Is Atheism a Religion? Why or why not?

[h4ym4n]

Because you need Eternal Happiness from God, my friend.

Helios, will answer you later. Also, I don't know what happened to the format of the last post. I quoted Brian's reply to me and then it was too long, so I put it in hide. I think after that the signature and the post got mixed.

you and I would have that now if I were aborted, right Xavier.

In your own words “ doesn’t sound to bad to me” - Xavier

[Angrboda]

So let's debate this. 

Anarchism is a system of government though it says it "is no system of government" at all. It doesn't get to win by default by saying that. It must be show that it is the true and best government system. Similarly, Atheism comes under Religous Systems. It is not excused from the obligations of showing it is the true and best form of religion or religious opinion. It must also adduce solid and weighty evidence in its favor to be taken seriously.

Thus, Dr. Craig rightly defends two propositions in most of his debates (1) There are Good Reasons to think (Christian) Theism is true. (2) There are no Good Reasons to think Atheism is true. And then gives evidence under either point. What evidence can Atheists offer to think Atheism is True?

This is ipse dixit and also shows that you don't understand what atheism is, which you were warned about yesterday.

[Angrboda]

Coincidentally, one of the first debates I ever participated in on this forum was on the topic of whether atheism is a religion. My initial post is linked below.

https://atheistforums.org/thread-6570-po...#pid135144

[Angrboda]

Theism (T): There is a God.
Atheism (A): There is no God.

Atheism cannot be true because you believe there is no God. Lol. Atheism can only be true if in fact there is no God.

You are defining Atheism as "I believe there is no God". Then, since you do, you are saying, Atheism is true. Lol.

Now, of T and A, only one can be true. They are mutually exclusive and cumulatively exhaustive. P(A)+P(T)=1, or 100%. So evidence in favor of Theism will reduce the probably of Atheism being true. Evidence in favor of Atheism, if any such thing exists, would reduce the probability of theism being true. Then, you assess each of the arguments in favor of either, like Contingency/Cosmology, Fine-Tuning, the Moral Argument etc.

I think we know now why the world economy is such a mess.

There's a Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert is being confronted by the garbage collector. The garbage man tells Dilbert that he found a paper Dilbert had discarded and the garbageman had taken the liberty to correct his equations for him. In response, Dilbert told him that he was amazed that he was a garbageman. To which the garbagemen man replied, "And I'm amazed that you're an engineer."

I'm amazed that NX is an accomplished banker, though perhaps I shouldn't be.

[Angrboda]

Let's make a deal. You get to define atheism as something it's not if we get to define theism as something it's not. Fair enough?

[Deesse23]

Atheism (A): There is no God.

How often are you going to repeat this falsehood, demonstrating that you dont know shit, and arent interested in learning shit?

[Fake Messiah]

Will get back to the others later. But I want to show the mistake some are making.

(A): Atheism is True. There is no God.
(T): Theism is True. There is a God.

Believing that god does not exist is a reasonable belief, just like not believing that Nessie exist. If gods were real somebody would have come up with some evidence or at least a really good argument for them by now. After all, we have discovered three billion-year-old fossils and identified galaxies far beyond our own. Surely we would have found some trace of gods by now if any were there. But we haven't so I find myself believing in their nonexistence. This little belief is not my religion, however. I have none.

[The Grand Nudger]

GN: "Anarchy is, by definition, not a system of government.  There's nothing to win or lose, it's just a description of the idea."

So, anarchy proves itself the best form of government just by defining itself as that? It needs to show that, when Anarchy is adopted, this leads to human flourishing and better governance. That has to be shown by arguments, experience, examples etc. That's the purpose of a govt. system.

...which anarchy...is not.  Listen to yourself, insisting that a thing has to prove it's the best thing it isn't.

[Ravenshire]

'I believe Mars does not exist' and 'I do not believe Mars exist' are not the same statement.

It is, to simpletons.

[Mister Agenda]

Mis-defining atheism won't save you. Atheism means lack of belief in gods. In other words, it isn't a positive belief. It isn't even 'There is no God'. It is 'I do not believe there are gods.'

[/hide]

Ok. Let's say A-Mars-ism is lack of belief in the planet Mars, i.e. the claim that the Planet Mars does not exist. This is a false belief, and it absolutely is not excused from the obligation of trying to prove itself true, which it cannot do; and it easily can be proven false. As it is.

Will get back to the others later. But I want to show the mistake some are making.

'A-Mars-ism if a lack of belief in the planet Mars, i.e., NOT the claim that the planet Mars does not exist. The claims is that they don't BELIEVE Mars exists. If the person actually doesln't believe in the planet Mars, their claim (that they don't believe) is true.

I don't believe that you have exactly $3.45 American in your left front pocket. That doesn't mean you don't have $3.45 in your left front pocket, you might...but it's an awfuly specific amount and I think the odds are that you don't have the $3.45 in that pocket. That's a bet, nnot a belief. A belief is something you hold to be true, I don't hold it to be true that you don't have the $3.45, I just think that it's unlikely.