Atheism: new religion?

[Cyclone]

They could also not conclude that it isn't. They'd conclude that they couldn't distinguish between god and godlike technology (by definition). And that they were now an agnostic.

[onewheeldave]

I did explain, if you ignore my answers that is not my problem.

 

ps googling it, it seems to be theists that think you can prove a negative.

 

You may notice that I'm posting way more than anyone else on this thread- I'm replying to what seems to be around 15 people.

 

If I've missed a reply, I think you'll agree, that's understandable.

 

And, without wanting to be rude, some of the replies don't make sufficient sense to warrant me dealing with them- I'm having to be selective, due to lack of time.

 

Do me a favour, if your reply was well-consctructed and relevant, repost it and I'll address it.

 

If you can't be bothered to do that, then fine.

[onewheeldave]

I explained it. I gave you a link to a discussion which also explained it, and I gave you another example of a negative that can't be proven.

If you're going to keep pretending that it hasn't been explained then I'd say it's you that's deliberately stretching out the debate by being obtuse.

 

As above, remind me what your example was please.

[llamatron]

You may notice that I'm posting way more than anyone else on this thread- I'm replying to what seems to be around 15 people.

 

If I've missed a reply, I think you'll agree, that's understandable.

 

And, without wanting to be rude, some of the replies don't make sufficient sense to warrant me dealing with them- I'm having to be selective, due to lack of time.

 

Do me a favour, if your reply was well-consctructed and relevant, repost it and I'll address it.

 

If you can't be bothered to do that, then fine.

 

Read then post, if you can't be bothered, then fine!

[llamatron]

As above, remind me what your example was please.

 

instead of asking everyone to repost their post, why not read the thread.

 

Also remember that atheists do not believe in a god, ergo they have no reason to look for any evidence!

[onewheeldave]

An omnipotent being is surely not constrained by logic?

 

Why not.

 

Do give reasons if you think otherwise, but, as far as I'm concerned, performing the (logically) impossible is beyond the abilites of anyone (by definition)

[onewheeldave]

Read then post, if you can't be bothered, then fine!

 

instead of asking everyone to repost their post, why not read the thread.

 

In the fine spirit of these noble replies, I'll simply suggest you follow you own advice and refer to my previous post where I explained exactly why I'm not going to be tracking down posts fron x pages back.

 

In fact, to avoid seeming as mean as you are coming across, I'll even quote it here-

 

You may notice that I'm posting way more than anyone else on this thread- I'm replying to what seems to be around 15 people.

 

If I've missed a reply, I think you'll agree, that's understandable.

 

And, without wanting to be rude, some of the replies don't make sufficient sense to warrant me dealing with them- I'm having to be selective, due to lack of time.

 

Do me a favour, if your reply was well-consctructed and relevant, repost it and I'll address it.

 

If you can't be bothered to do that, then fine.

 

or you could at least put the post number for the ones you're talking about.

 

But, other than that, I'm short of time, there's plenty of other posters to reply to and I'm not going to bother dealing with lazy timewasters.

[llamatron]

In the fine spirit of these noble replies, I'll simply suggest you follow you own advice and refer to my previous post where I explained exactly why I'm not going to be tracking down posts fron x pages back.

 

In fact, to avoid seeming as mean as you are coming across, I'll even quote it here-

 

 

 

or you could at least put the post number for the ones you're talking about.

 

But, other than that, I'm short of time, there's plenty of other posters to reply to and I'm not going to bother dealing with lazy timewasters.

 

we have already replied to your question many times in many different ways and you couldn't be bothered to read the answer. Why should we find them for you.

[Cyclone]

Why not.

 

Do give reasons if you think otherwise, but, as far as I'm concerned, performing the (logically) impossible is beyond the abilites of anyone (by definition)

 

It's not omnipotent then, it's constrained by the rules of the universe and logic.

Surely an omnipotent being, by definition, created the universe and can vary the rules of logic at whim.

[six45ive]

Ah! Let me clarify- he didn't call it/them god/gods, that was never what he had in mind.

 

The options as he saw them were-

 

1. entites that were real in the sense they had consciousness just as we do, existing maybe in physical reality, maybe in a alternate non-physical reality

 

or

 

2. aspects of his own mind (possibly subconscious/unconscious mind)

 

He didn't claim they were definitly 2, presumably because there was no way to prove it, and, he had no interest in attempting proof, because the important thing was that it worked for him when he used them, so their exact ontological status was not important to him.

 

If he saw the options as two possible options but he had no interest in differentiating between the two then why has the term god even entered into this conversation as you mentioned earlier when specifically using the same scenario.

 

Originally Posted by onewheeldave

Similarly, if some one feels God at work in their lives, and, that it is good, they're probably not going to be worrying about trying to prove the unprovable- why should they?

 

If a person feels they need to express what they are 'feeling' to somebody else then it shows a basic respect to be as honest as possible with the other person and you can only do that by acruing as much knowledge on a particular subject as possible otherwise the respectful thing to do is to say; 'I don't know', 'I'm not sure'. To declare that 'I feel I have a connection with god' shows that you've already 'proved' to yourself that this is the case so you would be hypocritical, if not a downright liar, to say that you're not interested in 'proving' it to yourself or anybody else.

 

 

I'd say that sometimes 'beliefs inform actions'.

 

And i agree fully that, in the rather extreme case of JWs and blood transfusions- those actions are unfortunate.

 

But, it's a tendency of atheists to attack extremists/fundamentalists- which is OK as long as they realise that most such attacks do not apply to most non-extremist believers.

 

With Quakers for example, who tend to see God in a very inward way and do not use their 'feeling of God' to attack others in any way (eg no preaching or attempts to convert), whose faith is a quiet one and whose beliefs only inform actions to the extent that they choose to sit in silence with their community, in Gods presence, for a hour every week.

 

I'm not loking for proof- I've got zero interest in proving the existence or non-existence of God.

 

And, as we all know, the Quakers are hardly mainstream religiosity themselves.

The evidence I provided earlier, which you still refuse to deal with, simply proves that so called mainstream religion is not the benign force that you claim it to be on a worldwide scale.

 

"I've yet to see evidence of this so called strawman from the atheist side. I'm still waiting for a response to the fact that polls taken in the US regularly state that about 60% of the population believe the bible is literally true. That Noah and his ark actually existed and that Adam and Eve are real and that about 40% of Americans believe the Earth to be only 6000 to 10000 years old.

I've yet to see you argue against the fact that islam is an ideology that can sentence you to death for writing a critical book, drawing controversial cartoons or simply drawing an image of muhammed. An ideology that calls for the death of apostates, homosexuals and fornicaters. An ideology that imposes genital mutilation on millions of children every year. An ideology where so called 'honour killings' are still rife. An ideology that imposes strict roles of conduct on muslims and that willingly casts them out if they don't tow the line. An ideology where women are still far away from reaching emancipation/equality with their non muslim sisters and an ideology where the koran, hadith and sharia law are the only thing that matters for millions of muslims leaving millions of children ignorant of the richness of knowledge that we have accumulated over many centuries leading to the technologically advanced society that we benefit from today.

Please point out why all this is a strawman to you."

 

The above is the norm for hundreds of millions, if not billions of believers worldwide, whereas your mindset seems to come from living on a little island in the north atlantic where religion portrays itself as a kindly old vicar standing at the gate of his parish church welcoming his congregation and eating scones and tea and watching cricket on the village green after the Sunday morning service.