Something all theists should all keep in mind.

[Tobie]

Seeming as Hinduism and Taoism can be atheist religions, there is nothing stopping her being all 3. Christianity, however, has no atheist option.

And why would Hinduism be atheistic? What happened to Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu? What about the Taoist gods and goddesses? How does one read these gods and goddesses? Would apophenia step into a Hindu temple and tell the priests there that the Hindu gods and goddesses didn't exist?

Obviously, you can be atheistic about Hinduism by looking at the gods and goddesses as mere representation of something else - maybe goodness or truth. You look at Hinduism through a metaphorical lens. If you can do that to Hinduism, why can't you do that to Christianity? The church disallows that? But so do Hindu temples, I'm sure. Which church disallows that? That depends on the church, surely?

No I'm not looking at hinduism/taoism through a metaphorical lens. Stop putting words in my mouth and consider that I have actually looked into this. Hinduism isn't a unified religion - there is no single theology that all hindus agree upon. Some hindu schools, such as Samkhya hold that the existence of god cannot be proven, therefore god cannot be admitted to exist, and also that god cannot be the source of an ever changing world. Likewise, some hindu schools are polytheistic, some monotheistic and some henotheistic. Atheist hindus see hinduism as a way of life - they observe the cultural and moral values - not the theistic ones.

[pocaracas]

This image sums up, in entirety, the problem we atheists have when we try to have logical conversations with you:

You simply won't.

Water is 11.19% hydrogen and 88.81% oxygen...

And 99.99% empty space!
0.0049999% protons
0.0049900% neutrons (hydrogen doesn't have neutrons)
0.0000000000000001% electrons.

Numbers may be a bit skewed.

[Darth]

0.0049900% neutrons (hydrogen doesn't have neutrons)

Deuterium, tritium...
The most common isotope doesn't have neutrons =P

[genkaus]

The amount of cognitive dissonance required to believe oneself Christian, yet not believe the things which make a Christian a Christian, is scary.

The amount of cognitive dissonance required to be a bible-thumping ?Christian in today's world is also scary. And yet we've somehow gotten used to it.

[Angrboda]

@Greneknight: Be afraid. Be very afraid.

[Mister Agenda]

Meh, I'm the last person to tell other people how to define themselves. Or at least in the last 50% to do so.

[genkaus]

And why would Hinduism be atheistic? What happened to Brahma, Shiva and Vishnu? What about the Taoist gods and goddesses? How does one read these gods and goddesses? Would apophenia step into a Hindu temple and tell the priests there that the Hindu gods and goddesses didn't exist?

Obviously, you can be atheistic about Hinduism by looking at the gods and goddesses as mere representation of something else - maybe goodness or truth. You look at Hinduism through a metaphorical lens. If you can do that to Hinduism, why can't you do that to Christianity? The church disallows that? But so do Hindu temples, I'm sure. Which church disallows that? That depends on the church, surely?

The classification of Hinduism as a religion is a western concept. In fact, if you know the native Indian languages, you'll realize that they don't even have a word for religion. Unlike Christianity, which is scripturally rigid in regards to belief in god, Hinduism consists of all sorts of philosophies which accept or reject the scriptural authority. Here's an excerpt from Wiki:

"Atheistic doctrines dominate Hindu schools like Samkhya and Mimamsa. The Sāṁkhyapravacana Sūtra of Samkhya argues that the existence of God (Ishvara) cannot be proved and hence cannot be admitted to exist. Samkhya argue that an unchanging God cannot be the source of an ever changing world. It says God was a necessary metaphysical assumption demanded by circumstances. Proponents of the school of Mimamsa, which is based on rituals and orthopraxy states that the evidence allegedly proving the existence of God was insufficient. They argue that there is no need to postulate a maker for the world, just as there is no need for an author to compose the Vedas or a God to validate the rituals. Mimamsa considers the Gods named in the Vedas have no existence apart from the mantras that speak their names. To that regard, the power of the mantras is what is seen as the power of Gods."

[Creed of Heresy]

...This starts as a thread giving a quick, simple explanation to religious people as to why it's damn near impossible for atheists to have conversations with the religion.

It becomes a discussion about why hinduism is not a religious.

I...what the fuck.

---

This image sums up, in entirety, the problem we atheists have when we try to have logical conversations with you:

You simply won't.

Water is 11.19% hydrogen and 88.81% oxygen...

I am going to hurt you. With my stick-o-stupidity-beating. I hope you are aware of what the difference is between "parts" and "percentages," I truly do, and that you were joking. If so, then I can laugh. If not...the stick has to be wielded.

[catfish]

I am going to hurt you. With my stick-o-stupidity-beating. I hope you are aware of what the difference is between "parts" and "percentages," I truly do, and that you were joking. If so, then I can laugh. If not...the stick has to be wielded.

I don't think you're capable of operating your own stick...

Define "parts". Feel free to define it for Mr Harris if you must, just pick a solid fact and keep telling me I must agree.

The reason why you can't have a logical discussion with theists is because you only accept your own logic being correct...

[Darkstar]

Define "parts". Feel free to define it for Mr Harris if you must, just pick a solid fact and keep telling me I must agree.

The reason why you can't have a logical discussion with theists is because you only accept your own logic being correct...

We are allowed to redifine logic? There is a dictionary because there are objective meanings to certain words and concepts. It's not so much the content of the argument, but the rules of logic themselves that must remain constant for the debate to go anywhere.