(June 17, 2010 at 5:01 pm)tavarish Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 3:26 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 2:20 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 7:19 am)Caecilian Wrote: So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? [What] is that supposed to mean?

Reminds me of 'Avatar' (2009 film) where the whole biology of planet Pandora was like a collective consciousness that was worshiped by the Na'vi warriors as theists worship their deities. I'm just trying to show how saying your deity is a collective consciousness is ambiguous hence not self-evident.

There's actually a big distinction between Pandora and Earth, if taken into context.

Their connectivity to their deity was scientifically demonstrable. The deity produced reliable results.

In real life...not so much.

yup.

Thor Wrote:...Atheism has no tenets or doctrine...

Welsh cake Wrote:...I doubt you ever were an atheist, purely on the grounds that you keep demonstrating over and over again you lack an understanding of what atheism actually is...

These sound like contradicting statements, don't they? Atheism has no tenets or doctrine, and yet I can't be an atheist unless I have an understanding of what atheism really is.

(June 17, 2010 at 10:16 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Thor Wrote:...Atheism has no tenets or doctrine...

Welsh cake Wrote:...I doubt you ever were an atheist, purely on the grounds that you keep demonstrating over and over again you lack an understanding of what atheism actually is...

These sound like contradicting statements, don't they? Atheism has no tenets or doctrine, and yet I can't be an atheist unless I have an understanding of what atheism really is.

Oh my life you are dense.

Atheism is NOT a religion, Atheism is NOT a faith-based system, essentially it's not even an "ism", it's a response to Theistic claims; it is a lack of belief in gods/deities and/or rejection of Theistic beliefs as unsupported. How many times do we have to explain this simple fact of life to you?

And the snide comment that you can't possibly be an atheist without understanding what it is first is ridiculously flawed; when I deconverted for many years I simple addressed myself as a 'non-believer' with regards to the supernatural and such, then I finally looked up the definition and realised I was in fact, an atheist. Likewise I had no clue I was formerly a theist until I bothered to do some 5-minute research.

Likewise I strongly urge you to learn what the definition of Atheism/Atheist means, because you're just embarrassing yourself on the public domain at this stage, and I would much rather have a rational discussion with you.

(June 18, 2010 at 5:17 am)Welsh cake Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 10:16 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

Thor Wrote:...Atheism has no tenets or doctrine...

Welsh cake Wrote:...I doubt you ever were an atheist, purely on the grounds that you keep demonstrating over and over again you lack an understanding of what atheism actually is...

These sound like contradicting statements, don't they? Atheism has no tenets or doctrine, and yet I can't be an atheist unless I have an understanding of what atheism really is.

Oh my life you are dense.

Atheism is NOT a religion, Atheism is NOT a faith-based system, essentially it's not even an "ism", it's a response to Theistic claims; it is a lack of belief in gods/deities and/or rejection of Theistic beliefs as unsupported. How many times do we have to explain this simple fact of life to you?

And the snide comment that you can't possibly be an atheist without understanding what it is first is ridiculously flawed; when I deconverted for many years I simple addressed myself as a 'non-believer' with regards to the supernatural and such, then I finally looked up the definition and realised I was in fact, an atheist. Likewise I had no clue I was formerly a theist until I bothered to do some 5-minute research.

Likewise I strongly urge you to learn what the definition of Atheism/Atheist means, because you're just embarrassing yourself on the public domain at this stage, and I would much rather have a rational discussion with you.

You're contradicting yourself all over again. Anyway, I do feel atheism is a religion, though I know this is an age-old discussion between atheists and theists, and no one's going to change their mind. So I'll drop it.

You can call atheism a religion all you want. If it is a religion, it is a religion without superstitious dogma or imaginary super-beings. It does not require faith and makes no promises or threats. In fact... it is the exact opposite of a religion in every respect. If you can't see that, then I am forced to question your intelligence.

AngelThMan Wrote:These sound like contradicting statements, don't they? Atheism has no tenets or doctrine, and yet I can't be an atheist unless I have an understanding of what atheism really is.

A child can understand how wrong you are here. Atheism has no tenets or doctrine... and that is what makes it atheism. That is what you fail to understand. Atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in god(s). Nothing more... nothing less. How is that so difficult to understand?

(June 17, 2010 at 2:20 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 7:19 am)Caecilian Wrote: So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? [What] is that supposed to mean?

It's self explanatory, isn't it? Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

No it isn't self-explanatory. What exactly do you mean by a 'collective consciousness'? Sounds like gibberish to me.

Quote:

Quote:Caecilian Wrote:
As Zen Badger says, scientists aren't interested in proving or disproving god. Saying otherwise is (yet again) a display of your appalling ignorance of science.

I did make the distinction in my post that there's an "underlying" objective to prove or disprove God. There's a difference between an 'underlying' objective and a main objective. Even 'real' scientists would love to make a finding and throw it at the world with a declaration (whether directly or implicitly) to the effect of "Hey look, I finally proved once and for all that life did not come from a God."

You obviously don't know much about science, or many real scientists. God is of no interest to science, and ime very few scientists are interested in metaphysical or theological questions. Trying to find a naturalistic explanation for the origins of life is no different from trying to find a naturalistic explanation for ball lightning, or quasars, or any other phenomenon. Theres no conspiracy, no hidden agenda.

Quote:

Quote:Caecilian Wrote:
What scientists are trying to do is to produce a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life- and they're making real progress

.
There's no real progress in the area of life's origin. Scientists have synthesized a single-cell genome, but that is completely different.

Again, you're just demonstrating your ignorance here. There has been a great deal of progress in origins of life research. I suggest that you find out about it- theres plenty of stuff on-line. Pontificating about matters that you know nothing about is a sign of stupidity and arrogance, qualities that you have in abundance.

Quote:

Quote:Caecilian Wrote:
They're also aiming to synthesize life (an overlapping objective), and again genuine progress is being made.

Attempting to create artificial life and conducting experiments to determine the origin of life are two entirely different things. That's like saying that attempting to build a car from scratch in your garage is making progress in discovering who invented cars. Maybe it's you who's clueless.

They're overlapping research programmes. Again, I suggest that you find out something about the actual science.

(June 18, 2010 at 10:48 am)Caecilian Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 2:20 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:

(June 17, 2010 at 7:19 am)Caecilian Wrote: So, god is in our collective consciousness is he? [What] is that supposed to mean?

It's self explanatory, isn't it? Maybe you're not as smart as you think.

No it isn't self-explanatory. What exactly do you mean by a 'collective consciousness'? Sounds like gibberish to me.

Collective consciousness as the concept Durkheim invented, more than anything is the body of shared beliefs, sentiments and representations, IOW it is a construct of human feelings and imagination. So, if you are free loading on this concept to define your god, it means your god is a fabulated one and even atheists might agree.

[/quote]
You're contradicting yourself all over again. Anyway, I do feel atheism is a religion, though I know this is an age-old discussion between atheists and theists, and no one's going to change their mind. So I'll drop it.
[/quote]

I dont believe in pixies, santa, the tooth fairy or werewolves.
Is not believing in these non-existant things a religion.

no.

Now lets add another non-existant thing to the list, god, how does this addition change it into a religion?

(June 18, 2010 at 9:29 am)AngelThMan Wrote: Anyway, I do feel atheism is a religion, though I know this is an age-old discussion between atheists and theists, and no one's going to change their mind.

You mean that no one's going to change your mind, don't you?

NOT believing in something qualifies as a "religion"? Please explain how.

I don't collect stamps. Does that qualify as a hobby?

Quote:So I'll drop it.

Then why even mention it in the first place?

Quote:I don't collect stamps. Does that qualify as a hobby?

Beautiful, Thor!