(October 31, 2013 at 4:23 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote:

(October 31, 2013 at 1:42 am)whateverist Wrote: You make me cringe. It is this sort of drivel that invites all the theist charges that atheism too is a religion. But you, Cheerful Charlie, are about as religious in your conviction as many fundamentalists. Like them you place a high value on the maintenance of certainty. I suspect you just need seasoning.

[1] Is atheism a religion? Very well, then, it's the only true religion. With strong religion, certainty as regards the omni-everything gods of Christianity,Islam et al is pretty easy.


[2] Actually, I am not religious, you like word games it seems. If I am sure about anything based on logic, I am religious? No, I am simply sure based on evidence about my lack of religion. [3] Now, how much evidence do you want that the God of Christianity and Islam are logically impossible? See my answer to Vinny above, omnigenesis.

[1] No, atheism isn't a religion, but neither does atheism "prove anything". It certainly doesn't provide you with any special source of certainty

[2] Not really but I do like to see language used with precision.

[3] I'm not aware of any evidence that the God of Christianity doesn't exist. How could one hope for any 'evidence' concerning something so poorly defined?

Of course you can make an argument given certain interpretations of what the qualities of that Christian 'god' are alleged to be. But who really can say authoritatively what those qualities really are? If you really think it's nonsense, why waste your breath?

(November 1, 2013 at 11:18 pm)whateverist Wrote:

(October 31, 2013 at 4:23 pm)Cheerful Charlie Wrote: [1] Is atheism a religion? Very well, then, it's the only true religion. With strong religion, certainty as regards the omni-everything gods of Christianity,Islam et al is pretty easy.


[2] Actually, I am not religious, you like word games it seems. If I am sure about anything based on logic, I am religious? No, I am simply sure based on evidence about my lack of religion. [3] Now, how much evidence do you want that the God of Christianity and Islam are logically impossible? See my answer to Vinny above, omnigenesis.

[1] No, atheism isn't a religion, but neither does atheism "prove anything". It certainly doesn't provide you with any special source of certainty

[2] Not really but I do like to see language used with precision.

[3] I'm not aware of any evidence that the God of Christianity doesn't exist. How could one hope for any 'evidence' concerning something so poorly defined?

Of course you can make an argument given certain interpretations of what the qualities of that Christian 'god' are alleged to be. But who really can say authoritatively what those qualities really are? If you really think it's nonsense, why waste your breath?

It is important that when a dangerous idea can be debunked, to debunk it. Religion does too much damage to allow it a free ride.

The Chrisian and Islamic Gods, creator, omni-everything Gods are defined well enough to debunk. They have some broad definitions, defined by revelation, Bible, Quran etc that are self contradictory and logically impossible. Its not that hard to disprove. For Christians, these basic revelations are definitive.
As a Christian, one can abandon revelation, but that doesn't make the basic logically impossible defined attributes in the revealed books go away. Either these nooks are true revelations or not. When, to avoid these logical proofs religious believers start abandoning supposed revelation to avoid debunking, we can deny all of their supposed revelations, and that dooms their God.

My language here is written with exquisite precision, most purposefully.

If God as defined does not exist that proves rather a lot, doesn't it? And some of the strong atheism proofs i have offered not only work, but make naturalism as proven a concept as one can logically prove as a byproduct of demonstration of God's nonexistence. Read my essay, Strong Atheism - Super-omniscience as an example. By carefully examining the problem of the nature of God and the nature of omnipotence, naturalism is proven. That seems to me to matter. Rather a lot actually. Certainty is possible in some cases.

And still atheism is not a religion. despite word games to the contrary.


.

Quote: Certainty is possible in some cases.

I would have to say, yes, however, for subjects that have holes, like a non-measurable assertion, certainty is not a property. Validity is. Once We have validity from evidence, then We can test certainty. Having an experiment, and not having an experiment, are 2 different discussions.

Still have to put up with the religious BS one day or another so what does it matter.

(October 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: You're an atheist born of ignorance rather than conviction. Whether that's better or worse I'm not sure.

Atheist is the default stance one takes when everything else lacks sufficient evidence. Where's the ignorance exactly?

(November 5, 2013 at 7:53 am)ToriJ Wrote:

(October 7, 2013 at 3:28 pm)Sword of Christ Wrote: You're an atheist born of ignorance rather than conviction. Whether that's better or worse I'm not sure.

Atheist is the default stance one takes when everything else lacks sufficient evidence. Where's the ignorance exactly?

Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

(November 5, 2013 at 10:00 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 7:53 am)ToriJ Wrote: Atheist is the default stance one takes when everything else lacks sufficient evidence. Where's the ignorance exactly?

Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

The two aren't mutually exclusive: agnosticism is about what you claim to know, atheism is about what you claim to believe.

Technically speaking, agnostic atheism is the default position, which is why so many of us have it.

(November 5, 2013 at 10:00 pm)Polaris Wrote: Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

No.

(November 5, 2013 at 10:00 pm)Polaris Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 7:53 am)ToriJ Wrote: Atheist is the default stance one takes when everything else lacks sufficient evidence. Where's the ignorance exactly?

Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

I think I do agree with you Polaris. If one cares about evidence and finds none for whatever it is that people mean by 'gods', then first and foremost one will be agnostic. But someone raised in a religion who has formed the hunch that God listens may reasonably decide to go on believing and communing with this God. The lack of evidence would seem to provide a green light for either belief or disbelief. Personally I have a great deal of respect for such people and I have met a few online.

My own inclination is toward no god but I feel no need to argue for it. At most I could point out how various beliefs regarding any particular god are self-contradictory. I certainly could not rule out any possible conception of gods. It just isn't a very important issue to me. So we live in a world where grown people believe in such things. Weird, but I'm over it.

(November 5, 2013 at 10:24 pm)Esquilax Wrote:

(November 5, 2013 at 10:00 pm)Polaris Wrote: Isn't it agnosticism more specifically?

The two aren't mutually exclusive

Actually they are mutually exclusive. Both claim to be about what one believes.