Has atheism become religion?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-07-2013, 06:31 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
@childeye
Nothing like redefining words to meet your views, e?

[Image: cyhp.jpg]

[Image: atheistsignature.jpg]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yumeji's post
08-07-2013, 06:38 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 05:04 PM)childeye Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 04:36 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  I'm not conflating it with God. I'm conflating it with God, god, causes, and beliefs bound together by faith.

Atheism is a system of thinking that rejects faith and is founded on evidence, testable results, and logic.

It is a wholly different system.
Respectfully, your use of the term faith is confounding to me. There is no system of thinking that rejects faith without misunderstanding or misapplying the meaning of the term. "Faith" is synonymous with "trust". No scientist ever seeks knowledge without first believing that such knowledge exists to be found. That is, a scientist must trust or have faith that he can improve upon his ignorance. Faith however, is not synonymous with superstition or imaginations. Empathy and the associated human behavior is already acknowledged as a fact of life. The question of whether there is a god or not, is simply therefore a misapplication of the term "God". God is viewed as the superstitions of ancient men rather than the empathy for one another that we should all feel and cherish. Atheism is a fundamental contradiction based on the denial of a moral axiom called Love.

Aaaaaand proof that theists like to resort to a lack of logic when it suits their argument.

By what you're saying and by your definitions, it's an absolutism faith; therefore, facts and knowledge not only do not exist but cannot exist. You created a fallacy in the argument where you cannot be wrong because you made faith absolute which eliminates the possibility of knowledge.

Yes, no one is omniscient, so everything is built on a certain amount of faith. But that is a dishonest approach to the argument. Even though nothing can 100%, things that are 99.99% are with a fair degree of logic, known as "knowledge". Things that are close to 100% should be considered as true, not needing faith, or as knowledge.

If you eliminate logic from the debate (like you have) you have created a dishonest argument disguised as a legitimate position.

Try letting logic into the argument and see how far you get.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like kingschosen's post
08-07-2013, 06:45 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:38 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 05:04 PM)childeye Wrote:  Respectfully, your use of the term faith is confounding to me. There is no system of thinking that rejects faith without misunderstanding or misapplying the meaning of the term. "Faith" is synonymous with "trust". No scientist ever seeks knowledge without first believing that such knowledge exists to be found. That is, a scientist must trust or have faith that he can improve upon his ignorance. Faith however, is not synonymous with superstition or imaginations. Empathy and the associated human behavior is already acknowledged as a fact of life. The question of whether there is a god or not, is simply therefore a misapplication of the term "God". God is viewed as the superstitions of ancient men rather than the empathy for one another that we should all feel and cherish. Atheism is a fundamental contradiction based on the denial of a moral axiom called Love.

Aaaaaand proof that theists like to resort to a lack of logic when it suits their argument.

By what you're saying and by your definitions, it's an absolutism faith; therefore, facts and knowledge not only do not exist but cannot exist. You created a fallacy in the argument where you cannot be wrong because you made faith absolute which eliminates the possibility of knowledge.

Yes, no one is omniscient, so everything is built on a certain amount of faith. But that is a dishonest approach to the argument. Even though nothing can 100%, things that are 99.99% are with a fair degree of logic, known as "knowledge". Things that are close to 100% should be considered as true, not needing faith, or as knowledge.

If you eliminate logic from the debate (like you have) you have created a dishonest argument disguised as a legitimate position.

Try letting logic into the argument and see how far you get.

So... Making the leap from theist to atheist yet?

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free Thought's post
08-07-2013, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2013 03:44 AM by Filox.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:01 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 05:04 PM)childeye Wrote:  No scientist ever seeks knowledge without first believing that such knowledge exists to be found. That is, a scientist must trust or have faith that he can improve upon his ignorance. Faith however, is not synonymous with superstition or imaginations. Empathy and the associated human behavior is already acknowledged as a fact of life. The question of whether there is a god or not, is simply therefore a misapplication of the term "God". God is viewed as the superstitions of ancient men rather than the empathy for one another that we should all feel and cherish. Atheism is a fundamental contradiction based on the denial of a moral axiom called Love.

Wrong again, Childish.
Please be specific. I Don't know what I could possibly be wrong about. I simply stated that science is not the search for ignorance. Perhaps, you have misunderstood my meaning.

Quote:1. You need to look up the "null hypothesis", before you sermonize on what scientists do, or do not do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
Thank you for the info. As I surmised, you do misunderstand.
Quote:2. Your "misapplication of the word 'god' " business is what the meaning has come to be, in 2013, for *some* people, (and perhaps for many subliminally, in general).
Actually, the meaning of the term "God" has always been tossed over according to historical documents. In fact we know there were many interpretations of God that existed and some still do. This does not change the fact that we exist and there is a source of energy that created all things in the universe.
Quote:NOT for many others, (including Fundamentalists who still insist the term refers to an actual, real "being in heaven".
You see here? This is the problem. We know the universe came from a singularity. We also know that time is a part of that creation. These are facts. So outside of this creation and outside the confines of time is where it is conceivable that heaven would exist. I see no problem with that.

Quote: Your way is not the way the term is used in common usage, as Logica has pointed out to you. YOU don't get to define a word, and stomp you foot, and demand that meaning be applied to everyone, because you have decided that's what it means to you.
Whoa, take it easy. I'm not stomping my foot or pushing my definition of God. I'm simply agreeing with the age old definition that God is the moral good called Love.

Quote:Therefore what "atheism" means to you, and what it means to most all atheists is not the same thing.
Of course that stands to reason. I seldom meet two atheists that agree on what they are not believing in. That must be so since the term God is a moral axiom to begin with before an atheist even hears it. Therefore an atheist must deny that this is the true definition of the term otherwise they would have to admit they are compelled by Love.
Quote: YOU don't get to define words, until you are the chief editor of the OED, (and even she/he has to research the meanings).
Hold on a minute. Allow me to point out that you have formed a false premise by claiming I think I get to make up my own definitions and use them. I will prove to you that you are mistaken by agreeing that no one gets to make up their own definitions including the chief editor of the OED. So let us not be hypocritical nor get emotional here. If we research the term God we will find both subjective and objective views, but mostly and generally describing a moral goodness in some aspect. I don't ever recall any dictionary defining God as a superstition as you seem want to do. So who is really making up their own definitions here? I am using standard definitions here.

Quote:3. Love is not a "moral axiom". After a gazillion pages of crap from your other thread, no one is going through that shit again. It may be to you. Great. Stop telling other people what they mean when they use language. You are not the Language Pope. Who died and made you language czar ?
Love is not a moral axiom? That's like saying "Love" understood as empathy and compassion for others is not a good thing. Get real. At any rate that is not what you have said before. No wonder you and I can't communicate. If the foundation of my reasoning was based on denying Love is good so that I could deny it as a moral axiom, so that I could deny that God exists as Love, that still would not change any of the facts. The bible claimed God was Love way before you or I even existed, so quite blaming me and justifying your denial by saying I'm trying to be a language czar.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 07:49 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:45 PM)Free Thought Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 06:38 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Aaaaaand proof that theists like to resort to a lack of logic when it suits their argument.

By what you're saying and by your definitions, it's an absolutism faith; therefore, facts and knowledge not only do not exist but cannot exist. You created a fallacy in the argument where you cannot be wrong because you made faith absolute which eliminates the possibility of knowledge.

Yes, no one is omniscient, so everything is built on a certain amount of faith. But that is a dishonest approach to the argument. Even though nothing can 100%, things that are 99.99% are with a fair degree of logic, known as "knowledge". Things that are close to 100% should be considered as true, not needing faith, or as knowledge.

If you eliminate logic from the debate (like you have) you have created a dishonest argument disguised as a legitimate position.

Try letting logic into the argument and see how far you get.

So... Making the leap from theist to atheist yet?

lol no. Still the same KC.

[Image: dog-shaking.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:17 PM (This post was last modified: 17-07-2013 03:44 AM by Filox.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:38 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 05:04 PM)childeye Wrote:  Respectfully, your use of the term faith is confounding to me. There is no system of thinking that rejects faith without misunderstanding or misapplying the meaning of the term. "Faith" is synonymous with "trust". No scientist ever seeks knowledge without first believing that such knowledge exists to be found. That is, a scientist must trust or have faith that he can improve upon his ignorance. Faith however, is not synonymous with superstition or imaginations. Empathy and the associated human behavior is already acknowledged as a fact of life. The question of whether there is a god or not, is simply therefore a misapplication of the term "God". God is viewed as the superstitions of ancient men rather than the empathy for one another that we should all feel and cherish. Atheism is a fundamental contradiction based on the denial of a moral axiom called Love.

Aaaaaand proof that theists like to resort to a lack of logic when it suits their argument.
Please, by all means correct me.

Quote:By what you're saying and by your definitions, it's an absolutism faith; therefore, facts and knowledge not only do not exist but cannot exist.
I honestly don't see how through logic you come to this conclusion according to how I am defining terms such as faith and God and religion. I simply mean to say that I believe there is an absolute "Truth" according to the highest conceivable meaning of the term. I find it illogical to reason that what is fact and what is falsehood are equal in value. I therefore cannot logically put faith or trust in any known falsehood. Consequently faith would be the evidence of things not yet seen and not the evidence of things that will never exist. However, pertaining to God, I must either trust or distrust where empathy will lead me. I don't get to not choose. Therefore logically, perceiving the Godhead is a moral imperative. Everyone must say what is morally right or wrong even in ignorance of the Godhead.
Quote:[quote] You created a fallacy in the argument where you cannot be wrong because you made faith absolute which eliminates the possibility of knowledge.
It depends on what my faith is in as to whether I will be right or wrong. I am putting my faith in Love, and that it is good for me and for others to do so.
I certainly perceive there is knowledge I have yet to ascertain which is also my faith. And such learning is conceivably infinite.

Quote:Yes, no one is omniscient, so everything is built on a certain amount of faith. But that is a dishonest approach to the argument. Even though nothing can 100%, things that are 99.99% are with a fair degree of logic, known as "knowledge". Things that are close to 100% should be considered as true, not needing faith, or as knowledge.
I question your use of the word dishonest. Perhaps we are not arguing the same point. I am not concerned with degrees or percentages. I have one simple moral judgment to make that I must make several times every day. Is it better to sacrifice myself for others or sacrifice others for myself. It is logically clear to me that if everyone sacrificed themselves for others no one would actually have to sacrifice anything in reality. However if everyone chose to sacrifice others we all would end up dead. Consequently Love is also Life.

Quote:If you eliminate logic from the debate (like you have) you have created a dishonest argument disguised as a legitimate position.

Try letting logic into the argument and see how far you get.
I truly think I am being quite logical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:19 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2013 09:08 PM by childeye.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:38 PM)kingschosen Wrote:  Aaaaaand proof that theists like to resort to a lack of logic when it suits their argument.
Please, by all means correct me.

Quote:By what you're saying and by your definitions, it's an absolutism faith; therefore, facts and knowledge not only do not exist but cannot exist.
I honestly don't see how through logic you come to this conclusion according to how I am defining terms such as faith and God and religion. I simply mean to say that I believe there is an absolute "Truth" according to the highest conceivable meaning of the term. I find it illogical to reason that what is fact and what is falsehood are equal in value. I therefore cannot logically put faith or trust in any known falsehood. Consequently faith would be the evidence of things not yet seen and not the evidence of things that will never exist. However, pertaining to God, I must either trust or distrust where empathy will lead me. I don't get to not choose. Therefore logically, perceiving the Godhead is a moral imperative, everyone must say what is morally right or wrong even in ignorance of the Godhead.
Quote:[quote] You created a fallacy in the argument where you cannot be wrong because you made faith absolute which eliminates the possibility of knowledge.
It depends on what my faith is in as to whether I will be right or wrong. I am putting my faith in Love, and that it is good for me and for others to do so.
I certainly perceive there is knowledge I have yet to ascertain which is also my faith. And such learning is conceivably infinite.

Quote:Yes, no one is omniscient, so everything is built on a certain amount of faith. But that is a dishonest approach to the argument. Even though nothing can 100%, things that are 99.99% are with a fair degree of logic, known as "knowledge". Things that are close to 100% should be considered as true, not needing faith, or as knowledge.
I question your use of the word dishonest. Perhaps we are not arguing the same point. I am not concerned with degrees or percentages. I have one simple moral judgment to make that I must make several times every day. Is it better to sacrifice myself for others or sacrifice others for myself? It is logically clear to me that if everyone sacrificed themselves for others no one would actually have to sacrifice anything in reality. However if everyone chose to sacrifice others we all would end up dead. Consequently Love is also Life and faith is quite logical.

Quote:If you eliminate logic from the debate (like you have) you have created a dishonest argument disguised as a legitimate position.

Try letting logic into the argument and see how far you get.
I truly think I am being quite logical.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:27 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:31 PM)yumeji Wrote:  @childeye
Nothing like redefining words to meet your views, e?

[Image: cyhp.jpg]
I am using well known definitions as can be seen in any dictionary or encyclopedia.
A religion is simply something one devotes themselves to religiously. More important is how we define God so as to not conflate a subjective view with an objective view.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:30 PM
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:18 PM)Buddy Wrote:  
(08-07-2013 06:14 PM)childeye Wrote:  No, I must agree with facts or be ignorant. That's a fact. I don't trust hearsay is what I said. I don't know what you mean by shamanistic séances. Faith to me is not blind trust or superstition.
You contradicted yourself.
By all means, please elaborate.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-07-2013, 08:44 PM (This post was last modified: 08-07-2013 09:01 PM by childeye.)
RE: Has atheism become religion?
(08-07-2013 06:23 PM)ridethespiral Wrote:  Faith is belief without evidence, plain and simple. AKA Blind Trust.

Merrium Webster:

Faith:
2: "firm belief in something for which there is no proof (2) : complete trust"

faith

/fāTH/
Noun
1.Complete trust or confidence in someone or something.

Please note that without trust there can be no secure place to put your heart. Trust is the foundation of relationships. Consequently, the atheist position is hypocritical since one would always have to be proving themselves and testing all others forever in a never ending cynicism. Even atheists have to trust or distrust in Love, in some manner and in some degree. It is a fact that politics are inevitable. I assure you that I was born in blind trust that my parents would care for me. That trust in Love as I exist now is still ongoing but not without evidence. That is a simple fact since I am here and my parents sacrificed for me. All is built upon faith. Please note how most everyone takes care for others on the highway so as not to kill someone. We don't know everyone will stay in their lanes and not go nuts but we must trust they will, and the evidence of our faith is people arrive safely at their destinations.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: