually find good proof of anything they believe, its just not possible unless you have a time machine or were there when it happened, which is not logical in any way. Now I am not saying any religions views are wrong or anything, i'm just saying they have nothing but old documents that could've been fabricated to back them up. It is possible that Christians are correct, or that Atheists are correct, along with any other religion. Further more the only question is, what really happened that created the world, and those that live in it? We may never know. Perhaps there is some proof out there as to what happened, we just haven't found it yet, and until we do religions will continue to argue with each other about who's right and who's wrong. Heck even if we do find proof religions will still argue about it all, even if the proof is standing right in front of them.

Actually no, this is the ONLY logical way to affirm anything, and is why religion is flawed and inherently weak. Religion immediately falls apart when any form of logical thought processes are applied to it in order to test its potential validity, as it relies entirely on hearsay and belief. Russell's Teapot demands that a negative is not proven false, but the party claiming something PROVES their claim through the scientific method to confirm its existence.

Of course, this can't be done due to the very nature of religion, thereby making it a falsehood by default.

Again Russell is a hack.

[Neutraligon]

...to be a religious belief it must also be a belief since religious beliefs are a subset of beliefs. Since atheism is not a belief it cannot be a religious belief.

Atheism is the "belief" that there is no god, which counts as a belief, as well as a belief that there is no afterlife. So....

No it isn't. Atheisim is a lack of belief in god, for whatever reason. The afterlife has nothing to do with it. There are people who believe in a afterlife who are still atheists because they lack a belief in a god. Atheism is by definition not theism, so anyone who cannot claim to be a theist is by definition an atheist. That means that babies, comatose people, people who have never heard of god, people who cannot understand what a god is, people who believe in things other then gods (like crystals or rebirth), people who reject a god, people who cannot claim to be a theist because they do not know how to define a god, people who lack belief due to there not being evidence of a god, etc all fall under the umbrella term atheist.

[Neutraligon]

...to be a religious belief it must also be a belief since religious beliefs are a subset of beliefs. Since atheism is not a belief it cannot be a religious belief.

I didn't say it was a religious belief.

It is an empty set of religious beliefs. I didn't say it was a belief.

This right here says it is the null set of religious beliefs, meaning it is a religious belief. Again since it is not even a belief it cannot be the null set of religious beliefs.

[Zottistan]

I didn't say it was a religious belief.

It is an empty set of religious beliefs. I didn't say it was a belief.

This right here says it is the null set of religious beliefs, meaning it is a religious belief. Again since it is not even a belief it cannot be the null set of religious beliefs.

It being the null set of religious beliefs does not make it a religious belief. It makes it a set.

[Transyl]

Atheism is the "belief" that there is no god, which counts as a belief, as well as a belief that there is no afterlife. So....

No it isn't. Atheisim is a lack of belief in god, for whatever reason. The afterlife has nothing to do with it. There are people who believe in a afterlife who are still atheists because they lack a belief in a god. Atheism is by definition not theism, so anyone who cannot claim to be a theist is by definition an atheist. That means that babies, comatose people, people who have never heard of god, people who cannot understand what a god is, people who believe in things other then gods (like crystals or rebirth), people who reject a god, people who cannot claim to be a theist because they do not know how to define a god, people who lack belief due to there not being evidence of a god, etc all fall under the umbrella term atheist.

Well then its obvious my cousin who has been an Atheist for 12 years is full of bullshit then right? Because that is the way she thinks of Atheism, I'm just saying what she defines it as. I don't even really care for Atheism, but I accept them until they become ignorant and become narcissistic.

[Neutraligon]

This right here says it is the null set of religious beliefs, meaning it is a religious belief. Again since it is not even a belief it cannot be the null set of religious beliefs.

It being the null set of religious beliefs does not make it a religious belief. It makes it a set.

It cannot be the null set of religious beliefs as it is not a belief. To be the null set of religious beliefs it would at least need to be a belief. So still no. Every set contains a subset that is the empty set (null set) thus the null set of religious beliefs would be contained within the set of religious beliefs, meaning it would be a religious belief. However this is not the case as atheism is not even inside the broader set of beliefs, so it cannot be the null set of religious beliefs

[Neutraligon]

No it isn't. Atheisim is a lack of belief in god, for whatever reason. The afterlife has nothing to do with it. There are people who believe in a afterlife who are still atheists because they lack a belief in a god. Atheism is by definition not theism, so anyone who cannot claim to be a theist is by definition an atheist. That means that babies, comatose people, people who have never heard of god, people who cannot understand what a god is, people who believe in things other then gods (like crystals or rebirth), people who reject a god, people who cannot claim to be a theist because they do not know how to define a god, people who lack belief due to there not being evidence of a god, etc all fall under the umbrella term atheist.

Well then its obvious my cousin who has been an Atheist for 12 years is full of bullshit then right? Because that is the way she thinks of Atheism, I'm just saying what she defines it as. I don't even really care for Atheism, but I accept them until they become ignorant and become narcissistic.

Full of bullshit? No, just misinformed. Many people improperly define atheism.

[Transyl]

Well then its obvious my cousin who has been an Atheist for 12 years is full of bullshit then right? Because that is the way she thinks of Atheism, I'm just saying what she defines it as. I don't even really care for Atheism, but I accept them until they become ignorant and become narcissistic.

Full of bullshit? No, just misinformed. Many people improperly define atheism.

You know there are different types of Atheism right?

[The Alma Mater]

No it isn't. Atheisim is a lack of belief in god, for whatever reason. The afterlife has nothing to do with it. There are people who believe in a afterlife who are still atheists because they lack a belief in a god. Atheism is by definition not theism, so anyone who cannot claim to be a theist is by definition an atheist. That means that babies, comatose people, people who have never heard of god, people who cannot understand what a god is, people who believe in things other then gods (like crystals or rebirth), people who reject a god, people who cannot claim to be a theist because they do not know how to define a god, people who lack belief due to there not being evidence of a god, etc all fall under the umbrella term atheist.

Well then its obvious my cousin who has been an Atheist for 12 years is full of bullshit then right? Because that is the way she thinks of Atheism, I'm just saying what she defines it as. I don't even really care for Atheism, but I accept them until they become ignorant and become narcissistic.

Well no, she is just one type of atheist. And a pretty arrogant one to think her way is the only way.

[Neutraligon]

Full of bullshit? No, just misinformed. Many people improperly define atheism.

You know there are different types of Atheism right?

Yes, there are, as I described above. There is hard atheism, soft atheism, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, etc. THey are all subsets of atheism where the adjective describes what subset of atheism it is.

[The Alma Mater]

Full of bullshit? No, just misinformed. Many people improperly define atheism.

You know there are different types of Atheism right?

Yes, but your cousin does not.

[The Rich Port]

Full of bullshit? No, just misinformed. Many people improperly define atheism.

You know there are different types of Atheism right?

... Yes, we know. Which is why your sister being one kind of atheist is anecdotal and, therefore, we don't really have to take it into consideration, especially now that you're being arrogant about this.

[Zottistan]

It being the null set of religious beliefs does not make it a religious belief. It makes it a set.

It cannot be the null set of religious beliefs as it is not a belief. To be the null set of religious beliefs it would at least need to be a belief. So still no.

Why would it need to be a belief to be a set of beliefs? I don't follow.

[Bezombia]

This argument's been going on for 2,000 years. Neither side has been able to fully convince the other.

Two thousand years ago it was more of Atheism vs. Hellenisticism but I see yoru point.

[Neutraligon]

It cannot be the null set of religious beliefs as it is not a belief. To be the null set of religious beliefs it would at least need to be a belief. So still no.

Why would it need to be a belief to be a set of beliefs? I don't follow.

I edited my post above. Every set has a subset that is the null set. Thus the null set of religious beliefs itself would be in the set of religious beliefs and would thus be a religious belief. However atheism does not even fall into the broader set of beliefs.
religious beliefs ⊂ beliefs but atheism ! ⊂ beliefs so atheism cannot be a subset of religious beliefs.

lets call Atheism A, religious beliefs B and beliefs C

A is not a member of C
B is a member of C
A cannot be a member of B since B is a member of C.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

He's just improperly calling a set pertaining to religious beliefs a set of religious beliefs. He's basically looking in a room full of boxes labeled with "APPLES" and calling them all boxes of apples, even when he knows some of them are empty. They are NOT necessarily boxes of apples, though calling them apple boxes is a logical thing to do. It's an accidental fallacy of the fourth term/equivocation.

When it comes to sets, aren't "pertaining to" and "of" the same thing? And in any case, if a person is asked to present the set of their religious beliefs, and they are atheist, then the empty set that they present is absolutely the set of their religious beliefs.

[ ] is not a set of negative numbers, but it is a perfectly valid set to bring up in a conversation about sets of negative numbers. You're missing X part of set of X. Beliefs equate approximately to bare sets, but religious belief does NOT equate to bare sets, but sets of X. And about pertaining: the empty set is a set of all negative numbers greater than zero. Since such numbers are mathmatically impossible, the empty set is not a set of negative numbers, but referable in operations of sets of negative numbers.

[Zottistan]

Why would it need to be a belief to be a set of beliefs? I don't follow.

I edited my post above. Every set has a subset that is the null set. Thus the null set of religious beliefs itself would be in the set of religious beliefs and would thus be a religious belief. However atheism does not even fall into the broader set of beliefs.
religious beliefs ⊂ beliefs but atheism ! ⊂ beliefs so atheism cannot be a subset of religious beliefs.

But isn't there then a null set of religious beliefs that is not atheism?

If somebody does not believe there is a god, they are atheists. Thus, if that subset of religious beliefs does not include "belief in god", it is an atheistic set.

[Neutraligon]

I edited my post above. Every set has a subset that is the null set. Thus the null set of religious beliefs itself would be in the set of religious beliefs and would thus be a religious belief. However atheism does not even fall into the broader set of beliefs.
religious beliefs ⊂ beliefs but atheism ! ⊂ beliefs so atheism cannot be a subset of religious beliefs.

But there is then a null set of religious beliefs that is not atheism...?

If somebody does not believe there is a god, they are atheists. Thus, if that subset of religious beliefs does not include "belief in god", it is an atheistic set.

In this case the null set is logically meaningless. It exists in that there is a set of it, but it has no case in reality that I am aware of.

[Zottistan]

When it comes to sets, aren't "pertaining to" and "of" the same thing? And in any case, if a person is asked to present the set of their religious beliefs, and they are atheist, then the empty set that they present is absolutely the set of their religious beliefs.

[ ] is not a set of negative numbers, but it is a perfectly valid set to bring up in a conversation about sets of negative numbers. You're missing X part of set of X. Beliefs equate approximately to bare sets, but religious belief does NOT equate to bare sets, but sets of X. And about pertaining: the empty set is a set of all negative numbers greater than zero. Since such numbers are mathmatically impossible, the empty set is not a set of negative numbers, but referable in operations of sets of negative numbers.

Ah, I think I see.

But there is then a null set of religious beliefs that is not atheism...?

If somebody does not believe there is a god, they are atheists. Thus, if that subset of religious beliefs does not include "belief in god", it is an atheistic set.

In this case the null set is logically meaningless. It exists in that there is a set of it, but it has no case in reality that I am aware of.

Would it be better to refer to atheism as an empty set of beliefs pertaining to religious matters, so?

[Neutraligon]

[ ] is not a set of negative numbers, but it is a perfectly valid set to bring up in a conversation about sets of negative numbers. You're missing X part of set of X. Beliefs equate approximately to bare sets, but religious belief does NOT equate to bare sets, but sets of X. And about pertaining: the empty set is a set of all negative numbers greater than zero. Since such numbers are mathmatically impossible, the empty set is not a set of negative numbers, but referable in operations of sets of negative numbers.

Ah, I think I see.

In this case the null set is logically meaningless. It exists in that there is a set of it, but it has no case in reality that I am aware of.

Would it be better to refer to atheism as an empty set of beliefs pertaining to religious matters, so?

For atheism no, since again Atheism in general is not a subset of beliefs. There may be atheists (anti-theists, or those who claim to know certain gods/all gods do not exist for instance) that are in a set pertaining to religious matters but that is not an empty set.

[The Union of Tentacles and Grapes]

[ ] is not a set of negative numbers, but it is a perfectly valid set to bring up in a conversation about sets of negative numbers. You're missing X part of set of X. Beliefs equate approximately to bare sets, but religious belief does NOT equate to bare sets, but sets of X. And about pertaining: the empty set is a set of all negative numbers greater than zero. Since such numbers are mathmatically impossible, the empty set is not a set of negative numbers, but referable in operations of sets of negative numbers.

Ah, I think I see.

In this case the null set is logically meaningless. It exists in that there is a set of it, but it has no case in reality that I am aware of.

Would it be better to refer to atheism as an empty set of beliefs pertaining to religious matters, so?

Or you could just call it a set of exactly one theistic belief.