Okay, something for everyone! *COOPER:* Actually, lots of people have said it... But if someone does say that this is a Christian nation, shouldn't we just ask them what that means? *PUNKIE:* Asking the above question rather than telling your teacher he/she was wrong might have been helpful! (Or did you ask?) As for humiliation, isn't that what a lot of university professors intentionally do to their Christian students? *HAROLD:* But 'GOD' is pretty general, don't you think? The odd this is that atheists get their britches in such a bunch at the mere mention of the term! They hate to hear it and their hatred often prevents them from even spelling it correctly! Ex. Gawd. Jebus. ByBull! *N/A:* Oooooh! The illumipotty! [snicker-snicker, see ex. under HAROLD] *JEREMIAH:* The very idea of the rational basis for the foundation of our values and liberties is found ONLY in the Judeo-Christian God. As for America's residents being predominately Christian... Well, what does it mean to be a 'Christian'?
Inspiration House Network "One Nation Under God" wasn't made the US motto until 1954. During the Cold War. And the Soviet government was officially athiestic. Seems like a fun bit of propaganda to me.
+Gabriel Hendrix It's about belief, and Atheism is a belief like religion is a belief. Much like one's choice of a sex position is as much of a choice as abstinence.
+FleeinKorean no its not a belief, it's a lack of belief. You are thinking of anti theism, which is a declaration of belief. All atheism says is they lack evidence to make a belief one way or the other; so they reject the claim until sufficient evidence is gathered and presented. Now, many atheists are also anti-theists as the two are not mutually exclusive. So I can understand your misunderstanding.
Atheism is the opposite of belief. I, as an atheist, do not believe on faith in something that can not and has not been proven to exist. once you can demonstrate the existence of a god or gods without using faith as your proof I will agree with you.
Ravenpro 2448 A) that is impossible B) atheism is faith in the belief that there is no God or gods C) being skeptical of the existence of God (or gods) is more appropriately termed "agnostism" D) doubt (in the church authorities, the teachings of the church, the sanctity of the bible, and even the existence of God) is accepted as a natural part of an individual's spiritual evolution and is NOT condemned in Christianity (I can't speak for other religions) There is a LOT of misinformation out there about Christianity and the Christian spirit. It is being actively spread by opportunistic people seeking to dominate and control others (aka, playing politics). Don't believe what you hear. Do your own research. Ask questions. Just my two cents.
@IdleBigots ok I guess that kind of makes sense but there is nothing that supports any theological beliefs but there are plenty of facts supporting the atheistic side
+Goatmon Sorry about all the angry Christians. Lol. Your comment is dismissive of my beliefs but still funny. Atheism is still a belief, and if one zealously defends their atheism and adhere's to it in all facets of life, it becomes a religion. I get that you believe that what I believe is wrong. And I would suppose I believe what you believe is wrong. I'm not trying to get all "truth is relative" and post-modern on you. But I would suggest that your convictions are well thought through and so are mine. I don't have the right to force you to believe and you don't have the right to force me to believe your position. But we can both advocate our sides to each other. That being said. In order to not infringe on any right.. The response to stopping state sponsored religion is not state sponsored atheism. Since they are both (I won't use the word religion because I also believe that my faith in Jesus is not so much religion as it is a worldview) worldviews, one cannot be more sponsored by the state than the other. But all politicians can affirm their belief system and people who vote can do the same. We vote on what we think is right or wrong. We put representatives in place to work out laws that best represent the viewpoint of the country. If there is gridlock from opposing beliefs, it's not from one side being good or evil and fighting against the other side. It simply means that there are a lot of people in this country that fight for their convictions and don't want to back down, which is okay. May the tallest man win... or something.
Religious groups don't actively campaign or donate to political campaigns at the moment. They ask for things, and they try to subtly guide people in one direction or the other, but they don't make huge donations for political groups.
Ungoogleable o_O Certainly all types of faith, belief n religion does direct, influence and ultimately justify actions of followers of whatever. Everyone is on a path of finding purpose in their life including Atheists. What your point?
for everyone bitching about atheism not being a religion, you do not understand he's speaking in a political stance as atheism is labeled and recognized as a religion (for purpose of a place holder) under the u.s government for a variety or reason he's not saying its an actual existing religion in the sense it posses a dogma or an established church. Much like people stating "bald is not a hairstyle" technically yes it is, while you may no longer have hair it is the manor in which you decided to style and cut it.
You might be half right, even while he's still entirely wrong. Atheism has legal standing in the same realm as religious beliefs. That doesn't make it a religion per se, but puts it in that legal arena (the arena of religious liberty, which includes the right to not be religious. So it's not so much a "place holder" as it is simply a liberty. And religious liberty does not = religion. I know of no legal standards for religion that atheism would meet.) But, more importantly IMO, that's not really what he's getting at. He's asserting that separating church from state is tantamount to advocating for lack of god, or an atheistic religious view. Which is total bullshit. And a pretty egregious definitional error.
stating that Atheism is not a religion is like saying bald is not a hairstyle - when technically, yes it is, ( & Atheists would even agree with that). But to say Atheism is a religion like bald is a colour - well then you'd be incorrect and the Atheists with let you know all about it (with as you say, all their bitching).
Atheism is a religion? It contains a belief system? What an intellectual embarassment. No, atheism is the rejection of a belief system. People - like myself- are not convinced by the evidence presented by theists because it is neither compelling nor objective. And for this reason, I *LACK* the belief in a god. I have a belief system as a secular humanist, but not as an atheist.
Gabriela Jones I agree. I don't believe in flying pigs, that doesn't mean I follow a religion about how pigs don't fly. That's a slippery slope my friend.
RoboticsNShenanigans like Romeo said if I don't believe in leprechauns is that a religion of not believing in leprechauns? Like you said you can be an athiest and be religious but you can also be an atheist and not be religious
Gabriela Jones Atheism is a religion and scientists are the preachers xD It's just like any other belief system, just because you don't believe in God doesn't make it any less of a belief of how the world works. Just because you don't like the term religion doesn't mean it's not one xD
"Religion n. the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods." So no, *atheism is NOT a religion*--though I agree that neither religion NOR IRRELIGION should be part of government. And no, the U.S. was not "founded on Christian principles" (nice attempt to glibly sneak that in)--it was founded on *human* principles. Wait, I take some of that back: when it was founded it did countenance slavery, as Jesus/Christianity did.
There are atheistic religions, just like there are theistic religions. Neither, however, define religion on their own. Theism is not religion, and neither is atheism.
The problem is that the resurrection hypothesis doesn't rely on one fact: People believed. There are four facts that all tie together. So your argument, whatever the conclusion, has no relevance to the subject we're speaking of.
1st amendment: "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. *drops the mic*
+10Elmer10 *picks up the mic* The Establishment Clause places limitations not on the church, but on the state, therefore keeping the government from interfering with the free exercise of religious practices. *drops mic again*
The word “religion” in the Founders’ First Amendment discussions was often used interchangeably with the word “denomination.” For example, the original version of the First Amendment introduced in the Senate on September 3, 1789, stated, “Congress shall not make any law establishing any religious denomination.” The second version stated, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination.” The third version was very similar, declaring, “Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination in preference to another.” The final version passed on that day declared, “Congress shall make no law establishing religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” As already mentioned, the word “religion” had been used interchangeably with “denomination” throughout their discussions, and this is why the First Amendment prohibited the national government from establishing any single “religion,” or denomination. So, in other words, The United States WAS set up as a Christian Nation. Just not one particular denomination. The Founders did not want another Church of England.
@@10Elmer10 You do realize that you disagree with the Founding Fathers of the U.S. don't you? The Congressional Record (required by the Constitution in Article 1, Sec. 5 ¶ 3) contains all the official words and acts that occur in congressional chambers. Those records therefore include the discussion of the ninety Founders in the first federal Congress who, from June 8 to September 25, 1789, framed the First Amendment. In those lengthy discussions that spanned months, the Founders repeatedly explained that they were seeking to prevent what they had experienced under Great Britain: the legal establishment by the national government of a single religious denomination in exclusion of all others. Very simply, their oft-repeated intent was that Congress could not officially establish any one denomination in America; or, in the wording proposed by James Madison, “nor shall any national religion be established.” Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, DC: Gales & Seaton, 1834), Vol. I, pp. 439-951, June 8-September 24, 1789, and Journal of the First Session of the Senate of the United States of America, Begun and Held at the City of New York, March 4, 1789 (Washington DC: Gales & Seaton, 1820), pp. 69-88, September 2-25, 1789. Debates and Proceedings, Vol. I, p. 451, June 8, 1789, see also, Vol. I, pp. 757-759, August 15, 1789.
I said H. Totally got it right. "Separation of Church and state" was coined by Thomas Jefferson but wasn't in any document. I agree with most everything in this video; except one detail: You stated our laws were based on Christian Principals. That's just not true. Our laws are based on detriment. Murder is a crime not because the bible says "shall not kill" - But because murdering someone is detrimental to their health. There's nothing in the bible about voter fraud or tax evasion; but they are crimes because they are detrimental to society. However the bible DOES say do not commit adultery, or work on the Sabbath. But there's no laws against cheating on your wife or working on Saturday. (Yes, the Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday.) Our laws are not based on Christian principals but simple ethics that existed before Jesus himself. Even if the bible was never written we would still have laws against murder because it's pretty freakin' hard to have a stable economy when you let people steal and kill each other. It's not Christian though. We have plenty of laws that aren't related to anything in the bible, and there's plenty the bible says we can't do that we can do legally.
While your argument makes sense you're imposing your understanding on history 250 years old. Yes, back then, it was perceived to have been founded on Christian principles. "...all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights..." Even some of the fundamentals really ARE based on purely Christian principles found in the Bible - not the least of which is the separation of church and state. Jesus in the Bible taught a tolerance of religion, that His kingdom was not of this world and he would not deal in politics, and can not be found anywhere else in history. If it weren't for Christianity no one would be allowed to be atheist. Granted, the Catholic Church and others tried to suppress what the Bible taught but it was Christians who rediscovered the separation of church and state (and Rhode Island as a colony becoming the first political state in history with true separation).
Justin Dane Spady He forgets to mention that his "Christian" ideals are "borrowed" from Jewish ideals that pre-date them by over 3,000 years. Surprised? You shouldn't be!
Justin Dane Spady You're confusing the Declaration of Independence, which establishes no laws, with the U.S. Constitution, which is the law of the land. Can you list the specific and unique "Christian principles" upon which the U.S. was founded, and where we can find them in the U.S.Constitution? "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights" A bit egotistical to presume the term "Creator" is an exclusively Christian concept, or that it refers to a supernatural entity.
It's always been clear that most our founding fathers were deist. They believed in a god, in a 'creator' because they did not posses evidence for any other reasoning. However as deist they mostly agreed a creator existed but that no sacred text (Including the bible) were correct. Just saying. Beyond that, the Constitution not once, ever makes any mention of a creator; and IT is our law. We are a Constitutional Republic. Not a theocracy. It's that simple. No religion in our law. It's unconstitutional. So why would our laws be based off a religious text? That's silly.
Karl Foerster Yes, especially given that his example of the commandments supposedly bright down from Mt. Sinai are of Jewish origin, even though both Christians and Muslims liked them enough to use them as well.
Atheism is not a religion. No atheist can say with absolute certainty that a God does not exist. They just do not believe in any of the religions which exist in the world. Not believing in any religion does not equal the belief that a deity does not exist.
12 лет назад
I understand. I live a heavily secularized society. Thinking about things like this in this way is easy for me, i haven't encountered theist beliefs head on since middle-school. I can understand that it is hard to ignore it when your society is saturated with it.
+mbanana23456 Not really, but they weren't fundies either, and were living in a time (late colonial era) and place (British colonies of North America) where some variation of Judaism (besides anti-semitism at the time/place) or Christianity (deism, Protestantism, Catholicism, Anabaptism) was the only non-taboo belief/view. They were "enlightened" theists.
+OngoingSky93 ....I agree, but would add (keep religious influence out of) healthcare, use of public space, brainwashing of children (which causes them to believe in superstitions and hinders the development of critical thinking skills, and instills the habit of 'do not question authority'...I could go on and on. I support religious freedom, but it is not a license to harm.
Atheism is NOT a religion. It is the simply the lack of belief in any form of god. The definition of a religion clearly states "The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods.". Not believing in any such god goes directly against the definition of being a religion. If you feel the need to label it as something, then call it a group of like-minded individuals. Because that's what it is. Honestly people, this is very simple.
Two things to note about religion in America: Most of our Founding Fathers were Freemasons, some of whom were critical of religion, and still felt it necessary for anyone to embrace their beliefs. Also, to anyone advocating the abolishment of all religion, do realize how illogical/irrational that is seeing as that many religions, such as Christianity, have been around for centuries with millions of people practicing them!
Okay, children, grab your backpacks. It's time for school (that goes for the ignorant tool in the video too). Words often have multiple contexts. When a new usage of a word becomes popular or common enough, that usage may or may not be accepted as an alternative definition for that word. That said, religion has multiple contextual definitions. Here they are: 1) the belief in a god or in a group of gods 2) an organized system of beliefs, ceremonies, and rules used to worship a god or a group of gods 3) an interest, a belief, or an activity that is very important to a person or group So, interestingly enough, two of three of these definitions strictly involve a belief in a god or a group of gods. When we are speaking about religion, which context do you think we are speaking in? Can you guess? Well, I can assure you that we are not referencing the third definition. No one--and I mean no one at all--ever uses that definition of religion. Ever. Period. If we were talking about a non-religious belief system, we would just call it a belief system. Theists will often try to switch the contexts of words; you have to watch for that. Don't allow them to do it. For example, they will claim you have faith because you "have faith in your friends" or some nonsense like that. Again, this would be switching contexts which is indistinguishable from switching words altogether. You cannot switch contexts and then claim that those contexts are the same. That is atrociously dishonest, and doing so causes much confusion. Speaking from the context in which the word "religion" is ALWAYS used when speaking of religious beliefs or a lack thereof, atheism is absolutely not a religion. If you disagree, consider the plethora of homographs in the English language. For example, a "bow" can be one of two different things--depending on whether we are talking about a projectile weapon or a hair decoration. Are these two items the same thing? No, I didn't think so. I don't believe I need to provide any more examples. Anyone who still says atheism is a religion is one of two things: 1)A theist who just wants more company in fantasy land or... 2)An ignorant tool like the one in this video. Think about what you say before you say it, and make sure you have your facts straight. Otherwise, you're just part of the problem. Alright--class dismissed!
Wrong. The video-maker is using definition 1: a belief. He's saying that trying to impose your belief about God is mixing religion and the state. Your belief that there is no God has the same weight as someone who believes in a certain God - to claim it does not fall in the category of belief would mean you don't really believe in anything on the subject (which is a possible form of atheism but I doubt it in your case). And since it has the same weight, it has the same political ramifications if you try to impose that belief on others.
Justin Dane Spady Wrong. Atheism has no beliefs attached to it. It is simply the quality of non-belief in any gods. There are no tenets, doctrines, commandments, requisites (beyond not believing in any gods), or hierarchies of authority. By definition, atheism is neither a belief nor a system of belief. One does not need to believe no gods exist to not believe they do. Some atheists do strictly claim there are no gods, and this is independent of atheism. Unfortunately, there is no official term for this that I know of. Also, the definition you're trying to strawman is a belief IN a god or gods, not a belief ABOUT a god or gods. Dude, you have no argument here. Please don't waste my time. Edit: By the way, my post was not about mixing religion with state; it was simply about falsely labeling atheism as a religion. I agree that no parties should be imposing their religious beliefs or lack-thereof on others. But this is not relevant to my original post.
Bergzore But isn't atheism an awnser to the same questions as the other religions? Filling a void of uncertanty; answers to what happens when we die and if there is a God(s)? Giving a fundament to build your "life-compas" on or whatever. I can't find a suitable metaphor for it. I'm not trying to make me look smart here, just toying with the idéa. Please play. Most historical cultures (as far as I'm aware) has had a religion or a belief or something of the sorts that could have developed independently from each other. This would make it look like that kind of "system" is mandatory to all humans in some way. Why would this need have disapeared in the ones that claim to be atheists. They most often refer to it as their religion (sure, it could be out of ignorence to the words most common denotation). Émile Durkheim formed an other definition of the word religion as the separation of the holy and the profane. Holy in that theory would be the things that are so socialy charged that they can only be approched after proper ceremonies has been preformed. In that sense a funeral could perhaps be viewed as holy even to an atheist I imagine, and therefore a part in a religious exercise. Sure the problem that there is no central core establishment or litteratur that tries to direct athiests to the "right way" makes it seem highly un-religious. What do you think?
Oskar Kruse Oskar, I like your response. Alright, here we go... Try to think about something you are ignorant to, anything at all. Ask yourself a question to which you do not know the answer. Now, have you decided to just answer it anyway? Or have you determined that you just don't know the answer, and perhaps you either don't care or you wish to do some research to find the answer? The fallacy you're toying with is called the Argument from Ignorance. This is where you have before you an unanswered question, and you just create an answer to shroud your own ignorance. I do not know the ultimate origin of the universe; nor do I know what happens when people die. So why not just stop there? If you don't know something, then you just don't know. Ignorance does not necessitate an answer; this goes for all subjects, including religion. Why would religion be an exception? It's not, but I'll tell you why people want it to be: because no one wants to stop existing. There are other reasons beyond this, but the fear of one's own mortality overshadows it all. All of that said, I'm not afraid of nonexistence, and all of the evidence points to the ceasing of a human's existence upon brain deactivation. On the other hand, there is no evidence of a soul or any other conscious functions happening outside of the body. Furthermore, there is no "metaphorical religion." There is a colloquial context of religion wherein it can represent any generic belief system, but this context diminishes all meaning of the word; besides, no one ever uses that context when speaking of religious beliefs. You either belief in divine things, or you do not. Pantheists, for example, are atheists by definition because equating the universe to God is not the same as worshiping a supernatural deity. Lastly, I respect the fantasy of religion. Some of it can be beautiful and inspiring. I enjoy it in films and stories and, sometimes, in music (I listen to some of Skillet's stuff). However, the enjoyment I feel is no different from that of any other form of entertainment. I don't believe the Terminator is real, so why should I believe any other fantasy is real? We've already answered that question, but I do not suffer a demand for answers. Oskar, keep in mind that we are human. One unique thing about humans is their ability to change their nature. More atheists are turning up every day. I don't need God, and neither do you or anyone else.
Actually theism is the belief in a god or any type of supernatural deity, not religion itself. So Atheist would simply mean the belief that there is no deities.
Harlan Bouchard That is what devoutly religious people think of Atheism, but my experiences of being an Atheist have taught me not to take religious people seriously.
Gregory Hughes Most Atheists have their own belief system. Religion is just how you see the world, how you believe the world came to be pretty much, don't you agree? I understand why Atheists don't want to be grouped in with religious people, you hardcore anti-religious Atheists at least :P I think it's just the word religion you don't like and that's why you wont admit Atheism is a religion and not so much the actually definition xD You say stuff like "well our beliefs aren't beliefs, they're fact" when in reality most are just beliefs. Atheism is just the word people call themselves when their beliefs don't coincide with any religion they know and no, I'm not saying everyone believes in God I'm saying everyone has beliefs and why is it so bad to admit that? xD
No, I'm saying, "1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause. 2. The universe began to exist. 3. Therefore, the universe has a cause." It's conclusion would be the uncaused first cause, which we call, "God." Strangely, you flat out deny that there is an uncaused first cause without any argument or reason. I suspect because there are none. But if you do have one, I'd like to hear it. Keep in mind that the arguments, reasons and evidence in support of premise 1 and 2 support an uncaused first cause.
Are you guys crazy the first 10 words of the Bill of Rights "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." It doesn't say "Separation of Church and state" exactly but that is what it means. Plus the the US Supreme Court has ruled on this numerous times.
For the most part your right expect in the part of atheism is religion. Is more of a philosophy on how to live your life without the need of a religion to be your guiding principle for morals.
Atheist a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods. Yup old argument sorry you got it wrong again an atheist is not someone who believes there are no gods they lack belief in your god or any other gods. Atheism is specifically the lack of religious beliefs. Is not collecting stamps a hobby? Is having the television off another channel? Seriously, when people say atheism is a religion it makes me wonder how they passed English class.
+Cory Kaupa +Cory Kaupa It's a figure of speech to explain what they're doing isn't so different from religion... Obviously. Also don't you think that's a little silly? "Oh it's not that we *believe that there is no God* it's not a belief no, it's that we *don't believe there is a god* it's completely different because you know, it's different"... You're making a decision on what to suppose based on what we know about it, which is absolute 0. 100% the exact same thing. Atheism isn't saying religious people are wrong, that's just being a dipshit.
And it was written that way not to keep church/religion out of the government, but to keep government out of the church... Noticed that tidbit was left out...
The problem with saying that atheism is a religion is that in order to do that, you have to redefine what the word means. Once it's been redefined, then being a Democrat, Republican and even -gasp- being a Yankee fan becomes a religion! It cheapens what we already know the definition to be and it's simply used as a tool to aggravate atheists-bereft of any intellectual integrity. If there is no creator of the universe involved then it's just a hobby, organization, support group, etc. For the record, I don't consider Buddhism a religion, merely a philosophy, that managed to gain tax-exempt status in the U.S. therefore is recognized as such. I think I will go and immerse myself in the hobby of not-playing-golf. That's a hobby right? I mean...according to this guy anyway.
From about the 1950s to the 1970s, the Supreme Court was become hijacked by activists who didn't understand the importance of their duty, or the gravity of having the power to strike down laws, and there was a series of rulings that honestly should be an embarrassment to that branch. I'm hoping that John Roberts will restore respectability to the branch, because we really do need an unelected, and objective panel to ensure constitutional adherence.
The fact is that we do have a heritage as a nation. Even if you are not Christian. There is no reason to wipe out our heritage because a lot of people who love to be offended are complaining. I'm more disturbed by elementary kids being forced to sing praise songs about the current President than any funding for Christmas trees. Most people don't even relate Christianity to a Christmas tree.
once the first organisms started living, having active reactions inside, they evolved. Outside sources of energy were able to generate mutations and misreplicated DNA during binary fission also provided diversity. And the molecules were created when two nearby atoms either shared electrons that the need or dont need, ionic bond, or an outside source of energy, eg lightning, gave the energy required for covalent bond synthesis, one atom binding with other
"For instance, I believe in gravity, but that doesn't change my daily life." Precisely. Similarly, being an atheist doesn't change my daily life. Atheism doesn't prescribe certain actions that you should take, or certain rituals to perform (the way that religion does). This is why atheism is not a religion. Even your belief in reincarnation is a good example: would you call "belief in reincarnation" a religion? Or is it only part of a religion? Why, or why not?
For one thing, the prayers were non-denominational. Besides, when local authorities can implement policies that reflect the local culture, people have the freedom to live in communities suited to their values, or move somewhere else. When everything is nationalized and centralized, we lose that.
I understand your point crystal clear. The first issue was when you guys were conflating ["p false" and "¬p (Not p) true" having one truth value.] with [“I do not believe p” and “I believe ¬p” being different.] Both are true but the problem is that not believing in God based on skepticism is like someone who believes in God based on blind faith. Neither has anything to offer as far as truthfulness goes. Both just leaves us wondering does God exist?
1947, Everson vs. Board of Education. It made no sense to say that the federal government could not interfere with or endorse a religion while at the same time allowing for state wide theocracies in everything but name.
I'm actually talking about federalism - the balance of power between the 50 states and the US Government. The first amendment doesn't necessarily prohibit the states from "respecting an establishment of religion".
It's definitely not what atheism is. I'm just explaining why people often believe it is a religion. Atheism is inherently a way of perceiving the world. When you're talking about something like stalinism atheism is a component viewpoint in a greater ideology. If you apply the idea of state atheism your nation is no longer neutral in regards to theology. You can't say it's a non-secular state, but it has a similar effect to that of a dogmatic theocracy.
Atheism is religious position, but not a religion. A single belief is not sufficient to be anything except the belief itself. For example, the belief that Buddhism is a pleasant religion is merely a position and nothing more. Such a position is not a "religion about Buddhism", it is just one single belief. To try to render Atheism as anything more than a singular belief is to either not understand Atheism or not understand the meaning of the word "belief".
I've read your linked article. I agree with you that the government should not establish a national religion, and also that the government cannot interfere with how people practice their religion. I'm also not arguing that "religion should have no influence in how the State runs things". However, the sticking point is that government cannot endorse any religious view over any other(wouldn't you agree?). This is why prayer in schools is unconstitutional.
That does not make the hypothesis wrong, it means that we assume it was wrong, you can do an experiment and make a mistake that you think make your hypothesis wrong, but it is not, to say that it is disproven is to say that it is wrong, to say that you assume it is wrong is to say that you think it is wrong but you are willing to admit that it still might be true. You are the one missing the point. I ask again, what, if anything, is wrong with my comment below.
if thats your only argument, I am sorry but let me show you what the definition of religion means. re·li·gion Noun The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. Details of belief as taught or discussed. Synonyms faith - belief - creed - denomination So if you believe in evolution and are teach it, or discuss it, well that's religion.
I have said multiple times that atheists don't all share the same beliefs. And that not all of them are religions. Those with a philosophy that is religious have beliefs that if you took them away their philosophy would fall apart.
His writing, at least to him, is justification for his belief that "God is very improbable." But the assumption, "God doesn't exist" which is the assumption, is not justified (Shown to be right) because it's called an ASSUMPTION and is an argument from ignorance. If you don't make that assumption it doesn't logically follow that therefore you have to assume that God does exist. That's why we have agnostics! He added that assumption because he's describing an ATHEIST who holds there is no god.
A atheist is not a religion, you are correct. Atheism is the religion, a atheists believes the things Atheisms has to offer, making Atheism a religion and a atheist a follower of that religion or a better term for it would be world view.
"if people weren't allowed to vote based on the religious convictions, that would be a kind of state sponsored religion, an atheistic religion. And that would be taking away from separation of church and state, because it's someone telling you what you have to believe" You took what he said out of context. Please review what people really said before you chime in.
Not everyone has a world view that concerns itself with the cause, nature, and purpose of the world. Its not that you don't believe, its what you believe instead. Arguing with my definition does not change the fact that my definition is valid and excepted, and that definition would include many atheists word views.
You raised two questions in my mind: By definition, do agnostics DO NOT have any beliefs (isn't their uncertainty or commitment to the "imposible to know" a belief on itself)? Also, as far as I know the agnosticism has a varied spectre of forms, there's theisitic agnostics, and atheist agnostics. Wouldn't that means that there has to be this line of beliefs to actually call oneself an agnostic?. I really like your responses, so I hope you don't take this as an attempt to brawl with you. :)
No one doubts that Jesus existed. Even the most critical historian doesn't doubt this fact. If you do, then I'm sure you also doubt that every other historical figure that dates back to Jesus' time (And even before) even existed. Because the historical artifacts and documents don't measure up to your own idea of what counts as sufficient evidence to establish something as history. Do you doubt that Julius Caesar existed?
But when we failed to obey and respect him then the world became a place that was full of bad consequences. Even ‘nature’ itself became a source of pain. God let this happen because he gave humanity a free-will to decide how we live.
Those two comparisons don't even make sense. Because, we're talking about a faith, not a comparison of doing something and not doing something. All I know is nobody really knows for a fact how the Earth began, obviously because no-one was there. So it takes faith in your believe in whatever god you choose to believe and how he created it, the same way it takes faith to believe that it came from evolution or whatever.
Churches shouldn't have tax exempt status, anyway. You know why? Because it's a complicated entanglement of government and religion. It basically says that the government has the power to declare which beliefs constitute official religion to be worthy of such a status. No. Tax exempt status should only be tied to its charity work, and nothing more. It shouldn't have tax exemption just because it's a religion recognized by the government.
It's not an assumption. We know it's mythology. But I went the extra mile to show you that he is falsifiable. If you observed just one thunderstorm without him then he doesn't exist. No more wondering about the possibility of him existing, that's if you actually thought Norse mythology was plausible. Which I don't, obviously. But the problem is thinking that anything imaginary is on par with God. It's not, and it's very juvenile.
Religion is defined as the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance. Atheism is NOT a religion. Religion is based upon faith and atheism is based upon empirical evidence and objective inquiries. We are not devoted to our beliefs, if you show me evidence, I'm willing to change my beliefs I love this show and this is the 1st bad thing I've heard on the show, so you get a pass, but don't offend atheist by calling atheism a religi
Rejection of a belief is the same as believing the beliefs contra-positive. So not believing in a god is a belief about god. And religion is defined as, " people's beliefs and opinions concerning the existence, nature, and worship of a deity or deities, and divine involvement in the universe and human life." So atheism is a religion.
Here is a CITED quote from wikipedia, "They (deniers) accept that evolutionary change is possible within what they call "kinds" ("microevolution"), but deny that one "kind" can evolve into another ("macroevolution"). Contrary to this belief among the anti-evolution movement proponents, evolution of life forms beyond the species level ("macroevolution" i.e. speciation in a specific case) has indeed been observed multiple times under both controlled laboratory conditions and in nature." Try again.
To call the belief that there is no god a religion is misleading. It's like saying the belief that there are no unicorns is a religion. While these two beliefs advocate the absence of something, religions advocate the existence of something. There is no evidence for the existence of gods or unicorns, and absence of evidence is evidence of absence. However weak the evidence may be to support the absence of a god, it is still more reasonable than believing in a god for which no evidence supports.
"ASSUMPTION that god is not there" The definition of assumption is: "1. something taken for granted; a supposition" He lives his life as if god didn't exist. It's just taken to be true. It's an argument from ignorance that requires a burden of proof but he recognizes that. So he admits it's an assumption that he cannot justify. Which is atheism. Though some atheists actually attempt to shoulder their burden of proof. But anyways, that's what atheism is. Not this soft re-definition you argue for.
It's not ethics! It's logic. If God is contradictory then He can't exist. It's that simple. There's a plethora of ways to falsify Him. Except no atheist has been successful in showing God to be incoherent and for some reason you think it logically follows that therefore He must not be falsifiable. He is and atheists in the past have tried and failed. It accomplishes "good reason to believe a claim is true" That claim is "God exists." Meaning a creator with specific attributes exists.
If the tablets Moses is holding are blank, they could represen he 10 commandment, or they cold not. Keep in mind the 10 commandments were on tablets. And because there are 10 commandments , might be why there are 10 amendments. Also, the last line of the presidential oath is "to protect, preserve and defend the constitution,so help me GOD"
Wrong, yet again: "faith Noun 1. Complete trust or confidence in someone or something. 2. Strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof" If you had evidence, faith isn't required because the burden of proof is satisfied. ""'God exists' is still false" means God does not exist. Which is a claim to knowledge." Wrong, it's a dismissal of a claim to knowledge. The default logical position for any claim is false until the burden of proof is met.
The separation of church of state is like a diode it only allows electron flow in one direction. It prevents the government from forming a church such as the Church of England. However, the church can influence government.
thou shall not kill came way before the Bible. It's a moral value not just a religious value. That law and many other did not come from the Bible just because there are some common sense laws that are the same.
The guy is talking about the church being politicized way more than it is now if we take away its tax-exempt status. I'm saying that if the church becomes too politicized, it will be incorporated into their dogma, and more sects will arise. And "holding back" churches with tax-exempt status is not a good excuse to give them tax-exempt status to begin with. But you know, way to not follow the conversation.
No, that's just a bad inference. I lumped the two skeptics of Jesus' existence and God's existence together since it's the only two we've been speaking about. Didn't think I needed to be specific. Ohh, of course I can understand the skepticism of Jesus' divinity. But if you are to hold to that then you need to rationally explain the facts surrounding His death that are agreed upon by the majority of scholars. Or address the hypothesis that best explains the facts; a resurrection occurred.
@cmustard599 1. I never said that Christians don't do it in return. In fact, that was pretty much a major point of the comment you responded to... 2. The rejection of the concept of religion is specific just to practical atheism. Which I think you missed while reading my comments. 3. You seem to have missed that I am referring to an atheistic minority. Which you can't deny exist because there are examples within this set of comments.
It was good you mentioned it. I needed to slow down and watch the entire video before I posted. And you're right; equating secular govenment with atheism is a significant--I would add harmful-- error.
No, extraordinary claims don't require extraordinary evidence. That's false. There's more to it than just the probability of said claim happening. You have to take into account the probability of the evidence being there if the said claim didn't happen. Bare assertions? That wasn't my intention. I haven't even described in detail the argument. I'm just letting you know there are more ways of knowing truth than having God sit and do tricks for you. Which is true as I've explained with reason.
I agree with you about the constitution obviously implying attitudes that (thankfully) aren't spelled out in detail: that's my point. The phrase "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution, but it is clearly supported by the first amendment (just like "freedom of religion"). But my point in saying "Atheism is its own religion like not-smoking is an addiction" is that its a silly claim: atheism is NOT its own religion, like he says at 3:55.
"supposed" and only the people who believe in the bible proclaim it is sacred. thiss might offend people, but in my mind the bible is just an old piece of literature, and i have read it
New age is a religion, and all of its followers have different beliefs, I don't think saying just because the beliefs are not uniform it is not a religion is not a vary good argument.
And quid pro quo for churches and government officials is harder because of the first amendment. You have sleazy politicians taking bribes from corporations and in return receiving huge tax breaks, but how are you going to do that to a church? The minute you say, "the Pentecostal church will have this tax break" because of campaign donations invites first amendment lawsuits.
You can be skeptical all you want but am I supposed to take your word over Historians? If you are to reject these facts then you need to do more than appeal to other claims as if they're all equivalent. There is criteria to determine credibility. It's not as if the resurrection itself is historical. It's just that the evidence leads to that conclusion. If you have the time I really recommend watching this; /watch?v=4iyxR8uE9GQ The least you could do is listen... he starts speaking at 6:40.
"Without God, liberty will not last." "The Bible is the source of liberty. " Both are from Jefferson. I hate to say you are wrong. Separation of Church and State is to keep Gov out of religion. Once the Gov can dictate religion and how you practice it your freedoms will slowly be taken from you one by one.
Well speaking as a registered Democrat, I strongly believe in separation of Church and state. Even though I’m a Catholic Christian. And I may sound like a hypocrite.
You still have a belief that there isn't one. You can say there is no deity,but would you ever know for sure? No,which is why it is still a belief of some kind. A belief in the strictest sense of the word.
Doubt and disbelief are different. And if you believe there is no God you have to have a belief on why the universe is the way it is that does not involve a god. If religion can be defined as above, then your beliefs about the universe make atheism a religion.
No. Atheism is not beleiving in a god. Thats it. If someone is also critical of religion then that is a personal opinion and has nothing to do with atheism in general. And any goverment that impose any kind of view on its people will be largely unuccessful over time...
It doesn't have to be a "solid" belief. It just has to be a set of beliefs. Even so, science has held SOLIDLY to the belief that the universe was not created by an intelligent being. Logically, that is a belief about the cause of the universe. Look up agnosticism and you will find the true opposite of religion.
