Atheism IS a Religion
in Religion

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

To dismiss a source because it's not an authority on the subject... whats the name for that... oh ya the appeal to authority fallacy. I noticed you completely ignore the other source I gave with supported the same position.

The words you used aren't antonyms like typical/atypical, symetrical/asymetrical, and of course theist/atheist. Yes the English language is complex, steals from other language to create a frankenstein language that sucks really bad. Just like you suck at English.

No, the appeal to authority fallacy is when you say that because an authority thinks something, it must be true. It's what you're trying to by quoting Wikipedia. The only difference is that Wikipedia isn't an authority on anything aside from wiki page design. Dismissing a source that someone can change to fit any circumstance they desire isn't a fallacy, it's just common sense.

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/ml/nycvn6neigah.jpg

Obviously theist and atheist aren't normal antonyms either, or their definitions would reflect that. It's rare, but atheism/theism isn't the only word combination that doesn't quite match up. For instance;

Ceramic

:of or relating to the manufacture of any product (such as earthenware, porcelain, or brick) made essentially from a nonmetallic mineral (such as clay) by firing at a high temperature; also
:of or relating to such a product

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ceramic

Aceramic - not relating to the manufacture of any product (such as earthenware, porcelain, or brick) made essentially from a nonmetallic mineral (such as clay) by firing at a high temperature? No;

Aceramic

:not producing, having, or including pottery

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aceramic

The terms are similar to antonyms, but they are not direct antonyms. Like atheism/theism, aceramic does not mean entirely "without ceramics", but rather refers to a subset of "without ceramics" (the early Hacilar made structures with mud bricks, but had no pottery).

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

To dismiss a source because it's not an authority on the subject... whats the name for that... oh ya the appeal to authority fallacy. I noticed you completely ignore the other source I gave with supported the same position.

The words you used aren't antonyms like typical/atypical, symetrical/asymetrical, and of course theist/atheist. Yes the English language is complex, steals from other language to create a frankenstein language that sucks really bad. Just like you suck at English.

No, the appeal to authority fallacy is when you say that because an authority thinks something, it must be true. It's what you're trying to by quoting Wikipedia. The only difference is that Wikipedia isn't an authority on anything aside from wiki page design. Dismissing a source that someone can change to fit any circumstance they desire isn't a fallacy, it's just common sense.

Obviously theist and atheist aren't normal antonyms either, or their definitions would reflect that. It's rare, but atheism/theism isn't the only word combination that doesn't quite match up. For instance;

Ceramic

:of or relating to the manufacture of any product (such as earthenware, porcelain, or brick) made essentially from a nonmetallic mineral (such as clay) by firing at a high temperature; also
:of or relating to such a product

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ceramic

Aceramic - not relating to the manufacture of any product (such as earthenware, porcelain, or brick) made essentially from a nonmetallic mineral (such as clay) by firing at a high temperature? No;
Aceramic

:not producing, having, or including pottery
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aceramic

The terms are similar to antonyms, but they are not direct antonyms. Like atheism/theism, aceramic does not mean entirely "without ceramics", but rather refers to a subset of "without ceramics" (the early Hacilar made structures with mud bricks, but had no pottery).

When you say "I will not accept that source because it's not an authority" you are using the appeal to authority fallacy. I won't dispute that wiki has issues, but the statement still has it's own merit, and that statement was supported by other sources. But sure man if you hear something you don't like, just say the source is bias, bad, or whatever so you don't have to address the statement and you have something you can "win" at.

Theist and atheist aren't antonyms?!?!? Wait what? You are of the position that atheist means "A person who believes god doesn't exist" and that theist means "A person who believes god exist" and somehow you are also of the position that they aren't antonyms? Really? Please explain those mental gymnastics.

Ceramic means pottery, so yes aceramic means without ceramics by your definitions

Pottery - a place where clayware is made and fired

To be fair though I had never heard the term aceramic before, so if you push back I may have to do some more research, but I expect it's a case of making the definition based on what's the norm rather than what's possible. Are there other nonmetallic minerals other than clay that they fire? I haven't heard of any, but again not a topic I've researched before.

JoePineapples · October 2017

@Coveny
I don't expect for a second that he/she will explain how their idea can really work.

In the meantime though, I'm willing to play devil's advocate - let's assume that atheism is indeed the belief that there are no gods... a single such belief does not constitute a whole belief system, let alone a religion.

Nightwing · October 2017

There are two kinds of atheists.

The first and most common atheist are those that try to prove a god or gods do not exist. It is not possible to prove whether a god or gods exist either way. For these people, atheism is a religion. Like all religions, their religion is based on the circular argument, otherwise known as 'faith'. This type often tries to use the Theory of Evolution as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory. It is just like faithful believers of a god or gods that try to prove their case using the Theory of Creation as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory.

The second is very uncommon. I have only met one of them in my travels. This type of atheist acknowledges that you can't prove the existence of a god or gods, and simply believes there isn't one, although we don't really know. He simply does not attribute anything in his experience to a god or gods. He recognizes that the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are theories, and that none of them are scientific theories since none of them are falsifiable. We can't go back to look to see what actually happened. We can only show what MIGHT have happened.

Coveny · October 2017

Nightwing said:

There are two kinds of atheists.

The first and most common atheist are those that try to prove a god or gods do not exist. It is not possible to prove whether a god or gods exist either way. For these people, atheism is a religion. Like all religions, their religion is based on the circular argument, otherwise known as 'faith'. This type often tries to use the Theory of Evolution as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory. It is just like faithful believers of a god or gods that try to prove their case using the Theory of Creation as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory.

The second is very uncommon. I have only met one of them in my travels. This type of atheist acknowledges that you can't prove the existence of a god or gods, and simply believes there isn't one, although we don't really know. He simply does not attribute anything in his experience to a god or gods. He recognizes that the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are theories, and that none of them are scientific theories since none of them are falsifiable. We can't go back to look to see what actually happened. We can only show what MIGHT have happened.

Very few atheists try to "prove god(s) don't exist" they do in general spend a fair amount of time say "that's not proof god(s) exist". Atheism can't be a religion because it's not a claim, it's just a case of saying "I'm not a theist", and therefore it's a null value. However there are a fair amount of atheist who believe that theism is harmful to the world and actively work against it, this isn't an atheist this is an antitheist, and could be a religion because it makes a claim "theism is wrong".

JoePineapples · October 2017

Nightwing said:

There are two kinds of atheists.

The first and most common atheist are those that try to prove a god or gods do not exist. It is not possible to prove whether a god or gods exist either way. For these people, atheism is a religion. Like all religions, their religion is based on the circular argument, otherwise known as 'faith'. This type often tries to use the Theory of Evolution as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory. It is just like faithful believers of a god or gods that try to prove their case using the Theory of Creation as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory.

The second is very uncommon. I have only met one of them in my travels. This type of atheist acknowledges that you can't prove the existence of a god or gods, and simply believes there isn't one, although we don't really know. He simply does not attribute anything in his experience to a god or gods. He recognizes that the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are theories, and that none of them are scientific theories since none of them are falsifiable. We can't go back to look to see what actually happened. We can only show what MIGHT have happened.

So what about atheists like me, simply without belief in any gods? I'm not alone, here in the UK is a common thing.

Come to think of it, I've only ever experienced one or two of your first type of atheist.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

When you say "I will not accept that source because it's not an authority" you are using the appeal to authority fallacy. I won't dispute that wiki has issues, but the statement still has it's own merit, and that statement was supported by other sources. But sure man if you hear something you don't like, just say the source is bias, bad, or whatever so you don't have to address the statement and you have something you can "win" at.

Incorrect;

Appeal to Authority
Explanation
An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.
Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

http://www.logicalfallacies.info/relevance/appeals/appeal-to-authority/

Just for a laugh, I thought I'd add wiki's entry;

An argument from authority, also called an appeal to authority, or the argumentum ad verecundiam[note 1], is a form of defeasible[4] argument in which a claimed authority's support is used as evidence for an argument's conclusion. It is well known as a fallacy, though it is used in a cogent form when all sides of a discussion agree on the reliability of the authority in the given context.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority

If you claim Wikipedia to be an authority, you are committing an appeal to authority fallacy by citing them as "proof" your position is correct. If you aren't claiming Wikipedia to be an authority, than who cares what the Wikipedia entry says?

Theist and atheist aren't antonyms?!?!? Wait what? You are of the position that atheist means "A person who believes god doesn't exist" and that theist means "A person who believes god exist" and somehow you are also of the position that they aren't antonyms? Really? Please explain those mental gymnastics.

Ceramic means pottery, so yes aceramic means without ceramics by your definitions

Pottery - a place where clayware is made and fired

To be fair though I had never heard the term aceramic before, so if you push back I may have to do some more research, but I expect it's a case of making the definition based on what's the norm rather than what's possible. Are there other nonmetallic minerals other than clay that they fire? I haven't heard of any, but again not a topic I've researched before.

Please don't comment until you have reread (or more likely, just read) and comprehended what I said;

Obviously theist and atheist aren't normal antonyms either, or their definitions would reflect that. It's rare, but atheism/theism isn't the only word combination that doesn't quite match up. For instance;

Ceramic

:of or relating to the manufacture of any product (such as earthenware, porcelain, or brick) made essentially from a nonmetallic mineral (such as clay) by firing at a high temperature; also
:of or relating to such a product

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ceramic

Aceramic - not relating to the manufacture of any product (such as earthenware, porcelain, or brick) made essentially from a nonmetallic mineral (such as clay) by firing at a high temperature? No;
Aceramic

:not producing, having, or including pottery

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/aceramic

The terms are similar to antonyms, but they are not direct antonyms. Like atheism/theism, aceramic does not mean entirely "without ceramics", but rather refers to a subset of "without ceramics" (the early Hacilar made structures with mud bricks, but had no pottery).
A settlement can have buildings made of brick, jewelry made with ceramic beads, even home furnishings made of ceramics, yet be aceramic.

Coveny · October 2017

@CYDdharta when you say "f you aren't claiming Wikipedia to be an authority, than who cares what the Wikipedia entry says?" you are using an appeal to authority fallacy because you are refusing to listen to anyone who isn't considered an authority. It's interesting that you have no issues saything that if you aren't a theist you believe god doesn't exist, but can't accept that saying I don't listen to non-authorities, so I must use the appeal to authority fallacy. There are some close similarities to those two from a semantic/logical perspective.

I'm going to skip over the insults I'm not in the mood for smack talk today.

Citations needed for ceramics that are aceramic. As in get one of your authorities to state a product is both ceramic and a ceramic just in case you're not clear on the request.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

@CYDdharta when you say "f you aren't claiming Wikipedia to be an authority, than who cares what the Wikipedia entry says?" you are using an appeal to authority fallacy because you are refusing to listen to anyone who isn't considered an authority. It's interesting that you have no issues saything that if you aren't a theist you believe god doesn't exist, but can't accept that saying I don't listen to non-authorities, so I must use the appeal to authority fallacy. There are some close similarities to those two from a semantic/logical perspective.

Read the definition again as to what an appeal to authority fallacy means in the rest of the world. When you say "I read it on wiki, so it must be true" you're either committing an appeal to authority fallacy or you're making a random useless statement.

Citations needed for ceramics that are aceramic. As in get one of your authorities to state a product is both ceramic and a ceramic just in case you're not clear on the request.

As per the dictionary definition, anything that isn't pottery is aceramic, including things made of ceramics.

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:
Read the definition again as to what an appeal to authority fallacy means in the rest of the world. When you say "I read it on wiki, so it must be true" you're either committing an appeal to authority fallacy or you're making a random useless statement.
Citations needed for ceramics that are aceramic. As in get one of your authorities to state a product is both ceramic and a ceramic just in case you're not clear on the request.
As per the dictionary definition, anything that isn't pottery is aceramic, including things made of ceramics.

Didn't say "I read it on wiki, so it must be true" stop with the strawman fallacies.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

Didn't say "I read it on wiki, so it must be true" stop with the strawman fallacies.

...then why did you mention wiki at all?

Coveny · October 2017

@CYDdharta because it's a source that supports my position. I don't claim that any one source "must be true" that's why I tend to list multiple sources. (as I have done throughout this whole debate) I believe that a statements should stand for themselves. I don't care who says something, what they say and how true it is what matters to me.

Erfisflat · October 2017

"you are using an appeal to authority fallacy because you are refusing to listen to anyone who isn't considered an authority."

Another quote for the wall of shame. Thanks.

Coveny · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

"you are using an appeal to authority fallacy because you are refusing to listen to anyone who isn't considered an authority."

Another quote for the wall of shame. Thanks.

Why talk about it... just do it already. Oh and when are you going to shut up like you said you would?

Erfisflat · October 2017

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

"you are using an appeal to authority fallacy because you are refusing to listen to anyone who isn't considered an authority."

Another quote for the wall of shame. Thanks.

Why talk about it... just do it already. Oh and when are you going to shut up like you said you would?

I said I would shut up? Lol, not as long as you're here to make fun of. Like I said, your ignorance is only overshadowed by your arrogance.

Coveny · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

Coveny said:

Erfisflat said:

"you are using an appeal to authority fallacy because you are refusing to listen to anyone who isn't considered an authority."

Another quote for the wall of shame. Thanks.

Why talk about it... just do it already. Oh and when are you going to shut up like you said you would?

I said I would shut up? Lol, not as long as you're here to make fun of. Like I said, your ignorance is only overshadowed by your arrogance.

Yes you said something like "if I wasn't making reasonable arguments you wouldn't talk to me" I took that as you shutting up.

As a for the record thing I don't think I'm better than anyone. I know I'm smarter because I've taken IQ tests and score anywhere from 124 to 134, but I don't feel like intelligence is the only gauge of a human being. Einstein was "smart", and he understood this concept as well. When it comes to social skills I have trouble understanding things that others understand very easily, and that is only one other aspect that plays a huge role in a person's life, there are mean more.

Image: https://i.pinimg.com/736x/2b/1c/53/2b1c53ea0bd3c358c9dc33f392c569fc--funny-stuff-funny-things.jpg

You confuse smack talk with arrogance. I don't think I'm better than flat earthers, or anyone else. I've had experiences where someone who was much dumber than me succeeded (in some cases easily) where I failed. Intelligence is just one trait.

Evidence · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

Coveny said:
You either believe or you don't. Do you believe you are going to do great things? No? Does that mean you believe you are NOT going to do great things? no it doesn't (etc.)

@CYDdharta
The above is absolutely correct, a belief is a binary thing, it's either present or it's not. Therefore, any question beginning with "Do you believe..." can only have one of two answers, yes or no. If the answer is no, that does not limit or exclude you from having alternate beliefs about the question subject.

The following are all separate belief questions, each require a yes or no;
-Do you believe I have a dog?
-Do you believe I don't have a dog?
-Do you believe I might have a dog?
-Do you believe I have more than one dog?
-Do you believe I am a dog?
-Do you believe that cats are dogs?
Etc.

A belief is like a hat, you either have it or you don't. A belief that god or gods exist might be a green hat (each god has a different shade of green) and the belief that there are no gods might be a blue hat. A belief that dogs can see in the dark might be a red hat. Not having a green hat does not mean you have to have a blue hat (or a red hat for that matter).

No sir, when it comes to atheism, it's more like this:
-Do you believe I have a dog?
Me: I don't believe in cats.
-I asked you if you believe that I have a dog, not a cat!
Me: define your dog?
-A furry feline creature with long whiskers, tail and claws that likes to climb trees, and catch birds. Now do you believe I have a dog or not?

Evidence · October 2017

The second is very uncommon. I have only met one of them in my travels. This type of atheist acknowledges that you can't prove the existence of a god or gods, and simply believes there isn't one, although we don't really know. He simply does not attribute anything in his experience to a god or gods. He recognizes that the Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are theories, and that none of them are scientific theories since none of them are falsifiable. We can't go back to look to see what actually happened. We can only show what MIGHT have happened.

@Nightwing said:

There are two kinds of atheists.

The first and most common atheist are those that try to prove a god or gods do not exist. It is not possible to prove whether a god or gods exist either way. For these people, atheism is a religion. Like all religions, their religion is based on the circular argument, otherwise known as 'faith'. This type often tries to use the Theory of Evolution as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory. It is just like faithful believers of a god or gods that try to prove their case using the Theory of Creation as a proof, even though it is only a theory, and not even a scientific theory.

But gods do exist Nightwing, it's scientific fact, all you have to do is observe. I'm telling you that you can actually buy them gods on eBay. Any kind of god you want, made of any material of your choosing; wood, stone, bronze etc. OR, .. you can even make your own gods with holy-books to go along with them!

As for the "Theory of Creation", .. well you tell me?

Here is what I know, .. that in science, we are to "observe, examine and document the world around us", correct? OK then, so let's be scientists and examine the world around us?
I see mountains, trees and in-between them I see houses.
Hmm, .. the house is made out of trees (mostly anyways) and I see that we humans intelligently designed and made/built those houses from the trees.
So far, no other scientist has disputed this observation, so this is fact, .. wouldn't you agree?

Now let's observe the trees: Neither I, nor any other scientist has claimed that either he, nor anyone made those trees. So I start searching for information on what or who may have made those trees, because I do see that all the trees follow a specific order, which shows 'intelligent design', .. and after a lifelong in-depth search, I have found a "book" claiming that "yes, the trees, and everything else that we humans didn't create came about by a "Creator".
OK-then, so let's see if this could even be possible, .. you know, to intelligently design and create things? Or are we going by some baseless assumption?

From written history we learn that after 6,000 years, we come to a time when men have come up with an idea, not from observation that if you want something, you have to I.D. and create it, but from their rebellious imagination, that "just because we humans create everything by Intelligent Design doesn't mean that whatever we, nor anyone else claimed to have created, had to be intelligently designed and created!"

So we say: "Hmm, .. interesting! So tell us how the things that we humans didn't create came about then?"
So these dreamers dissect everything, and explain the order and the strict laws that 'everything we didn't create' follow, by which they themselves go by and create things, and say: "It all began long, long time ago before time existed, in a point in space before space existed, a singularity popped out of nothing, for no reason or plan of anyone nor anything, and it exploded with a Big Bang! Because we undoubtedly believe that sh*eet like this can happen!"

So we say: "Wow, that's some deranged thinking there buddy! Do you have ANY proof of anything like this happening that you, or anyone else observed? You know, where these 'singularities' appear out of nowhere, and into nothing, .. and with no plan or anyone's doing just 'evolved' everything that we didn't create? Can you show us evidence of any"thing" following this logic?"

Then of course, these people realizing the idiocy of what they just claimed backed down a bit, and slowly by the typical tactics of street hustlers, pimps and drug pushers, they hired dreamers, storytellers who for fame and money invented all these fantastic stories, some came from science fiction writers, movie makers showing cartoons and even movies of monkey-men walking the earth, and in heaven they invented Klingon planets, even renaming our stars in the heavens with names of their gods, until they got enough money to influence government officials, and even built schools and forced teachers to lie if they wanted to keep their jobs, until they convinced children that these lunatic ideas actually were real science!

This is why we buy Darth Wader helmets and Light-Sabers for our children at science fairs.
I mean it's like the saying: "It's all fun and games until someone looses an eye!"
Well that's exactly what happened, .. millions of children's eyes were poked out by these hoodlums, pimps, hustlers selling these ideas, where today, millions are walking around blind, unable to observe the world around them, instead walk through life by "blind faith", each lead by their individual religions and religious leaders with their crazy and even demented ideas.

This theism/atheism is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind. We can R.I.P. science, and the little that is still alive, the technology part is used to further blind the new generations, and of course used to kill us.

"You like your I-Phone? Well you batter believe in BB-Evolution, because it all comes from the same people, from these scientists like at 666CRERN and snake-tongued NASA.

Nightwing · October 2017

But gods do exist Nightwing, it's scientific fact, all you have to do is observe. I'm telling you that you can actually buy them gods on eBay. Any kind of god you want, made of any material of your choosing; wood, stone, bronze etc. OR, .. you can even make your own gods with holy-books to go along with them!

Science has nothing to do with whether a god or gods exist.
The existence of statues representing some deity is fine. That's a logical statement, not a scientific one.

This theism/atheism is the worst thing that has ever happened to mankind. We can R.I.P. science, and the little that is still alive, the technology part is used to further blind the new generations, and of course used to kill us.

You seem to have a very negative attitude about religions in general. It seems to stem from ignoring the good that various religions have done for the world. Charity is one aspect that comes out of religion, especially among the Christians. It stems from the belief that all men are brothers, and that we should help each other.

Religion is one of the founding pillars that inspired the founding of the United States and the Constitution it was founded under. That Constitution, if honored, is a powerful concept and document, providing a structure where liberty can prevail among men.

"You like your I-Phone? Well you batter believe in BB-Evolution, because it all comes from the same people, from these scientists like at 666CRERN and snake-tongued NASA.

I don't have an I-Phone. I prefer Android.

Evidence · October 2017

@Nightwing said - Science has nothing to do with whether a god or gods exist.
The existence of statues representing some deity is fine. That's a logical statement, not a scientific one.

Hello Nightwing, I understand what you're saying, it is how we were brainwashed into believing for millennia now, .. that "science and God don't mix", .. so Religions could survive with their make belief gods. This was so no one questions their existence, see what I mean?
Actually science has 'everything' to do with the existence of God, .. since He is the Creator.
so we ask; creator of what? Of every"thing".
What does science do?
We observe "things", this includes biological life. Isn't that like saying; "Science and Technology has nothing to do with Henry Ford, or Edison"?

Statues representing God is like a child that his mother tells him to go get his father, and comes back with a plastic toy soldier saying: "Here is daddy, mama!" I mean maybe for a child that be OK, but we couldn't let him play along like that for too long, right?
Yet this is exactly what happened with us. We have been fooled to accept our Infinite and Eternal Creator, our Heavenly Father as wood, stone and even plastic statues.

Nighthawk said - You seem to have a very negative attitude about religions in general. It seems to stem from ignoring the good that various religions have done for the world. Charity is one aspect that comes out of religion, especially among the Christians. It stems from the belief that all men are brothers, and that we should help each other.

I'm sorry to say my friend, but that does NOT come from Religion (I don't mean a religious act, I mean 'Religion', as in organized Religion like Christianity) what you said comes from the Bible, from God through His Son Word's teachings.
Now we can either do these good deeds from our hearts in honor of our Loving Creator, or for our Religion, but one will have no reward in it except praise from the Religious leaders ignoring what Jesus taught us: "

Galatians 1:9 As we have said before, so now I say again: If anyone is preaching to you a gospel contrary to the one you embraced, let him be under accursed! 10 Am I now seeking the approval of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a servant of Christ. 11For I certify to you, brothers, that the gospel I preached is not devised by man.…

Like Mother Teresa, what she did was for her "Church" which was the Catholic Christian Religion, and to prove it, read up on her (Mother Teresa Beatified Oct 19 2003) she will have her reward, .. here, .. even long after she is dead. She offered idols to those she was involved with to worship, and she taught them to pray long, repetitious prayers to these idols which were carved from wood for the Christian Religion. They represented the Religion, the Pope and the man-made trinity-gods of Christianity. Not our Creator, nor His Son "Word".

Nighthawk said - Religion is one of the founding pillars that inspired the founding of the United States and the Constitution it was founded under. That Constitution, if honored, is a powerful concept and document, providing a structure where liberty can prevail among men.

Again, that was the Bible, not the Religion. Religion brought us the Statue of Liberty (The statue was dedicated on October 28, 1886. The Statue of Liberty is a figure of a robed woman representing Libertas, a Roman goddess Isis illuminating the world.)
ISIS, Illuminati-ng, .. ring a bell?

Google - The Statue of Isis was first known as Liberty Enlightening the World, but is now more commonly called, the "Statue of Liberty." However, we must ask ourselves, "Is she truly enlightening the world, or is she actually the Goddess who keeps our illumination in the shadows as she holds the light above in her torch, only to hide the truth from the profane (uninitiated) of the abyss (sea of humanity) who are kept in the dark?" A secret that keeps most of the population of the United States in complete ignorance as they are cast under the wicked spell of Isis. A goddess of both Heaven and Hell.

Religion has also brought us slavery,

the American civil war,

WWII,

Vietnam,

9-11,

Iraqi war,

.. nothing but death and destruction, .. while the Bible and its teachings held us together by a thread. Let's give credit where credit is due, and it is NOT to any organized Religion and their gods.

God bless you! (not any of the thousands of Greek/Roman/German theos/gods.)

Nightwing · October 2017

@Evidence

You seem to attribute everything to the Bible.

A few problems with your arguments:

First, you don't seem to understand what science is. Science is not observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. How a new theory is inspired may be through a belief in God, or it may be through observing some experiment, or it may be through watching an episode of Sponge Bob. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability, and the theory surviving that test.

Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

This means that it just takes nature at face value. It does not care where it comes from.

While religion has certainly caused wars, it has also done a lot of good. For example, the organization known as the Free Masons are all ABOUT charity. It's a big reason why they exist. I know it's not organized as a religion, but it IS organized to require religion.

Organized religions created things like the Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the YMCA, various jobs and retraining programs, etc. You may say that's all from the Bible, but it is ALSO from the religious belief of the people that founded these organizations...in other words, their organized religion that brought them to this way of thinking.

Religion did not bring us slavery. Men did that. Religion eventually managed to abolish slavery as a legal practice in the United States though. The 'Civil' war (which is actually wasn't), was really a War of Secession, brought about not by slavery itself, but by violations of the 4th and 10th amendments of the Constitution by the Federal government. The slave was the property involved, among others. It was these violations that caused the southern states to secede from the Union and form their own nation known as the Confederacy.

Religion effectively DID cause the War of Secession. It was between people that figured the slave should be freed and treated like any other brother of man before God, vs the people that ignored the teachings of the Bible and wanted to keep slaves as property. The Federal government was trying to take their property away without compensation.

Your conclusion that religion had nothing to do with anything but death and destruction is simplistic and ignores the good that came from organized religion, which inspired many men to do great and wonderful things by teaching them the truths of things like the contents of the Bible.

CYDdharta · October 2017

Nightwing said:

@Evidence

Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

That's not an atheistic approach, an atheist believes God does not exist. They do deny or disbelieve in the existence of a supreme being or beings. What you're suggesting is more of an agnostic approach, it is not possible to know whether God exists or not so we'll stick to things that can be proven or disproven.

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

Nightwing said:

@Evidence
Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

That's not an atheistic approach, an atheist believes God does not exist. They do deny or disbelieve in the existence of a supreme being or beings. What you're suggesting is more of an agnostic approach, it is not possible to know whether God exists or not so we'll stick to things that can be proven or disproven.

That is NOT what atheist is. I have proven this to you repeatedly please stop using the words incorrectly.

CYDdharta · October 2017

@Coveny You've haven't proven anything in this debate except that you either can't read, comprehend, or accept the dictionary definition of the term.

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny You've haven't proven anything in this debate except that you either can't read, comprehend, or accept the dictionary definition of the term.

I am the one who can't accept the dictionary definition of the term? That is some good crack you are smoking. I find 10 sites that agree with my definition, you find 2, and one of those two agrees with me as well as you, so you really only have ONE site that supports you but I am the one who can't accept the dictionary definition of the term?!?! ROFL

Image: http://dev1.debateisland.com/uploads/editor/vq/d4hjelx1e0kf.jpg

CYDdharta · October 2017

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny You've haven't proven anything in this debate except that you either can't read, comprehend, or accept the dictionary definition of the term.

I am the one who can't accept the dictionary definition of the term? That is some good crack you are smoking. I find 10 sites that agree with my definition, you find 2, and one of those two agrees with me as well as you, so you really only have ONE site that supports you but I am the one who can't accept the dictionary definition of the term?!?! ROFL

You found 10 sites that agree with you're definition?!?!? ROFLMAO!!! That's a good one right there. You're funnier than anyone on late night these days. The definitions I used above came from 2 of the sources you claim agree with you.

Deliberate Ignorance: (also, Closed-mindedness; "I don't want to hear it!"; Motivated Ignorance; Tuning Out; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys' Fallacy]): As described by author and commentator Brian Resnik on Vox.com (2017), this is the fallacy of simply choosing not to listen, "tuning out" or turning off any information, evidence or arguments that challenge one's beliefs, ideology, standpoint, or peace of mind, following the popular humorous dictum: "Don't try to confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!" This seemingly innocuous fallacy has enabled the most vicious tyrannies and abuses over history, and continues to do so today. See also Trust your Gut, Confirmation Bias, The Third Person Effect, "They're All Crooks," the Simpleton's Fallacy, and The Positive Thinking Fallacy.

http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

Coveny · October 2017

CYDdharta said:

Coveny said:

CYDdharta said:

@Coveny You've haven't proven anything in this debate except that you either can't read, comprehend, or accept the dictionary definition of the term.

I am the one who can't accept the dictionary definition of the term? That is some good crack you are smoking. I find 10 sites that agree with my definition, you find 2, and one of those two agrees with me as well as you, so you really only have ONE site that supports you but I am the one who can't accept the dictionary definition of the term?!?! ROFL

You found 10 sites that agree with you're definition?!?!? ROFLMAO!!! That's a good one right there. You're funnier than anyone on late night these days. The definitions I used above came from 2 of the sources you claim agree with you.

Deliberate Ignorance: (also, Closed-mindedness; "I don't want to hear it!"; Motivated Ignorance; Tuning Out; Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil [The Three Monkeys' Fallacy]): As described by author and commentator Brian Resnik on Vox.com (2017), this is the fallacy of simply choosing not to listen, "tuning out" or turning off any information, evidence or arguments that challenge one's beliefs, ideology, standpoint, or peace of mind, following the popular humorous dictum: "Don't try to confuse me with the facts; my mind is made up!" This seemingly innocuous fallacy has enabled the most vicious tyrannies and abuses over history, and continues to do so today. See also Trust your Gut, Confirmation Bias, The Third Person Effect, "They're All Crooks," the Simpleton's Fallacy, and The Positive Thinking Fallacy.
http://utminers.utep.edu/omwilliamson/ENGL1311/fallacies.htm

1) Webster - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
2) Oxford - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
3) Urban - A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
4) Your dictionary - The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.
5) Macmillian - someone who does not believe that God exists
6) Free Dictionary - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
7) WordWeb - Someone who does not believe in god;
8) American Heritage - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
9) Newbury - a person who does not believe in the existence of God
10) Atheist American - A lack of belief in gods.
11) Wiki - in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
12) All about philosophy - Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.
13) Thought co - anyone who doesn't believe in any gods.
14) The Secular Web - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god
15) Reasonable Faith - lack belief in God

Lacks, disbelieves, absence, or does not believe from 15 different sources as 10 was not enough for you. Atheism covers anyone who doesn't believe god(s) exist. It is a null value, it makes no claim. It is merely stating that I am NOT a part of your group with the prefix "A" in front of the group "theist". I am a non-theist if you just can't use the word atheist correctly. (they mean the SAME thing)

Evidence · October 2017

Nightwing said:

@Evidence ; You seem to attribute everything to the Bible.

Yes sir, .. since it covers everything from creation, the why's, the who's, everything, so yeah, it would be only reasonable to do so, right?

Nightwing - A few problems with your arguments:
First, you don't seem to understand what science is. Science is not observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Ah, got it. So no 'observation' necessary, just throw some theories out there and go with that, .. is that what you're saying? Well that explains the Big Bang story, because I am 99.9999% sure that the Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre did NOT observe any speck popping out of nothing and Big-Banging some imaginary universe as described by NASA artists into existence!?

Nightwing - How a new theory is inspired may be through a belief in God, or it may be through observing some experiment, or it may be through watching an episode of Sponge Bob. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability, and the theory surviving that test.

Hmm, .. SpongeBob works at the Krusty Krab, so can you tell me how you could, .. through scientific experiment, prove if this is true or not?
OK, how about Henry Ford, who people say; was the Founder of the Ford Motor Company. How would you go about scientifically proving that one way or another? I say anyone, including Abe Lincoln could have Founded Ford. So I gave you a hypothesis, let's see how you will turn that into a theory?

Nightwing - Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

More like Theistic/Atheistic in its approach! The Big-Bang Evolution pseudoscience was built on theism/atheism aka 'Religion'.

No gods, well let's look at "Mother Nature"?

A science news blog from
ShortSharpScience
Mother Nature’s protective care
"Apparently, morning sickness may be natures way of protecting unborn babies from harmful foodstuffs."

Nightwing - This means that it just takes nature at face value. It does not care where it comes from.

So you agree with me that the Big-Bang/Evolution stories have absolutely nothing to do with science!?

Nightwing - While religion has certainly caused wars, it has also done a lot of good. For example, the organization known as the Free Masons are all ABOUT charity. It's a big reason why they exist. I know it's not organized as a religion, but it IS organized to require religion.

No Organized Religion has ever done any good. As for Charities, I agree! That's how any and all religions survive and even flourish. Rule of thumb for all religions to survive; blind faith "thou shalt not asketh questions, just openeth you wallet and give us all ya got! Amen, and praise all the gods!"

Nightwing - Organized religions created things like the Red Cross, The Salvation Army, the YMCA, various jobs and retraining programs, etc. You may say that's all from the Bible, but it is ALSO from the religious belief of the people that founded these organizations...in other words, their organized religion that brought them to this way of thinking.

Yes Organized Religion sure Did, which explains why those Catholic, Hindu, Muslim countries remain soo poor!

Nighthawk - Religion did not bring us slavery. Men did that. Religion eventually managed to abolish slavery as a legal practice in the United States though. The 'Civil' war (which is actually wasn't), was really a War of Secession, brought about not by slavery itself, but by violations of the 4th and 10th amendments of the Constitution by the Federal government. The slave was the property involved, among others. It was these violations that caused the southern states to secede from the Union and form their own nation known as the Confederacy.

"Religion did not bring us slavery, .. Men did that", .. yes, but they were religious men; theist/atheists, religious Leaders that brought us slavery!

It was N.T. Bible thinkers and Believers that abolished slavery, by what Jesus taught: "If you want to be great in the Kingdom of heaven, ...." as he washed the Apostles feet!

Nighthawk - Religion effectively DID cause the War of Secession. It was between people that figured the slave should be freed and treated like any other brother of man before God, vs the people that ignored the teachings of the Bible and wanted to keep slaves as property. The Federal government was trying to take their property away without compensation.
Your conclusion that religion had nothing to do with anything but death and destruction is simplistic and ignores the good that came from organized religion, which inspired many men to do great and wonderful things by teaching them the truths of things like the contents of the Bible.

Men taught the Bible to men, while Religion robbed men from coming to know our One and Only Infinite Creator "I Am", and made sure they would never find God. That's why the ONLY god/gods you and everyone knows are the theos/gods, created by Religions. That's why Religion has taken over and reinterpreted the definition of science. Today, people can't differentiate between pseudoscience / science-fiction from real science!? People go to science fiction Movie Swap meets , .. buy Light sabers and Darth Wader helmets, .. thinking they were at a Science Fair. Sad, truly sad what Organized Religion has done to humanity!

This is why THEY-the Religious Leaders can do 9-11, and false-flag operations like this last Vegas shooting, and everyone (theist/atheists) just roll right along with it.

JoePineapples · October 2017

Coveny said:
1) Webster - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
2) Oxford - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
3) Urban - A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
4) Your dictionary - The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.
5) Macmillian - someone who does not believe that God exists
6) Free Dictionary - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
7) WordWeb - Someone who does not believe in god;
8) American Heritage - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
9) Newbury - a person who does not believe in the existence of God
10) Atheist American - A lack of belief in gods.
11) Wiki - in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
12) All about philosophy - Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.
13) Thought co - anyone who doesn't believe in any gods.
14) The Secular Web - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god
15) Reasonable Faith - lack belief in God

Lacks, disbelieves, absence, or does not believe from 15 different sources as 10 was not enough for you. Atheism covers anyone who doesn't believe god(s) exist. It is a null value, it makes no claim. It is merely stating that I am NOT a part of your group with the prefix "A" in front of the group "theist". I am a non-theist if you just can't use the word atheist correctly. (they mean the SAME thing)

It does seem (overwhelmingly so) that CYDdharta is grasping at straws to try and get the definition of atheism to fit his/her agenda. As I said earlier though, even if atheism meant that you had to have the belief that there are no gods, one belief makes neither a belief system nor a religion.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Atheists only believe one thing? Nah. From my experience, Atheists believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Atheists were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Atheists believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course atheists choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny atheists that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
Just after the nearest atheist claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing atheists can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some atheists will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other atheists proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the atheists will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of atheists. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it.

JoePineapples · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

Atheists only believe one thing? Nah. From my experience, Atheists believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Atheists were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Atheists believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course atheists choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny atheists that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
Just after the nearest atheist claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing atheists can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some atheists will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other atheists proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the atheists will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of atheists. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it.

*Brushes the straw off the man*

Nobody has said that atheists only believe one thing. On the contrary, an atheist can have as many beliefs as they want as long as it doesn't include belief in the existence of any gods.

Erfisflat · October 2017

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

Erfisflat · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

Coveny said:
1) Webster - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
2) Oxford - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
3) Urban - A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
4) Your dictionary - The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.
5) Macmillian - someone who does not believe that God exists
6) Free Dictionary - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
7) WordWeb - Someone who does not believe in god;
8) American Heritage - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
9) Newbury - a person who does not believe in the existence of God
10) Atheist American - A lack of belief in gods.
11) Wiki - in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
12) All about philosophy - Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.
13) Thought co - anyone who doesn't believe in any gods.
14) The Secular Web - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god
15) Reasonable Faith - lack belief in God

Lacks, disbelieves, absence, or does not believe from 15 different sources as 10 was not enough for you. Atheism covers anyone who doesn't believe god(s) exist. It is a null value, it makes no claim. It is merely stating that I am NOT a part of your group with the prefix "A" in front of the group "theist". I am a non-theist if you just can't use the word atheist correctly. (they mean the SAME thing)

It does seem (overwhelmingly so) that CYDdharta is grasping at straws to try and get the definition of atheism to fit his/her agenda. As I said earlier though, even if atheism meant that you had to have the belief that there are no gods, one belief makes neither a belief system nor a religion.

Coveny · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

It amazes me how people just can't comprehend the concept of not having blind faith or some type of belief system. You know how you responded that you didn't have enough information to know whether or not you believed if he had a dog or not? You understand the concept of not having a belief system, you simply just can't fathom someone living their life without blind faith though can you? How so very closed minded you are.

Coveny · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

JoePineapples said:
It does seem (overwhelmingly so) that CYDdharta is grasping at straws to try and get the definition of atheism to fit his/her agenda. As I said earlier though, even if atheism meant that you had to have the belief that there are no gods, one belief makes neither a belief system nor a religion.

Corrected your bolding so it wasn't so much of a taken out of context BS that you normally do.

Erfisflat · October 2017

@JoePineapples

I see a troll head at the last comment, I've got him ignored. If you would like to repeat and or back his statements, that's up to you, since you are the one I was conversing with.

Erfisflat · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

Atheists only believe one thing? Nah. From my experience, Atheists believe they live on a cartoon spinning ball in an infinite space vacuum. The only proof these mental defectives have are cartoon composites and computer generated images provided by the government, that they saw on the television. Atheists were indoctrinated to reject any notion of a God, or a higher power, and instead wave their hands while proclaiming that the earth they live on was created by a magical explosion because of... reasons. Atheists believe that the earth was formed right in the perfect area, a certain distance from the sun, known as the "Goldilocks zone". This area of their imaginary infinite space vacuum is where everything is just perfect for life to not only survive, but to thrive as well. And of course atheists choose to believe this is all completely due to random, cosmic luck. They also believe that this same random cosmic luck is what caused their ape brained ancestors to evolve from primates into the bright shiny atheists that they are today. Basically, their argument boils down to... "but, but, but muh science book!" They can't even agree on whether or not their cartoon spinning ball is a sphere, or an oblate spheroid.
Just after the nearest atheist claiming the earth is actually pear shaped, they will then cite Neil Degrasse Tyson saying so as their proof. Another thing atheists can't seem to get straight is the height in which the supposed curvature becomes visible on their spinning cartoon pearoid. Some atheists will tell you they can see the curvature from on top of a mountain, while other atheists proclaim they can see the curvature from outside an airplane window. But the smartest of the atheists will contradict his fellow ball worshippers and proclaim that one must be much higher than that in order to see the supposed curvature of the magical tilting pearoid. This alone gives us some insight into the fast paced research of atheists. Because all they had to do at some point, was to open their minds and use the senses they were created with to find out. Despite this, these gullible globe guzzlers think they can make pronouncements about reality, even though they have never actually lived in it.

*Brushes the straw off the man*

Nobody has said that atheists only believe one thing. JoePineapples said:

Coveny said:
1) Webster - a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods
2) Oxford - A person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.
3) Urban - A person who lacks belief in a god or gods.
4) Your dictionary - The definition of an atheist is a person who does not believe in the existence of any kind of God or higher power.
5) Macmillian - someone who does not believe that God exists
6) Free Dictionary - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being.
7) WordWeb - Someone who does not believe in god;
8) American Heritage - Disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods.
9) Newbury - a person who does not believe in the existence of God
10) Atheist American - A lack of belief in gods.
11) Wiki - in the broadest sense, the absence of belief in the existence of deities.
12) All about philosophy - Atheist, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a god, or who owns no being superior to nature.
13) Thought co - anyone who doesn't believe in any gods.
14) The Secular Web - Disbelief in, or denial of, the existence of a god
15) Reasonable Faith - lack belief in God

Lacks, disbelieves, absence, or does not believe from 15 different sources as 10 was not enough for you. Atheism covers anyone who doesn't believe god(s) exist. It is a null value, it makes no claim. It is merely stating that I am NOT a part of your group with the prefix "A" in front of the group "theist". I am a non-theist if you just can't use the word atheist correctly. (they mean the SAME thing)

It does seem (overwhelmingly so) that CYDdharta is grasping at straws to try and get the definition of atheism to fit his/her agenda. As I said earlier though, even if atheism meant that you had to have the belief that there are no gods, one belief makes neither a belief system nor a religion.

JoePineapples · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

So if an atheist doesn't believe all the stuff you listed, he/she can't really be an atheist?

(also, I don't hold the belief that there is no God)

Erfisflat · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

So if an atheist doesn't believe all the stuff you listed, he/she can't really be an atheist?

(also, I don't hold the belief that there is no God)

That's not what I said. This combination of beliefs, aka "belief system" is what led many (apolagies if I misidentified you) to believe that we are specks in an infinite universe, not special creations. Some flat earthers are atheists, just as some, like you apparently, are globe earth theists.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Way to dodge the point though.

Erfisflat · October 2017

Nightwing · October 2017

Evidence said:

Nightwing said:
@Evidence ; You seem to attribute everything to the Bible.

Yes sir, .. since it covers everything from creation, the why's, the who's, everything, so yeah, it would be only reasonable to do so, right?

I don't agree. The Bible is incomplete on many points, fails to discuss anything about any theory of science or the origins and use of mathematics as a couple of examples.

Thinking the Bible covers everything just seems extremely limiting to me.

Nightwing · October 2017

Evidence said:

Nightwing - A few problems with your arguments:
First, you don't seem to understand what science is. Science is not observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Ah, got it. So no 'observation' necessary, just throw some theories out there and go with that, .. is that what you're saying? Well that explains the Big Bang story, because I am 99.9999% sure that the Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre did NOT observe any speck popping out of nothing and Big-Banging some imaginary universe as described by NASA artists into existence!?

Nightwing - How a new theory is inspired may be through a belief in God, or it may be through observing some experiment, or it may be through watching an episode of Sponge Bob. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability, and the theory surviving that test.

Hmm, .. SpongeBob works at the Krusty Krab, so can you tell me how you could, .. through scientific experiment, prove if this is true or not?
OK, how about Henry Ford, who people say; was the Founder of the Ford Motor Company. How would you go about scientifically proving that one way or another? I say anyone, including Abe Lincoln could have Founded Ford. So I gave you a hypothesis, let's see how you will turn that into a theory?

Nightwing - Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

More like Theistic/Atheistic in its approach! The Big-Bang Evolution pseudoscience was built on theism/atheism aka 'Religion'.

No gods, well let's look at "Mother Nature"?

A science news blog from
ShortSharpScience
Mother Nature’s protective care
"Apparently, morning sickness may be natures way of protecting unborn babies from harmful foodstuffs."

Nightwing - This means that it just takes nature at face value. It does not care where it comes from.

So you agree with me that the Big-Bang/Evolution stories have absolutely nothing to do with science!?

Yes. The Theory of the Big Bang is just a regular theory. Is it not a scientific one. It is based on a circular argument, and is therefore a religion.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are also not theories of science.

None of these four theories are falsifiable.

Science has no theories about unobserved past events. There is no way to test such a theory to try to destroy it.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. It IS used in religions, however.

Observations is not used in science. It is evidence only. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets what they observe in different ways, depending on their view of how the universe works. That view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

Take, for example, the sunrise. We observe it every day. To those of us what grew up with things like the space program, we see the Earth rotating and causing the sunrise. To another culture, the SAME observation has a different cause, such as a god of some kind carrying the Sun across the sky, or the Sun orbits around the Earth (the so-called Terracentric universe).

Galileo showed the terracentric theory to be false, by showing that moon orbit Jupiter. This meant the Earth wasn't the center of everything. Galileo falsified the earlier theory. Copernicus had put forth a new theory, that the Earth orbited the Sun, which Galileo agreed with. That theory was not falsified until Einstein.

Today, the theory is that the Earth and the Sun orbit each other. It's all relative. Nothing is stationary, so nothing is a reference point except for what you choose it to be.

Coveny · October 2017

Nightwing said:

Evidence said:

Nightwing - A few problems with your arguments:
First, you don't seem to understand what science is. Science is not observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Ah, got it. So no 'observation' necessary, just throw some theories out there and go with that, .. is that what you're saying? Well that explains the Big Bang story, because I am 99.9999% sure that the Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre did NOT observe any speck popping out of nothing and Big-Banging some imaginary universe as described by NASA artists into existence!?

Nightwing - How a new theory is inspired may be through a belief in God, or it may be through observing some experiment, or it may be through watching an episode of Sponge Bob. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability, and the theory surviving that test.

Hmm, .. SpongeBob works at the Krusty Krab, so can you tell me how you could, .. through scientific experiment, prove if this is true or not?
OK, how about Henry Ford, who people say; was the Founder of the Ford Motor Company. How would you go about scientifically proving that one way or another? I say anyone, including Abe Lincoln could have Founded Ford. So I gave you a hypothesis, let's see how you will turn that into a theory?

Nightwing - Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

More like Theistic/Atheistic in its approach! The Big-Bang Evolution pseudoscience was built on theism/atheism aka 'Religion'.

No gods, well let's look at "Mother Nature"?

A science news blog from
ShortSharpScience
Mother Nature’s protective care
"Apparently, morning sickness may be natures way of protecting unborn babies from harmful foodstuffs."

Nightwing - This means that it just takes nature at face value. It does not care where it comes from.

So you agree with me that the Big-Bang/Evolution stories have absolutely nothing to do with science!?

Yes. The Theory of the Big Bang is just a regular theory. Is it not a scientific one. It is based on a circular argument, and is therefore a religion.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are also not theories of science.

None of these four theories are falsifiable.

Science has no theories about unobserved past events. There is no way to test such a theory to try to destroy it.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. It IS used in religions, however.

Observations is not used in science. It is evidence only. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets what they observe in different ways, depending on their view of how the universe works. That view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

Take, for example, the sunrise. We observe it every day. To those of us what grew up with things like the space program, we see the Earth rotating and causing the sunrise. To another culture, the SAME observation has a different cause, such as a god of some kind carrying the Sun across the sky, or the Sun orbits around the Earth (the so-called Terracentric universe).

Galileo showed the terracentric theory to be false, by showing that moon orbit Jupiter. This meant the Earth wasn't the center of everything. Galileo falsified the earlier theory. Copernicus had put forth a new theory, that the Earth orbited the Sun, which Galileo agreed with. That theory was not falsified until Einstein.

Today, the theory is that the Earth and the Sun orbit each other. It's all relative. Nothing is stationary, so nothing is a reference point except for what you choose it to be.

All of those theories are falsifiable. Theories means they predict the future... not the past, and they are tested repeatedly!!! The lack of scientific knowledge in the world is insane...

JoePineapples · October 2017

Erfisflat said:

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

So if an atheist doesn't believe all the stuff you listed, he/she can't really be an atheist?

(also, I don't hold the belief that there is no God)

That's not what I said. This combination of beliefs, aka "belief system" is what led many (apolagies if I misidentified you) to believe that we are specks in an infinite universe, not special creations. Some flat earthers are atheists, just as some, like you apparently, are globe earth theists.

So if atheists don't have to have those views/beliefs, how can atheism be a religion?

Nightwing · October 2017

Coveny said:

Nightwing said:

Evidence said:

Nightwing - A few problems with your arguments:
First, you don't seem to understand what science is. Science is not observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Ah, got it. So no 'observation' necessary, just throw some theories out there and go with that, .. is that what you're saying? Well that explains the Big Bang story, because I am 99.9999% sure that the Jesuit Priest George Lemaitre did NOT observe any speck popping out of nothing and Big-Banging some imaginary universe as described by NASA artists into existence!?

Nightwing - How a new theory is inspired may be through a belief in God, or it may be through observing some experiment, or it may be through watching an episode of Sponge Bob. What makes a theory a scientific one is the test for falsifiability, and the theory surviving that test.

Hmm, .. SpongeBob works at the Krusty Krab, so can you tell me how you could, .. through scientific experiment, prove if this is true or not?
OK, how about Henry Ford, who people say; was the Founder of the Ford Motor Company. How would you go about scientifically proving that one way or another? I say anyone, including Abe Lincoln could have Founded Ford. So I gave you a hypothesis, let's see how you will turn that into a theory?

Nightwing - Science does not discuss God, does not acknowledge His existence, and does not deny His existence. Science is truly atheistic in it's approach. God is simply not required for science to work. It is incapable of proving or denying his existence.

More like Theistic/Atheistic in its approach! The Big-Bang Evolution pseudoscience was built on theism/atheism aka 'Religion'.

No gods, well let's look at "Mother Nature"?

A science news blog from
ShortSharpScience
Mother Nature’s protective care
"Apparently, morning sickness may be natures way of protecting unborn babies from harmful foodstuffs."

Nightwing - This means that it just takes nature at face value. It does not care where it comes from.

So you agree with me that the Big-Bang/Evolution stories have absolutely nothing to do with science!?

Yes. The Theory of the Big Bang is just a regular theory. Is it not a scientific one. It is based on a circular argument, and is therefore a religion.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are also not theories of science.

None of these four theories are falsifiable.

Science has no theories about unobserved past events. There is no way to test such a theory to try to destroy it.

Supporting evidence is not used in science. It IS used in religions, however.

Observations is not used in science. It is evidence only. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets what they observe in different ways, depending on their view of how the universe works. That view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

Take, for example, the sunrise. We observe it every day. To those of us what grew up with things like the space program, we see the Earth rotating and causing the sunrise. To another culture, the SAME observation has a different cause, such as a god of some kind carrying the Sun across the sky, or the Sun orbits around the Earth (the so-called Terracentric universe).

Galileo showed the terracentric theory to be false, by showing that moon orbit Jupiter. This meant the Earth wasn't the center of everything. Galileo falsified the earlier theory. Copernicus had put forth a new theory, that the Earth orbited the Sun, which Galileo agreed with. That theory was not falsified until Einstein.

Today, the theory is that the Earth and the Sun orbit each other. It's all relative. Nothing is stationary, so nothing is a reference point except for what you choose it to be.

All of those theories are falsifiable. Theories means they predict the future... not the past, and they are tested repeatedly!!! The lack of scientific knowledge in the world is insane...

No theory is capable of prediction. Not even scientific theories. Scientific theories only describe, they cannot predict. Science is an open system.

Science must turn to a closed system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction. That process is called formalizing a theory.

Only a closed system has the formal proof and the power of prediction.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.
The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.
The Theory of Creation is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.
The Theory of Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

All anyone can do is show it MIGHT have happened. The theory itself, however, remains unfalsifiable. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, be specific, and produce a specific result.

Supporting evidence is not used in science at all.

Nightwing · October 2017

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

So if an atheist doesn't believe all the stuff you listed, he/she can't really be an atheist?

(also, I don't hold the belief that there is no God)

That's not what I said. This combination of beliefs, aka "belief system" is what led many (apolagies if I misidentified you) to believe that we are specks in an infinite universe, not special creations. Some flat earthers are atheists, just as some, like you apparently, are globe earth theists.

So if atheists don't have to have those views/beliefs, how can atheism be a religion?

Simple. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. You might even consider any argument that is based on a circular argument or that eventually returns back to a circular argument, and that the argument is one claiming to be the 'truth' in any way, is the very definition of a religion.

Since it is not possible to prove whether or not a god or gods exist, any attempt to do so must be based on an argument of faith. That makes it a religious argument.

There are really two kinds of atheists. Those that try to prove no god or gods exist, and others that just don't care, they just don't happen to believe a god or gods exist themselves. The second type does not try to prove it, not even to himself. He even allows for the possibility that he might be wrong. He is just basically just unconvinced. I have met exactly ONE example of the second type.

The first type is religious, the second type is not.

Coveny · October 2017

Nightwing said:

Coveny said:
All of those theories are falsifiable. Theories means they predict the future... not the past, and they are tested repeatedly!!! The lack of scientific knowledge in the world is insane...

No theory is capable of prediction. Not even scientific theories. Scientific theories only describe, they cannot predict. Science is an open system.

Science must turn to a closed system, such as mathematics, to gain the power of prediction. That process is called formalizing a theory.

Only a closed system has the formal proof and the power of prediction.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.
The Theory of Evolution is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.
The Theory of Creation is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.
The Theory of Abiogenesis is not falsifiable. We can't go back to actually see what happened.

Science has NO theories about past unobserved events. They are not falsifiable.

All anyone can do is show it MIGHT have happened. The theory itself, however, remains unfalsifiable. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, be specific, and produce a specific result.

Supporting evidence is not used in science at all.

I misspoke, the "theory of creation" isn't a scientific theory and isn't falsifiable, and I missed that you put that in there.

The Big Bang theory is falsifiable mathematical models didn't "work" to define location, or if we found out that we were calculating location incorrectly. If there wasn't the afterglow of radiation from the big bang, it would be false. If the big bang theory didn't take inflation and dark matter into account it would be proven false.
The theory of evolution is falsifiable, here is a wiki on the very topic so I'm not going to copy and paste. By extension this makes the theory of abiogenesis falsifiable as well, and just to be clear if you believe that god(s) created life from non-life you also believe in abiogenesis, but to be fair science doesn't "know" how abiogenesis took place even though we do have proof of it. https://phys.org/news/2015-06-evidence-emerges-life.html (but give us a few decades and I'm sure we'll have a better grasp of how it happened)

All of these scientific theories have mountains of supporting evidence, and many of these reach in the past like carbon dating, fossils, etc

Again the lack of scientific knowledge in the world is insane...

JoePineapples · October 2017

Nightwing said:

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

JoePineapples said:

Erfisflat said:

This is a belief system that erroneously led you to believe there is no God.

So if an atheist doesn't believe all the stuff you listed, he/she can't really be an atheist?

(also, I don't hold the belief that there is no God)

That's not what I said. This combination of beliefs, aka "belief system" is what led many (apolagies if I misidentified you) to believe that we are specks in an infinite universe, not special creations. Some flat earthers are atheists, just as some, like you apparently, are globe earth theists.

So if atheists don't have to have those views/beliefs, how can atheism be a religion?

Simple. All religions are based on some initial circular argument. The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. You might even consider any argument that is based on a circular argument or that eventually returns back to a circular argument, and that the argument is one claiming to be the 'truth' in any way, is the very definition of a religion.

Since it is not possible to prove whether or not a god or gods exist, any attempt to do so must be based on an argument of faith. That makes it a religious argument.

There are really two kinds of atheists. Those that try to prove no god or gods exist, and others that just don't care, they just don't happen to believe a god or gods exist themselves. The second type does not try to prove it, not even to himself. He even allows for the possibility that he might be wrong. He is just basically just unconvinced. I have met exactly ONE example of the second type.

The first type is religious, the second type is not.

Sounds like you're trying to redefine religion and atheism so that they overlap. I've never heard of the requirement that religions are to be based on circular arguments, if we're going to use that as a qualifier for religion then politics, art and many other things suddenly become religions.

You're also presuming to know the reasons someone would have, to cause their belief that there are no gods. In reality the reasons can be anything, the most reason is that there is no observable evidence that we can attribute with certainty to any gods (to do so would require faith), so if they had to come to a conclusion based on that, it would be that there are no gods. How would that be circular?

Even if we accept, for a moment, that atheism is religious, religious is not the same as a religion. Just because someone is adventurous it does not mean that they are on an adventure.

Also, I don't know how you've managed to think of circular reasoning and faith as being the same thing.

Evidence · October 2017

@Nightwing said - Yes. The Theory of the Big Bang is just a regular theory. Is it not a scientific one. It is based on a circular argument, and is therefore a religion.
The Theory of Evolution, the Theory of Creation, and the Theory of Abiogenesis are also not theories of science.

I agree with you. May I ask you as to What is the "theory of creation"? What I mean is, let's say I pick up a rock, observe it and say: "This is a rock", .. is that a theory? Just asking?

Nightwing - None of these four theories are falsifiable.

Sure they are, the big-bang-evolution stories are, because they claim that a hot-rock subjected to the vacuum of space proves that it will create enough moisture to cover it completely and in 4 billion years life will sprout from it.

- Science has no theories about unobserved past events. There is no way to test such a theory to try to destroy it.

Well evolutionists 'observe' the rock in the present, so that's science, no? But their claim how it came about is not science, .. now that's easy to destroy.

- Supporting evidence is not used in science. It IS used in religions, however.

I don't understand? Are you just messing around? How can Religion, which requires 'blind faith' require supporting evidence?

Observations is not used in science. It is evidence only. It is subject to the problems of phenomenology. Everyone interprets what they observe in different ways, depending on their view of how the universe works. That view is as unique to each of us as a fingerprint.

Yep, .. your just messing around, .. typical of Religionists, theists/atheists.

noun

noun: science

the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

- Take, for example, the sunrise. We observe it every day.

So what your saying is that a scientist wouldn't do that, .. you know, "observe the sun"?

- To those of us what grew up with things like the space program, we see the Earth rotating and causing the sunrise. To another culture, the SAME observation has a different cause, such as a god of some kind carrying the Sun across the sky, or the Sun orbits around the Earth (the so-called Terracentric universe).

Galileo showed the terracentric theory to be false, by showing that moon orbit Jupiter. This meant the Earth wasn't the center of everything. Galileo falsified the earlier theory. Copernicus had put forth a new theory, that the Earth orbited the Sun, which Galileo agreed with. That theory was not falsified until Einstein.

How could Einstein 'falsify' something that you claimed wasn't 'science' to begin with?

Today, the theory is that the Earth and the Sun orbit each other. It's all relative. Nothing is stationary, so nothing is a reference point except for what you choose it to be.

Theory? I thought you just said "it's not falsifiable"? Has anyone 'observed' the Flat Earth orbit the sun?

Besides, .. what does this have anything to do with the OP - "Atheism IS a Religion"???

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Japan works to preserve ancient tradition

In this Debate

Atheism IS a Religion
in Religion

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Appeal to Authority

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

frame

Howdy, Stranger!

Communities

Japan works to preserve ancient tradition

In this Debate

Atheism IS a Religionin Religion

Debra AI Prediction

Arguments

Appeal to Authority

Back To Top

foot

DebateIsland.com

Contact us

Get In Touch

Atheism IS a Religion
in Religion