Isn't being an Atheist a religion?
- Thread starter iHaveNoIdea
- Start date
Apparently registered just to troll. Straight to ignore.
Bullshit!
Disbelieve: "to hold not worthy of belief : not believe"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/disbelieving
Disbelieve: "Not to believe or credit; to refuse credence to"
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry...rd&queryword=disbelief&first=1&max_to_show=10
"Disbelief" is simply the state of not having belief in something. And what does it mean to have belief in something?
Belief: "a state or habit of mind in which trust or confidence is placed in some person or thing"
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/belief
Belief: "To have confidence or faith in"
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry...=1&search_id=QeTD-lYRLvs-4440&hilite=50019917
If you don't have confidence or trust in an idea, you don't believe in it, and therefor you disbelieve in it. Someone who disbelieves in god is an atheist.
Atheist:"One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God."
http://dictionary.oed.com/cgi/entry...word&queryword=atheist&first=1&max_to_show=10
Or, you know, anyone who has ever bothered to look in the Oxford English Dictionary, the most authoritative and definitive dictionary on the English language in the world. I guess the people at the OED really need to stop hiring kindergartners as editors!
No, the issue here is that you didn't bother to consult the OED before running your mouth off.
Dude, the definition on the infidels site conforms to the OED. Get over it.
Last edited:
What type of religion is that: Believing in not to believe?
They believe in many things, that's for sure. But none of them is about superficial deities.
And?
Here is your point: Atheists, or those who do not believe in religious mumbo jumbo, have "irrational" feelings. Why, because they don't believe in none existing stories. Or, everybody must necessarily have a sort of religious belief, no matter how they feel about those kinds of ancient stories.
Sorry, but "the standards of believing" do not come from religions. Religions represent only one side of believing, and they are always based upon lack of evidence.
That is not my point. What are you talking about? I said it is irrational to claim you are an atheist when you are not claiming there is no diety. I would like you to show where you came up with the rest of the ideas that you're putting in to my mouth.
Not true. Atheism isn't faith, it is the opposite of faith. It means not believing things without evidence for their existence.
Atheism does not in any way shape or form mean not beleiving in things without evidence. You cannot have a term for that because 'evidence' can be debatable.
To say something like: "I abide by Xism which is the idea that one should not believe in things without evidence." But what form of evidence are you referring to? You cannot just say 'evidence' period. There is a huge variety of material that each specific individual subjectively considers 'evidence'. What you personally might consider 'evidence' might not be considered 'evidence' by somebody else.
Now moving on to twisting the meaning of 'atheism' to somebody not believing in something. Does somebody who doesn't believe in a diety necessarily believe there is no diety? It's like claiming that those who don't believe there is no deity is theist.
Evidence is evidence, it's the same standard that supports such things as molecular biology. "It's in the bible" is no more evidence than, "Einstein said it". I'm not arguing about the definition of words, we can move past that now. The essence of atheism is not believing things for which there is no reliable evidence.
There is no such thing as "evidence is evidence". What is considered evidence is subject to the interpretation of the subject. You might say something is evidence while another subject might say it isn't evidence.
The essence of atheism has nothing to do with not believing in something with "no evidence" period. Atheists claim there is no evidence acceptable to them for any diety. Therefore, there is no diety. The essence of atheism is the idea that "until you show me evidence that I personally consider acceptable, there is no bloody diety". That is real atheism.
Atheism is not "oh I don't know whether or not there is a diety because I have not seen any evidence that I consider personally acceptable either way". This is in no way shape or form atheism. And it is by standard, improper to label this standpoint as atheism.
No.
No.
That is a belief, but not one exhibited by anyone (atheist or otherwise) that I've ever encountered. It's pretty much incontrovertable that religions exist.
No.
No.
No.
I think the errors in your post are so elementary and egregious that you must be either joking or suffering from grave mental defects.
You are incorrect, the standards of evidence used by atheists is nothing unique to them. There is nothing about it which is subject to personal interpretation. Atheism is a belief in rationality, and if evidence for God were to exist, we would have no choice but to believe that too and give up atheism.
No kidding, but "evidence" must be acceptable to the person considering it. Otherwise, they will not consider it as evidence. In all cases, whever somebody says, "show me evidence", that person will only consider it evidence if that person accepts it as evidence. Atheism, the idea that there is no diety, is the same thing: "show me evidence for the existence of a diety". No matter how you want to put it, what you consider "evidence" is subject to your individual standards. Does this mean that others aren't using the same standards? Of course not. In any case, you cannot claim "show me evidence" without some form of standard of evidence.
Simply saying "there is no evidence that X is true" is always the same thing as saying "there is no material that I accept as evidence for X being true". Or saying "there is no material that abides by a certain commonly accepted standard of evidence (that I abide by) for X being true".
The problem is that the religious give as evidence things which are not evidence. The bible is not evidence of a God, it's a book. Coincidental occurances are not evidence. No miracles have been confirmed to be true. Things that are prayed for sometimes come true, and sometimes not, but they only pay attention to the times they happen. That is not any standard of evidence anywhere, it is folly. Dreams and visions are not evidence, unless they reveal something specific that could not otherwise be known. I don't know what standards of evidence religious people use, but it doesn't resemble even the simplest common sense. In fact, they call faith, which is belief in the absence of evidence, among the highest of virtues.
Here's an idea: How about the religious use as standards of evidence, the same they readily apply in their criticism of evolution.
Here's an idea: How about the religious use as standards of evidence, the same they readily apply in their criticism of evolution.
Last edited:
Not evidence in terms of what standard? Anybody can call anything evidence. You can call something 'evidence' or 'not evidence' all day long. No matter what, anytime you do so, you are doing so under a particular standard in which you personally deem legitimate evidence.
My standards are the same by which we have determined the facts of our situation: scientific standards. That's how we know the Earth revolves around the Sun rather than visa versa, and how we know microbes cause disease and not witchcraft. The reason this standard is reasonable is because it works. Religious reasons rely on personal anecdotes, or because something is written in an old book, or because a coincidence happened that correlated to some prayer, in other words, outdated standards that don't work.
That is great. But what of the selfrighteous individuals who think their standard is the only standard? It's one thing to say "the standard in which I use is the 'correct' standard". That's fine. But to proclaim there are no other standards is a little off.
There are no other standards which can be demonstrated to be true to others. The track record of scientific discoveries prove it's worth. The failure of religious explanations to prove correct undermines their basic assumptions.
What others? To whom? Why are you speaking for others? Why would you even want to speak for others?
Because it makes a difference. I could have a personal revelation that is meaningful to me, but I could not show it to be true. Religion by it's nature claims to reveal truth to others, but the reasons they give aren't things that can be shown to be true to others. Reliable evidence is something that does not depend on subjectivity.
Anyway, the title implies that a belief system is a religion, but that's not precisely true. Religions aren't just beliefs, but beliefs based on faith. Beliefs based on real things, like gravity or human behavior or the lack of a God that will kill you for blasphemy or eating the wrong animal aren't religions, but things we need to survive.