Steven Carr

4God
1993-I ask God please don't let any babies die tonight. I live near philly(and it was Feb),

CARR
This is easy to check.
Did any babies die on one night in Feb. 1993?

The answer is YES. Babies died on every night in Feb 1993.

So there is no God.

xsquid

I've been watching you dance with us for several days now...may I cut in?

Is atheism a form of religion? No. We have no "church", no "ministers", no "holy writ", no doctrine, no rituals. All we have is this: we do not believe any supernatural entities exist. What you call a "cause" is just that. One may have a "cause" to eradicate diabetes or cancer, but that does not compel one to perform any rituals other than research, research, and more research. One does not defy the Cancer Spirit by shouting "booga-booga' at it.

What is atheistic thought on psychics?
What is Christian thought on psychics? Some of them believe it's a gift from god (Jeane Dixon did); others are certain that psychics will be in hell right next to us. Stop asking for "atheistic thought" and ask atheists what they think. See the difference?
This atheist thinks if psychic abilities were useful to humans, more people would have them. I, xsquid, do not believe they exist.

Now about those prayers:
You listed possible objections to your first one. The fact that you did shows that even you see how flimsy that argument is, and I won't add to it.
The second, "please don't let any babies die tonight." Did you check the papers next morning and read the police reports? Did you call the hospitals and inquire about whether there were any stillbirths? Did you hear on CNN the amazing event that NO children died in Botswana or Cambodia or even in the next town over?
Yeah, I thought not. You said "any babies", which implies every baby, everywhere. Unless, of course, your world is limited only to your community in Pennsylvania. But, that was only 10 years ago; I'm sure some records of that night still remain. Check the archives of the newspaper. BTW, I'm Philly-born and bred, so you won't con me that way.
The third one: much like the first. You seem to be aware of self-fulfilling prophecies, since you mentioned the possibility of one. I don't know your wife, so I have no reason to believe she's lying--unless she has a history of doing so, which you didn't mention.

"...but who's to say a guy named 4God would want to marry her anyway."

Who's to say? Why, your God, of course! Isn't that what you've spent all this time telling us?

Eudaimonist

What is a "religion of self"?

You explained your meaning of "religion" (unfortunately just the dictionary definition, which seems lacking to me), but what does "self" mean in this context?

In other words, I would like someone to describe for me their atheism and how it in no way shape or form resembles a religion [...which is...] a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Okay.... atheism is a trivial aspect of my philosophical worldview, and is merely a position implicit to my metaphysics. I don't even call myself an atheist unless the subject of discussion is "do I believe in divine beings?" Otherwise, I use a term to label my personal philosophy.

Atheism is not a cause -- I might discuss atheism, but I don't try to convert anyone to atheism. I wouldn't even know how to do this even if that was what I wanted to accomplish.

It is not a principle -- my atheism isn't in itself a position on ethics since it is merely refers to my lack of belief in divine beings.

It is not a system of beliefs since it is merely the lack of a single belief. I do have a personal system of beliefs that is atheistic, however that system isn't atheism as such.

As a sidebar, what is atheistic thought on psychics? And if any believe that the psychics do speak to those dead, how do they do it?

While atheists have their own views on psychics, atheism has nothing to do with the issue, and therefore there is no single "atheist position" on the subject. Some atheists are skeptical of psychic powers, others believe in them.

orpheus last chant

If atheism is a religion, baldness is a hair colour.
How on earth could it be a religion, when right in the core fo the definition you find "lack of belief in god(s)"?

You have to defend claims, whether you think they are good or not, because they are positive claims.

Atheism, consists of nothing, absolutely nothing except "lack of belief in god(s). That's it.

You do not get to decide what "religion" means. If you want to give it a shot, use not-so broad definitions, and not-so-vague terms. (Weren't you warned not to use faith with double meaning...)


No. The reason you should not use that word is you will most surely, use it with a diffrent meaning, later. In fact, you already creeped it in your definition of religion. I can even predict that this is just another "I have faith but so do you, so you have to prove faith in atheism as you ask of me" argument.

Wrong. You missed lack of belief which is not liable to carry the burden of proof.

Coincidentally, in 1997 I prayed that my dad was cured of cirosis. Then that he could live 10 more years. than just 5...
After his illness grew worse, I prayed he died peacefully. Apparently, god was unavailable to 11 year olds that semester.


Every year, in thousands of monasteries, thousands of monks and nuns do nothing all day except pray for mankind. I've visited many. They pray for the sick, the orphans the poor etc. these people have no possesions, no purpose in life except god gloryfing.
Yet every year, the sick poor and orphaned are still there.


Don't tell me, your name is some rare, long row of letters that you have to spell every time someone asks, right?
Ow, wait, it's not the family name...right?


Be careful what you wish for

4God

Indeed.


Well, dealing with atheism is not a religion.

I think that you all have sufficiently expounded on that one for me. You have a lack of belief of a(or any) system. So then, that means it is not a religion.

I'd have to disagree. By implication, you believe that there isn't a god. You do adhere to this, and heck, many of you are trying to convert me to the light! So within the confines of your argument, you can say you have no religion, however, i think your logic fails.

Steve said theism is not a religion. Not quite right. Theism describes a belief in a religion, so to make the claim that it is not a religion is a misuse of the word. It's like saying worship, is not a religion. Well, you must have a religion to worhsip something. In the same way, you must be theistic to ascribe to a religion.

As for my wife, no she tends not to lie. And yes, one could argue against her as I did, but then that would not even consider that it were a possibility. Like i said, my objection had many holes. One it didn't look at the possibility that it was true and testing that out.

As for my Feb. 1993 assertion-i forgot one detail, that gave God a cop-out....i sincerely forgot it and it was in no part intentional in prayer I said "in my hearing, let no babies die tonight." hence the first thing in the morning I see is this undoubtedly had a profound effect upon me. Surely, we are not all knowing beings and anything we say that fortells the future we are apt to look at it and examine it.

no tax-free for atheist organizations? hehehe, suckas! just kidding.

xsquid & blindwatchmaker. Thank you. Yes, i have posed many questions like, "what's the atheist thought on x"...which reveals a sophmoric understanding of atheists and atheism....(Read:that's why i'm here.) Your comment to me felt like when I have often said to my caucasian counterparts (dude, there's not like a black code of conduct, so chill). I will try and refrain from such things.

definitely not trying to con. I really wonder why you all think that. Let's assume that i'm the one wrong here. Then either i'm looking at the facts and coming up with the wrong conclusion, a prolific self-deceiver, just an idiot. Steve i know where you stand on this one...hehehe.
But in any case, no cons here. There's no point. To me it's simple: either God is true or He is false. From the evidence I have, He is true. Only time will tell who is truly correct. Xsquid....you better be an eagles fan, otherwise i can't speak with you anymore.

blindwatchmaker-my evidence could convict a man of murder if i had a corroborating witness. To that end, I do, a few in fact. But, will that prove the existence of God...well..................................

But I'm glad I came here. My college roomate was/is and atheist. I tried hard to debate with him and he me. Neither of us won, in the debating sense and we called a truce as it began to strain our living arrangements. One fine evening I was coming home from somewhere and there were little ruminations coming from the room. Ah, it was my roomate and a women getting to "know" each other. To make a long story short, i made a deal with my roomate that if he came to church with me he could have a girl over whenever he wanted...LOL. That's what you call conversion strategy 101....NOT.

I say this because, just as then, i had some notions that weren't quite accurate. Just as then, I can freely admit to them. But I cannot deny the Spirit of God working in me--the evidence is too much.


....which leads to this...it appears that arguments about God generally center around His existence and empirical evidence for or against Him. For me this is a bit awkward. If you read the Bible, you'll note that God wants people to have faith in Him. By faith, i'm using a different def.-faith meaning believing and acting in accordance with something that you cannot see but have experienced.

What that leads me to believe is that God has no intentions to make it "easy" - that's a bad word...He has no intentions of making it "robotic" to get to know Him. In other words, He wants the choice. I say all of this because what is many times lacking in these forums(at least from my limited experience) is a personal perspective given that it is very difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God. I've got proof, you've got proof, but if there immutable evidence either way then one of us wouldn't be talking the way we are. And by evidence-i mean scientific evidence.

I was reading about one person's deconversion and what struck me most is the lack of personal relationship with God. i'd have to say that if God were not answering my prayers on a regular basis, it would lend much credence to the fact He doesn't exist.

Ok...i gotta go to bed....night all.

4God

Atheism, consists of nothing, absolutely nothing except "lack of belief in god(s). That's it.



======================================


as i read i tried screaming to myself ' i don't believe in god. i don't believe in god'-trying to for a minute believe that i didn't believe in god. when i do that, things change. for example, i lose the cover of a religious being. stating that i do not believe in god, becomes an afterthought. one of you put that you state your philosophical bent...and for the first time i could feel it. which again, reminds me of how i have been posing this question all wrong since i got here.

..i still believe that there must be a belief in something for everyone...i could be wrong...but i'll sleep on it.

nite everyone-for real this time.

ex-xian

You have to be careful that language doesn't hide meaning. No one has a lack of something, instead, they lack having something. It's misleading to say that atheists have a lack of belief or that they believe there is no god. Instead, atheists do not have belief and they do not believe in a god. If you try to couch your language as atheists "believe there is not god," you make their position seem to be a positive assertion, when in reality, it is not.

Quote:

....which leads to this...it appears that arguments about God generally center around His existence and empirical evidence for or against Him. For me this is a bit awkward. If you read the Bible, you'll note that God wants people to have faith in Him. By faith, i'm using a different def.-faith meaning believing and acting in accordance with something that you cannot see but have experienced.

Not quite right. The bible calls upon xians to be able to give a reasoned, logical defense of their faith. Both Jesus and Paul engaged in debate. Debate would be pointless if religious belief is based entirely on faith.

Quote:

What that leads me to believe is that God has no intentions to make it "easy" - that's a bad word...He has no intentions of making it "robotic" to get to know Him. In other words, He wants the choice. I say all of this because what is many times lacking in these forums(at least from my limited experience) is a personal perspective given that it is very difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God. I've got proof, you've got proof, but if there immutable evidence either way then one of us wouldn't be talking the way we are. And by evidence-i mean scientific evidence.

Considering that some people might burn in hell forever, one would think that a loving god would have made it a little more obvious.

Quote:

I was reading about one person's deconversion and what struck me most is the lack of personal relationship with God. i'd have to say that if God were not answering my prayers on a regular basis, it would lend much credence to the fact He doesn't exist. Ok...i gotta go to bed....night all.

Well, when I was a xian, god "answered my prayers" regularly, so to speak. I prayed and fasted, read my bible, had "quite time," and spent time playing the guitar and piano worshipping. Yet I still deconverted. And I've never been happier.

ex-xian

I believe in humanity. I believe in science. I believe in beer.

orpheus last chant

Let me introduce you to the branches of atheism. One is strong atheism and one is weak atheism. (Note: the adjectives relate to the degrees of certainty) (Note 2: I tryed to be as clear as possible)

Weak atheism: I have examined the evidence for God and I am not convinced for specific reasons. Because I believe that my beliefs should be grounded on as accurate as possible empirical evidence, or logical arguments, or anything that passess the reasonable doubt, I can rationally dismiss any such God claim.

I will, for practical reasons, act, think, and live as if God does not exist. That practical philosophy does not intervene in my philosophical stance, which is of agnosticism. If confronted with new evidence, or findings, my beliefs are liable to change accordingly.

Strong atheism: I have examined the evidence for God and I am not convinced for specific reasons. The magnitude of the claim, the apparent lack of evidence over large period of time and experiments, the contradictory and confuse internal elements of the claim and the lack of a proper definition for the terms are strong enough to rule it out and to reach the conclusion: There is/are no god(s). or The concept of God is meaningless.

If confronted with new evidence, or findings, my beliefs are liable to change accordingly.


Now, there is still debate as to what exactly strong and weak imply, but I hope I did an ok job.

Now for the technical stuff. In your quote above, you use the word "religion" to mean belief. That is just hi-jaking a word to fit your argument. your logic fails, as it is flawed.
You also do not discern between weak atheism (prevalent on this board) and strong.

You are also unaware (or missed) that the justification of a belief, or claim, rests upon the one makeing a positive claim.
You are trying to suggest that atheism is a positive claim, which is not. Some may argue that even strong atheism can be proffesed, as a positive claim, and proved.

You missed the part when you shared us your name, to see what are the chances she just guessed it. how about this. Look it up in a telephone book, and count the people who have the same name.



Surely, we are not all knowing beings and anything we say that fortells the future we are apt to look at it and examine it.

I fortell the future. Using my amazing skills I predict that the sun will rise in the morning. Even more! I predict tommorow will be 27 december. I predict that I will wake up on the same continent and so will you on yours. Amazing, isn't it.




You are talking about personal testimony. Well, you see, this is not a court. If only witnessess would be able to justify such extraordinary claims, we'd be forced to accept the UFO-logists, acupuncturists, thsoe guys who find water with a stick, witches, people with magnetic skin.

Or should the audience to a magic show, really substitute for evidence that the person controls supernatural forces and compresses 20 bunnies in a hat?

Just as long you speak for yourself and do not pretend to suppose it a fact, by all means, believe whatever you wish.

so does Allah.

Yes, I am familiar with that NT passage. Thing is, a lot of people think they experience all sorts of things. You need more than that to make a way though all the BS claims and quack ideas.

He likes people to be confused?

You got it backwards. Scientific evidence is never immutable. the word is unfalsifiable. The scientific method bases itself upon an evolving and ever-correcting system. Ideas that are declared and cannot be attacked are those "immutable" laws religions have. They are called dogma.

Steven Carr

It appears England's Ivy League Universities are better than the states.

4God says 'you must be theistic to ascribe to a religion.'

Does he mean 'subscribe'?

In any case, he has clearly stated that people who are not theistic cannot (ascribe and/or subscribe) to a religion.

So atheism cannot be a religion.

As fo his claim that theism describes a belief in a religion, so it must be a religion, he is apparently unable to tell the difference between a noun and an adjective.

Theism is an attribute of a religion. It is not a religion in itself.