This is what I mean by '/thread'. The argument slowly degrades until the only thing left is somebody else's definition against someone else's definition, definitions are variable to perception, perception varies according to the individual. Yes, if you want to say, by Dictionary.com's definition of religion, that because it says 'a set of beliefs' Atheism is not a religion because Atheists only share one belief, you can, and you can be right. But it's a cop out. And a lame one at that. I however, like to view things without invisible constraint (ironically similar to Atheism), and see them for what they are. I've understood the Atheism =/= religion argument from the beginning. Yet I think you still fail to see how it IS a religion. So I've failed and will continue to do so, especially if you don't see the 'religion' muddled in your response.
I think atheism is a type of fruit, and my suggestion has same validity that your suggestion atheism is a religion does. I already mentioned subsets of atheists who act in similar ways to religions. I accept they exist and I'm not failing to understand anything. I see how you think you can label the entire group a religion. You are failing to understand. Associating one atheist with another atheist at random and grouping them together as a "religion" is like associating a Christian and a Muslim and grouping them together as a "religion." The Christian and the Muslim are both theists, just like the first two are both atheists. After this, I give up. I'm done trying to teach you English.
Stoli, H2O420 seems to believe that he has already shown that atheists are all the same. I suggest that you ignore his arguments until his sense of rationality returns. Instead, I will focus on those ideas that have some logic. I really like arguing, but it becomes strenuous when the opponent thinks that his inane reasoning should be taken as fact. Restating an idea continuously is no more convincing than yelling at the top of one's lungs. Allow children to believe what they will. In time, maturity will provide more illumination than we ever could. edward: I enjoy your proper argumentation and style. I like discussing the issue with you and wish to convey my appreciation for your rationality. Let me continue to debate your ideas as follows. It has always been my argument that because the words of god(s) have been translated by human figures, that these words were susceptible to flaw. In this, I agree with your sentiments. Many that call themselves faithful consider the bible to be the end all so far as the word of their god is concerned. They accept human fallibility, but believe that the bible, transcribed by man, is without failure. This is the insulation that I spoke of. However, if it were not his word, how would the faithful know what to do unless their god spoke directly to them? What about those faithful that are sure that they heard contrary ideas from the same god? It has happened in the past and has led to greatest schisms of belief that have ever occurred. It is this same fallibility that causes my disbelief. An omnipotent god would be easily able to overcome these challenges. Why doesn't he? is it because we cannot know god's design? That just sounds like more insulation and repression of knowledge that questions god's supremacy. I cannot expect you to. I do not argue that you should not believe in a god. I argue that atheism should not be considered a religion. I welcome you to your faith. I have absolutely no problem with it so long as you allow me my ideas. I do not ask for evidence to prove your intangible ideas any more than I can provide you evidence for my ideas on morality. They are as they are. Again, I understand. My idea as to how this points to a lack of a god is that there are no... changes. There is no room for a god to maneuver and change things when the laws that govern our world are so consistent. There is no room for miracles when science can explain most every force that is occurring around us. Those that cannot be described are being investigated. Now, I also understand your idea that such a fine-tuned universe must require a designer of sorts. I refute this by suggesting that no matter how the universe were to have coalesced, succession would occur. I do not mean biological succession (evolution), I mean succession in general. Should electrons have a slightly different charge or weight than they do, I understand that the universe, as it exists now, would not be. But something would exist. A different set of physical laws. It is my opinion that a different universe would exist, perhaps with it's own life. We are simply a single possibility that was selected from a multitude. If not for our singular universe, another would have existed. If a god exists, an omnipresent god, why would I question his existence? A god that is literally part of everything would have complete control: omnipotence. If that were the situation, why would the unfaithful exist? Why would I live such a good life despite my disbelief? Where is my punishment for questioning his word? Is it his will that I should be allowed to live without his direction until my death, whereupon, I should be punished for a lack of blind faith? Reason is an interesting idea. I have considered this many times, but in a different light. I was amazed at how easy it is to rationalize an idea or action as either good, bad, or neutral. It is easy to convince myself that my actions are either good or bad. Perhaps I'm not describing this well, but it falls into my ideas of relativity. Not physical relativity, but the relativity of fact. I think that people can convince themselves of whatever they wish, no matter the evidence. I believe that if you wish to believe in a god, you will be able to find the evidence. If you do not, as is my case, then you will find sufficient evidence for his/her/its nonexistence. As I hold these ideas, I cannot argue this point. I cannot suggest that your reasons for belief or faith are any more or less rational than my ideas supporting disbelief. Let me restate an earlier idea: I do not wish to tell others not to believe in a god. I have absolutely no problem with another's faith, so long as it does not hinder my equally pertinent ideas. I have respect for other people's ideas, no matter what they are (so long as they are backed up in a mature manner), I only ask that the same respect be given in exchange. My arguments in this thread have served only one purpose: to convince others that atheism is not a religion. Even when arguing against a theist as to the existence of a god, I can only assert that one who holds tangible evidence as paramount should not believe in god. Should you choose to hold faith as paramount, then we have no common grounds on which to debate the existence of a supreme being.
Unity through diversity. Order through chaos. Such is the way of our universe. That is what you fail to see. And I keep saying it over and over again because all I have a words. You either see it or you don't, I was hoping you would, but it's understandable. You will, one day.
Thanks for the kind words man... they belie your crazy avatar. First I have to say that God and his prescribed moral values are one in the same; there is no separate entity who favors arbitrary moral values. That being said, the believer can know God, and therefore his moral values through two avenues: 1) through observing the universe with a rational mindset and finding out what is true (intellect based) and 2) through direct spiritual revelation (soul based) i.e. having beautiful, loving waves of powerful energy coursing through your body and affecting your breathing (making it more forceful) while crying tears of joy and, most importantly, receiving knowledge so clearly true and unlike anything you've ever experienced before... while sober. I had experienced what I describe before finding that it matches the exact same description of what Christians describe as "receiving the Holy Spirit". Does that rule out self-induction? As a side note, after noticing that shortly after this experience my eyes looked bigger, I measured the size of my iris after this experience and it was somehow 2mm larger in diameter compared to the same eye measured a week later. Window to the soul? What ABOUT those faithful who are SURE they heard contrary ideas from the same God? Is God to blame or is human susceptibility to error to blame? In my opinion the reason God doesn't guarantee belief is because the ultimate good is better hard-won. The cliche that it's the struggles in life that make us appreciate the easy times is true. Free will also comes into play. It's better to choose to believe in God than have it forced upon you. On a grander scale, it's better for all of humanity to believe in God than have it forced. How refreshingly reasonable of you... Also, I don't think atheism should be considered a religion either as it doesn't fit the definition. You do a good job stating the anthropic principle, which IS a valid objection to the fine-tuned universe idea. I actually don't think the fine-tuned universe argument is very strong and wouldn't have brought it up without prompt. As condescending as this sounds, in my opinion punishment for not believing in God is that which you thrust upon yourself by denying yourself a richness and balance of experience/mind only possible through God. I'm not sure what happens when we die, but I do believe we will eventually all be perfect, without exception. True to a degree, but that's dishonest argument. Some things are objective. So true... atheists would have a lot less to work with if 'one true religion' type Christians weren't inclined toward such irrational ideas like eternal hell + benevolent God, infallible word of God = Bible, Bible = literal... Since I'm the paranoid delusional type, I actually think some of these ridiculous ideas were put into the Bible through the course of the many translations for the specific purpose of discrediting belief in God. There is a plan being acted out here on Earth and it definitely isn't God's.
My apologies in advanced for not quoting your particular points, this format felt like it more properly presented my arguments. The crazy avatar, yes, that is actually from an illustrated novel called "The Sandman." I highly suggest it. Anyway, onwards! Let me preface this paragraph by saying that I believe that you experienced what you explain, but there are other ways to describe it. I regularly meditate, and one means that I use involves focusing on my breathing and my pulse. I focus my awareness on that pumping and let it expand to fill my perception. It is all consuming. I feel the pulsation reverberate and flood my body with the very sensation that you describe. I do not have a sudden influx of knowledge, but I have a feeling of peace. This is not to say that what you experienced is the same, but similar feelings can be caused and explained without resorting to a god. It is me that induces this feeling, not a god. The knowledge that I do sometimes come away with after such a meditation session is purely mine. Perhaps you did receive divine inspiration of a sorts, perhaps it was something else, that's all I'm trying to say, and it does not cheapen the experience in any way. I agree with your ideas of acceptance of a god rather than a forced belief being superior. I don't necessarily mean that it must be forced though. You know what it would take for me to believe in a god? A miracle. I'm not trying to be facetious, I mean this literally. If I were to experience something that could not be explained, I would have difficulty not believing that the miracle was an action of a god. I see no such miracles. I experience no such inspiration. Quite simply, I do not believe because no god has revealed its self to me. The belief does not need to be forced, but some indication would prove useful. If I were to take your suggestion that god is the morals that he suggests to us as a fact, then perhaps I do know god through rationality. But I believe something different. I believe that some morals and values are impressed upon us by evolution. Hatred and killing are two ideas that would not be valuable for a species that wishes to survive. If the desire to kill were to consume a man, if it were to become one of his values, he would be hard pressed to pass on his genetics or those violent values. Morals that contradict those in the Christian Bible, for instance, would most likely have been bred out of the majority of the population. That is not to say that some people do not hold these values, but that majority of the human population can agree on several basic ideas. Stealing, killing, cheating, etc. are all bad values. I simply believe that this was an idea impressed upon us by evolution rather than mystical forces. I did not mean for my ideas on punishment for disbelief to be condescending, only that I have seen no punishment in any situation, no matter how grievous the infraction against a god's supposed word. Similarly, I do not believe that a balanced and mindful existence is only attainable through god. Let me use my own life as an example. I am quite pleased with my life at this point in time. When I find something that does not please me, or something that I feel does not contribute to my happiness, I work to change it. Always. This is another beef I have with believers. I see so many people thrusting their problems on a god instead of taking ownership. I have no god, and therefore, no excuses. If I want something done, I must do it rather than wait for a benevolent spirit to send me a check in the mail. Of course, this is an extreme example. More common would be the dejected outcast praying for a girlfriend rather than working on his social skills. Or perhaps the faithful computer programmer praying for recognition rather than actively seeking what he/she desires. Because of this, I believe that my life can be just as full and rich, if not more so, than any believer. If this life is my punishment for not believing in god, I'll happily ask for seconds. I believe that most all things are subjective. The ideas that I hold as moral may be considered atrocious by other cultures. Beyond ideas and opinions, I believe that even supposed facts can be subjective. How long did we as a human race believe that the Earth was the center of the universe? It was a well known fact for quite some time. This is merely one example. We take it as a matter of fact that gravitational waves cannot move faster than the speed of light, but this was actually a recent idea brought on by relativity that trumped the previous theory of Newtonian gravity. Even facts are malleable. What are the facts that we believe today that will be considered old hat by our children? I do not believe that this is a dishonest argument, I believe that it is merely a difficult argument. I believe that it is quite possible for anyone to rationalize most any idea that they wish to believe. For example, I was watching a protest against President Obama's health care idea today. Many of these people paint him as a Fascist or a Marxist, they even compare him with Hitler. And to these people, these ideas are fact. Though President Obama has yet to send a single Jew to a concentration camp, they are utterly convinced that he is the same as Hitler. It is easy for me to stand back and laugh at what I perceive as their irrationality, but they believe this. For one reason or another, they have rationalized the idea that the President of the United States is a Socialist/Marxist/Hitler. I'm not arguing that their belief is to be respected for this reason, only that it is their belief. It is my firm belief that humans are quite able to rationalize any idea that they wish to hold, therefore, ideas are subjective. I see many of the ideas and parables that worked their way into the various versions of the Christian Bible to be horrendous. Whether they were set there to discredit a supreme being is not something that I've considered before. I believe that religion is a means of explaining the unknown with fairy tales. I see the bible in its entirety as ridiculous and misleading. I see no reason why the unknown cannot be accepted as such. If we cannot explain it now, I submit that we await a studied answer rather than one pulled from an imagined god. I also wish to delve into what I see as an inconsistency in your faith. You suggest that humans are fallible, and I heartily agree, but why then are your own ideas so safe from err? You suggest that rationality and inspiration have led you to your faith, but what if you misinterpreted the signs? As a fellow human, I can attest that I have misinterpreted a great many things. Because of this, I question my firmly held ideas whenever presented with an opposing ideology. And why not? If a held idea cannot stand against question, then perhaps it not the bastion I once thought. I simply ask you, why are you so sure that of all the conflicting ideas of a god, yours is correct? This is the most common flaw that I see in any religion. The absoluteness of their assurances that everyone else is wrong.
I didn't mean to suggest that some god was literally causing me to have this experience... as I don't believe God is an entity this wouldn't be possible. What caused me to frame the experience in religious terms was what was going on in my mind that led up to the experience and what I was thinking about when the experience was happening. I don't think the truths that the experience gave me were in my head beforehand, but they were there afterwords. I thought I made clear that moral values aren't impressed upon us by "mystical forces"... this would seem to suggest that they are a gift given to a select few rather than something available to everybody. The way to know moral values would be through rationally thinking about it, which I consider a way of "knowing God". If objective moral values exist, God must exist because otherwise it would just be one person's opinion vs. another's. If objective moral values don't exist, killing isn't wrong since it's just a matter of opinion. Heh, sorry for the confusion I was trying to say that what I was about to say was condescending, not what you said. Kind of ironic that I accidentally called you condescending considering you're one of the least condescending atheists/agnostics I've argued with. I think you're life is good because you believe in elements of God without knowing it. God really isn't about believing a series of propositions. There are some things that I think are better with God belief though... even atheists have pointed out how seemingly comforting some beliefs are. Believing in order rather than chaos, that an ultimate good exists, that we were created. I also don't see how you can't be at least subconsciously afraid of death if you don't believe in an afterlife since something > nothing. Just because people disagree doesn't mean that what they are disagreeing on isn't objective. The forefront of science is always a place of disagreement, but that doesn't mean that the forefront doesn't eventually turn into well-established laws. Laws of science and math (the number 3 for example) existed whether we believe they existed or not. The earth being flat was never a fact, it was an incorrect belief. Uh oh. You brought up politics. Just one thing. The definition of socialism is this: "a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole." The bailouts were huge. According to Bloomberg, they cost $13 trillion. That's more than the national debt. Regardless of what they cost, 61% of GM now belongs to the Treasury. That's socialism. What if I am wrong? What if anybody is wrong in any opinion? Should we not have any opinions at all? I don't see what you're trying to say.
Ah, I understand then. I simply find it hard to believe that any completely new knowledge could be placed in your head. There are times when I come up with an idea that I consider completely new to me, only to realize later that it was influenced by other factors. Whether those be internal ideas or facts that I had forgotten and was drawing on subconsciously, or perhaps an external inspiration provided by a seemingly mundane conversation with someone else. But I understand what you mean now. Again, my fault for misunderstanding. I would imagine that I was resistant to your idea because of my ideas of subjectivity of morality. So, simply sharing the same morals as a god is knowing them, even without truly acknowledging it? If the god and the morals are one and the same as you believe, then what of those that do not share these morals/god? Do they worship a devil or perhaps antithesis of that god? Are there multiple gods. It is a mostly objective fact that across the world and history, different people have differed in morality. Did the Spanish Inquisition unknowingly serve one god with their ideas of purity while modern New Zealand serves another? Certainly, they hold different beliefs, is this evidence of multiple gods? This is going to sound strange. But I'm not afraid of death. That's easy to say, but I mean it as deeply as I possibly can. I avoid it for now as I'm not finished exploring this life, but I do not wish to live forever. I seek the void at the end of the road, nirvana if you will. I cherish the idea that some day, those particles that comprise me will most likely become part of a beautiful planetary nebula that some distant individual may see thorough a telescope. Strange perhaps, but look at the pictures that we have of distant balls of burning gas with stars just beginning to form from the mists of hydrogen and helium. Why would I not wish to be a part of that someday? I agree that beliefs such as life after death are gratifying and comforting, but I those realistic ideas that I currently have proof of are more than that for me. I don't look forward to my death, but I do not fear it. Perhaps I will, when the time comes, that I cannot guess. As far as something being greater than nothing, of course, but matter/energy can neither be created, nor destroyed, where is the nothing? I'll always be a part of this universe, so long as it lasts, in one form or another. When a boy turns away from his imaginary friends, he can find much more satisfying friends at his local playground. Okay, then we disagree on nomenclature. In any case, how do we know that what we believe now is a fact? The earth spherical rather than flat, yes, but what about our other ideas? I've read that the longevity of a scientific fact (before it is disproved) is inversely proportional to the time and effort invested in it. We have spent countless man hours prooving that the universe is expanding, how long until we find out that we were wrong and that the expansion is either an illusion, or perhaps a complete misunderstanding of space-time on our part? Even now, our understanding of weight is embarrassingly infantile. Our official measures, the gram for instance, are degrading and changing. Even the gram is vulnerable. I agree that there are some things that can be accepted as objective, but are morals really one of those things? I do consider killing to be a subjective idea. I personally consider it wrong, but that does not stop millions of other people for excusing it for various reasons. Are they wrong simply because I decide that they are? From my perspective, yes, they are incorrect. This is a very tricky stance to take, I struggle with it continually, but that does make it objectively wrong. I simply see Einstein's relativity in more than just matter moving at speeds approaching the speed of light. Hah, I misrepresented myself. I did not mean to visibly cast my support in favor of or against any political ideology. What I was trying to explain is my ideas on relative morality and how different morals can be rationalized, even without proper logic and full understanding of the issues being rationalized. I do agree that we have many socialistic elements in our society (USA) and I have absolutely no problem with it (socialism). I agree with you here. The reason that I smirk at the protesters is not because of them correctly labeling our government as at least partly socialist, but because they enjoy elements of that socialism every day and do not complain. They drive on DOT roads with their GM SUVs on the way to their protests. For the record, I did not support the bailout. When a company is too large to fail, we have more problems than them failing, but that is a discussion for another time. I am decidedly less informed about politics than I am on matters of philosophy.