Is Atheism a Religion? Why or why not?

[Angrboda]

If your nation is America, as I think it is, a certain historical figure disagrees. Oh yeah, his name also happens to be Abraham Lincoln, lol. Like the Holy Bible had said long ago, that Blessed is the Nation whose God is the Lord, Lincoln, quoting that passage and reflecting on it, affirming it to be proven by all history, said:

---

"Whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord;

And, insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates the land may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven; we have been preserved these many years in peace and prosperity; we have grown in numbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us, and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us (!)

---

Taken from: https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/document...and-prayer

Now, let's get back to the issue. One of the absurd things I heard Mr. Hitchens say in his debate where he got badly defeated by Dr. Craig, even according to Atheistic Websites, was: "There's no claim I know to make that Atheism is True, because Atheism is the Proposition that a Certain Proposition isn't True". This is an elementary/textbook logical fallacy, a classic Hitchensism. Who told you this, Hitchens? Granted that for a Proposition P, Q is the negation of P, the affirmation that P is not True, it in no way follows that Q does not have a Truth Value of its own. Of course, it does, the opposite Truth Value. Thus, if P is the Proposition "It is raining outside", Q, the negation of P, "It is not raining outside" of course has a Truth Value of its own, contra Hitchens. If P is True, Q is false. If Q is true, P is false. This is sheer sophistry from MA Hitchens.

Now, let's take some "definitions" of Atheism that have been proffered on this thread:

Helios: "(A): I lack belief in the theistic claim there is a god 

(T) I claim there is a god"

Your statement is not about objective reality, but a subjective opinion, hence the "I"s in both. Re-formulate it without involving an "I" in either. Also, it would follow, for each Atheist and Theist, both A and T are true, which is trivial; because both respectively either lack belief or claim there is a god. So what does that tell us? Nothing. Whereas as with A-Mars-ism, if you define it as whether Mars exists or not, then that's a statement about reality, not about a person's opinion on it.

If you want to define G: "It is uncertain whether there is a God or not", that would be Agnosticism. 

Also, something is only a Proposition if it has a non-trivial Truth Value: "In mathematics, a proposition is a statement that can either be found to be true or false. The truth value is true if the proposition is true". https://study.com/learn/lesson/propositi...ables.html The way you've defined A and T, every Atheist would find A true in his own mind, and every Theist T true in his. 

Brian:

---

But A-Mars-ism would NOT be a claim - in this context- that Mars does not exist. 'I believe Mars does not exist' and 'I do not believe Mars exist' are not the same statement. Additionally, the positive claim that Mars does not exist isn't the same as lacking the belief that it does exist.

Even if the atheist lack of belief in gods turns out to be false, that doesn't negate the lack of that belief, it just makes it wrong. There is a MASSIVE semantic difference between 'Gods do not exist' and 'I do not believe gods exist'.

---

Ok, agreed. "I believe Mars does not exist" and "I do not believe Mars exists" are not the same; however, that's just a question of degrees. A dogmatic "strong" A-Mars-ist would say, I absolutely affirm, with 100% certainty, that no such thing as a Planet Mars exists! A non-dogmatic "weak" (to use the same language Dawkins uses on his "scale"), non-dogmatic A-Mars-ist would say, "I lack a belief in the Planet Mars. I'm fairly sure no such Planet exists, maybe 90% sure. However, I don't want to affirm absolutely that it could not exist". Whether that or something like that is what Dawkins meant by giving himself a 6.9, I don't know.

But again, the issue is, when you have an "I" in your definition, then it confuses the issue. The statement "Mars exists/Mars does not exist" is very clear and is a statement about objective reality that can be falsified or not and does not depend on you or me, Brian.

Redefining the other party's terms solely to benefit one's own position violates the principle of charity in argument and is an example of arguing in bad faith.

You show us time and again that you cannot make your arguments without violating the ethical norms of rational discourse. What does that say about your confidence in the truth of the propositions that you are arguing for? To me it strongly suggests you lack confidence that your truth will prevail. It is the sign of someone who lacks confidence in his own beliefs.

[The Architect Of Fate]

God's Existence is as mathematically certain as the fact that an infinite number of contingent beings cannot exist. That is the Demonstration from Contingency. Since these contingent beings cannot go on indefinitely, they terminate in a First Cause, an Eternal First Being, Almighty God.

God's Existence is as scientifically certain as the fact that chance, given the exceedingly narrow range of certain fine-tuned physical constants required to create life, can be reasonably inferred not to have been the true cause of the formation of life. Thus, the True Cause of Life can be Scientifically known to be a Benevolent Designer.

God's Existence is as morally certain as the fact that objective moral obligation - which we know from our Conscience to be a self-evident Truth - cannot exist in a blind, directionless, purposeless Universe, but can only originate from the Free Decrees of a Personal, and Supremely Good, Being, who gave us some objective moral "dos" and "donts" (thou shalts and thou shalt nots), which we know as a properly basic Truth from our Conscience.

One can easily come to 90+% certainty about God's Existence from these and such like similar considerations. Then, personal experience can bring you to 100% or close to it. God Bless.

And none of the above is the case 

[Silver]

God's Existence is as mathematically certain as the fact that an infinite number of contingent beings cannot exist.

Incorrect. A mathematical proof isn't a scientific indication of reality, because it doesn't rely on observational data as science does.

[Bucky Ball]

God's Existence is as mathematically certain as the fact that an infinite number of contingent beings cannot exist. That is the Demonstration from Contingency. Since these contingent beings cannot go on indefinitely, they terminate in a First Cause, an Eternal First Being, Almighty God.

God's Existence is as scientifically certain as the fact that chance, given the exceedingly narrow range of certain fine-tuned physical constants required to create life, can be reasonably inferred not to have been the true cause of the formation of life. Thus, the True Cause of Life can be Scientifically known to be a Benevolent Designer.

God's Existence is as morally certain as the fact that objective moral obligation - which we know from our Conscience to be a self-evident Truth - cannot exist in a blind, directionless, purposeless Universe, but can only originate from the Free Decrees of a Personal, and Supremely Good, Being, who gave us some objective moral "dos" and "donts" (thou shalts and thou shalt nots), which we know as a properly basic Truth from our Conscience.

One can easily come to 90+% certainty about God's Existence from these and such like similar considerations. Then, personal experience can bring you to 100% or close to it. God Bless.

Bless your fucking god too. 
So then, if you have all this certainty you have no need of faith. 
That's sad for you, as your cult says you are saved by your faith. 
See you in a very low level in heaven, when you get out of Purgatory, after many years. Your arrogant preaching hermeneutic should be confessed.
Shame on you. The Immaculate Heart of Mary frowns on this shit. Say 1 "Hail Mary" as you penance.
"Hail Mary, full of grace,
may someone hot, sit on your face. Amen"

You're nothing but a cheap troll.
Get lost asshole.
The person you are trying to convince is yourself. You're on the way to atheism. Congrats.

[Angrboda]

God's Existence is as mathematically certain as the fact that an infinite number of contingent beings cannot exist. That is the Demonstration from Contingency. Since these contingent beings cannot go on indefinitely, they terminate in a First Cause, an Eternal First Being, Almighty God.

God's Existence is as scientifically certain as the fact that chance, given the exceedingly narrow range of certain fine-tuned physical constants required to create life, can be reasonably inferred not to have been the true cause of the formation of life. Thus, the True Cause of Life can be Scientifically known to be a Benevolent Designer.

God's Existence is as morally certain as the fact that objective moral obligation - which we know from our Conscience to be a self-evident Truth - cannot exist in a blind, directionless, purposeless Universe, but can only originate from the Free Decrees of a Personal, and Supremely Good, Being, who gave us some objective moral "dos" and "donts" (thou shalts and thou shalt nots), which we know as a properly basic Truth from our Conscience.

One can easily come to 90+% certainty about God's Existence from these and such like similar considerations. Then, personal experience can bring you to 100% or close to it. God Bless.

You never bothered to show that the first cause was God, despite this having been pointed out to you.

Now you're just trying to blow smoke up our ass. Why are you such a dishonest weasel?

[The Architect Of Fate]

Now, let's get back to the issue. One of the absurd things I heard Mr. Hitchens say in his debate where he got badly defeated by Dr. Craig, even according to Atheistic Websites, was: "There's no claim I know to make that Atheism is True, because Atheism is the Proposition that a Certain Proposition isn't True". This is an elementary/textbook logical fallacy, a classic Hitchensism. Who told you this, Hitchens? Granted that for a Proposition P, Q is the negation of P, the affirmation that P is not True, it in no way follows that Q does not have a Truth Value of its own. Of course, it does, the opposite Truth Value. Thus, if P is the Proposition "It is raining outside", Q, the negation of P, "It is not raining outside" of course has a Truth Value of its own, contra Hitchens. If P is True, Q is false. If Q is true, P is false. This is sheer sophistry from MA Hitchens.

Now, let's take some "definitions" of Atheism that have been proffered on this thread:

Helios: "(A): I lack belief in the theistic claim there is a god 

(T) I claim there is a god"

Your statement is not about objective reality, but a subjective opinion, hence the "I"s in both. Re-formulate it without involving an "I" in either. Also, it would follow, for each Atheist and Theist, both A and T are true, which is trivial; because both respectively either lack belief or claim there is a god. So what does that tell us? Nothing. Whereas as with A-Mars-ism, if you define it as whether Mars exists or not, then that's a statement about reality, not about a person's opinion on it.

If you want to define G: "It is uncertain whether there is a God or not", that would be Agnosticism. 

Also, something is only a Proposition if it has a non-trivial Truth Value: "In mathematics, a proposition is a statement that can either be found to be true or false. The truth value is true if the proposition is true". https://study.com/learn/lesson/propositi...ables.html The way you've defined A and T, every Atheist would find A true in his own mind, and every Theist T true in his. 

Sigh

Actually, we are talking about objective reality. You are making claims about reality and I'm not buying them. Again if the pro-mars people are making a reality-based claim about the existence of Mars unless they can prove Mars exists I am perfectly within my right to not accept the reality-based claims about Mars. It's amazing you wrote all this out only to completely miss the point 

Ok, agreed. "I believe Mars does not exist" and "I do not believe Mars exists" are not the same; however, that's just a question of degrees. A dogmatic "strong" A-Mars-ist would say, I absolutely affirm, with 100% certainty, that no such thing as a Planet Mars exists! A non-dogmatic "weak" (to use the same language Dawkins uses on his "scale"), non-dogmatic A-Mars-ist would say, "I lack a belief in the Planet Mars. I'm fairly sure no such Planet exists, maybe 90% sure. However, I don't want to affirm absolutely that it could not exist". Whether that or something like that is what Dawkins meant by giving himself a 6.9, I don't know.

But again, the issue is, when you have an "I" in your definition, then it confuses the issue. The statement "Mars exists/Mars does not exist" is very clear and is a statement about objective reality that can be falsified or not and does not depend on you or me, Brian.

Again we don't need to assign percentages it remains perfectly sound to reject the claim Mars exists till the people claiming it exists to prove it. This really isn't complicated 

[Nishant Xavier]

You have no reason to maliciously slander me like that, but of course you're not bound to the Christian Code of Ethics. So I expect that and I forgive you. And oh yes, I did. Go back and read what I showed about the First Cause being what Scholastic Philosophy calls Pure Actuality, A Being in whom there is no Potentiality. Since there is no contingency in the First Being, there is no potentiality in this being either, nothing that He can become that He is already not.

[Silver]

I see a great deal of claims with zero evidence to back up the existence of this being.

[The Architect Of Fate]

ou have no reason to maliciously slander me like that, but of course you're not bound to the Christian Code of Ethics. So I expect that and I forgive you. And oh yes, I did. Go back and read what I showed about the First Cause being what Scholastic Philosophy calls Pure Actuality, A Being in whom there is no Potentiality. Since there is no contingency in the First Being, there is no potentiality in this being either, nothing that He can become that He is already not.

No one has slandered you snowflake and you have no business forgiving anyone. Also, you showed nothing of any merit or value per usual

[no one]

What a crock, this manipulative, dishonest scumbag whining on about a code of ethics.

Still waiting for why you are here, fuck face.