quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Who cares  if it is or is not.  Atheism is a lack of a belief system.  If atheism is a lack of belief system then amuslimism, acatholicism, ajewism, amithraism, athothism, abaalism are real.  This argument is so petty.

So what?  HA HA you told me so?  This in no way demonstrates your god exists.  There is no group rules, laws or code atheists follow.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinn

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

Who cares  if it is or is not.  Atheism is a lack of a belief system.  If atheism is a lack of belief system then amuslimism, acatholicism, ajewism, amithraism, athothism, abaalism are real.  This argument is so petty.

So what?  HA HA you told me so?  This in no way demonstrates your god exists.  There is no group rules, laws or code atheists follow.  Atheism is simply a lack of belief.

I think you trimmed more of the quote than you intended to. It looks as though you're replying to me, but I'm not sure what you're replying to.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY

And I disagree that atheism is based on "an absence of a position". Atheists hold the belief that the universe is absent a divine. Many call this "disbelief" and then attempt to say that atheism can't hold anything in common with religions, because all religions are based on "belief", but atheism is based on "disbelief", but this is simply atheistic apologetics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

I've yet to meet an atheist who thinks he knows the one true way though they probably exist, you're probably referring to the atheists who are confident that you're wrong.

Such as you, perhaps?

Firm

You just misinformed me what my position is and then wonder why I'm confident that you're wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Interesting that you would post this. I attended a wedding today, and at the reception afterward had the opportunity to sit across the table from the pastor who performed the ceremony. We had a lively discussion about religion and atheism, and I told him about this thread. I asked him what his opinion was of the position that atheism is a religion, and when he'd finished laughing, he said (and I hope i have this quote exactly right), "That's an argument that's usually made by people who either don't understand what a religion is, or are willing to stretch any assertion far beyond the breaking point just for the sake of winning an argument. Or, sadly, both. But either way, it's not an argument that anyone I know who's studied theology takes the least bit seriously."

quote:


He had a number of interesting observations about atheism (I was particularly intrigued by his statement that he respected many atheists more than he respects most agnostics, because they at least have the courage of their convictions, and more than many self-professed christians, because they are more likely to live a life that's in accordance with their beliefs), but that was the one that stuck out the most for me.

quote:

ORIGINAL: nephanThey do have strong faith in there being nothing Spiritual in this world, and often a very strong faith in science, much like a Christian might have faith in the Church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So correct and inform me.

1. Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion.  A religion is usually defined to include belief in a deity of some sort.  Atheism is non-belief in a deity.  It isn't necessarily a "belief that there is no God" (though it can be), but is "not believing either way." To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to effective communication.  It would be like someone saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to torture people."  The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking about.  So, how much effective conversation could there be in either instance?  Not much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

The atheist sets about proving his (the pastors) version of god doesn't exist so how can the pastor lose in that situation? The agnostic is far more dangerous to his religion because the agnostic is willing to look outside that specific model of the creator that his religion has proposed. This is why Christians find comfort from Islam because it's the same 'god will help us if we live this way' approach. Imagine if the creator didn't want to help you, imagine if you were just part of a cruel experiment, imagine if the creator had no ability to help you. The atheist doesn't look into these questions he'd rather restrict the debate to the pre-existing versions of the creator by stating such things as 'god has a specific meaning as set out by conventional religions and so that is what I will restrict myself to' The pastor likes atheists more because even when they say the pastor is full of shit and this god couldn't possibly exist it reinforces the fact that god could exist i.e. by even entering into this debate, that neither side can win due to it's nature of being beyond human ability to prove, you give this restricted idea credibility.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda
Yes; like you, I found him an arrogant man, and certainly didn't agree with everything he said. I was particularly discouraged by his casual dismissal of agnostics - I mean, if someone has given the issue a great deal of thought but can't reach a conclusion, then what's wrong with that? At least they've made an honest effort, and are still keeping an open mind on the question.

quote:


The thing that I found the most intriguing was the intellectual honesty he displayed when he said that he respected many atheists more than he did some people who call themselves christians, because the atheists are more likely to live a life that reflects their genuine convictions - whereas many "Sunday christians" hypocritically brandish their faith, and boast about it, while living lives that contradict fundamental christian principles.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

You didn't lose your faith, you lost faith in other people’s shared faith.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

'Faith' and 'belief' are just words that need other words surrounding them to give them context they don't have scientific meaning alone like the word 'Moron' does.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY
So correct and inform me.

Well there's the wiki on the definition of atheism that I've already brought up.

Also this is from the prominant christian apologist Matt Slick on the mistakes Christians make dialoguing with atheists:

Stating that Atheism is a religion

1. Atheists will repeatedly tell you that they are not in a religion.  A religion is usually defined to include belief in a deity of some sort.  Atheism is non-belief in a deity.  It isn't necessarily a "belief that there is no God" (though it can be), but is "not believing either way." To label an atheist as a religious person is to put up a roadblock to effective communication.  It would be like someone saying to a Christian, "You believe in a mean, tyrannical being who likes to torture people."  The Christian would simply roll his eyes and think that the person doesn't know what he's talking about.  So, how much effective conversation could there be in either instance?  Not much.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDamnedPanda

quote:

ORIGINAL: FirmhandKY


Ok ... so you agree that the belief "in the absence of the divine" has an impact in an individual's other beliefs, and in their world view ... but do not accept that atheism is a belief system? Do we have differing definitions of "belief system"? Where is our disconnect?

That seems clear.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SL4V3M4YB3

I'm just pointing out an oxymoron alone isn't an axiom of logic. Is that your actual position? I thought you were just trying to contradict what someone said using the weapon of broken English. I didn't know you had truly lost faith in faith, how horrendous for you not knowing if water will come out when you turn the tap on.

edited to add:
I reconstructed your sentence in the only way it made sense at the time, if I misinterpreted it then it is your option to clarify that position. You realise half of this thread already is complete nonsense due to similar attempts to thwart arguments made with convenient bad English?