Is Atheism a logical belief?

You’re projecting your beliefs onto others. You’re just making things up again.

 

You are making **** up, not me.

What is the Latin word for religion?

Religion. It is from the Latin word religare, which means "to tie" or "to bind fast".
UCSP religion Flashcards | Quizlet

Neoatheists are all to often extremists, and extremely and all too often as we see in these threads 'militantly' tightly bound to their beliefs, hence the supre court ruling that atheists are religious just like everyone else.

 

With emphasis on the word "again".

 

It should be really easy for you to show a link that the Supreme Court has labeled people who do not subscribe to, belong, or believe in any religion as “religious persons”. This is some flat earth ****.

 

So If I know of a certainty and therefore do trust in, rather than merely believe in the living God, then I have no religion because I have no belief? Belief then would be the absence of God, and therefore the very notion to which Atheists rightfully object. It is this vacuum they abhor. And Atheists have repeatedly demanded: (Make God known that we may know, that we be not merely religious or of vain belief, but secure in the knowledge of the truth). Unbelief has its merits. Chief of which is security from supernatural trickery and falsehoods in which the world is brimming. Unbelief then is the absence of belief, belief being the absence of God. Therefore Atheism puts one nearer to truth and to God than legions of believers who are collectively a gargantuan pit.

 

I would say "belief" does not require lack of knowledge. At least in common parlance, I can believe the sun will come up tomorrow even though I know about how the Earth rotates, where the sun is in relation to Earth, something about history, momentum, etc.

I know there are those who demand proof of god. But, that's just a mistake. It's not possible without such god deciding that HE really needs to prove to humans that he does exist. That's not going to happen as a result of a demand by humans for proof.

Surely it makes no sense to be concerned about these mistaken demands for proof.

 

It all sounds pretty hard to believe, but thats science for you, and there is evidence for it. And if God exists you have to believe that all his complexity and power just always existed without any cause or explanation. That is equally hard to believe.

You need to study Quantum Mechanics and some claims in it that true randomness does exist. In the theory small particles pop into and out of existence without cause. Many scientists think the universe maybe popped into existence like these particles. I'm personally skeptical of this, but I'm not going to say its wrong until I really study quantum mechanics and actually understand the science behind this better.

Some scientists believe that you can make quantum mechanics work through causality with no need for randomness. There are some scientists who believe that maybe the universe has gone through cycles of expansion and contraction and never popped into existence. Its also possible the universe was in a kind of timeless state "before" the big bang and always existed.

Scientists really don't know for sure what caused the big bang. I think we will get a better idea with more research and resolving the debate over whether string theory is true, multiverse theory is true, unite relativity and quantum mechanics, and understand the early moments of the big bang better.

 

Who is your favorite deity?

 

All gods are imaginary beings created by con men and story tellers to gain power and influence over their more superstitious buddies. Why would a rational person believe in someone else's delusion?

 

If exercise prevents a person from getting the Covid virus, why do so many professional athletes catch it?

 

even theists get that for all the other gods but their own

 

belief is what you trust to be tru, regardless of the source

 

No, one trusts in that which is certain or that which one knows to be true. One believes in that which one desires to be true. This is why Atheists trust in science...because it is proven. Thus they don't believe in facts, but rather acknowledge and embrace them. As such, Atheism isn't a religion of casual belief, but a strong science, nearer to Jesus's admonition to Satan when he said thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God after Satan bade him to jump off the mountain and see if the Angels would catch him. Jesus kept his footing like the Atheists strong science. I'm not advancing Atheism or Christianity. But rather advancing the truth that, all things considered, Atheists are neither religious nor monstrous. And that their apparent animus towards God is actually towards the worlds perception of God, mainly towards Christianity in general. To me it is lamentable because I know that God lives and that Jesus Christ is the savior of mankind. The bulk of Christianity isn't other than the repetition of the testimonies of those who actually knew of what they spoke. Therefore Christianity at large is nearer a stage play with a written script for the actors. One can close ones eyes ever tightly and chant a favored scripture forever, and it will not whisk away the clouds, revealing God in the blue yonder, or to ones side like a summoned genie, nor make of oneself conceived or converted. It ain't happening. Atheists know this well. They don't reject God. They reject pretentiousness. And only for the sake of survival and their own souls do they reject the very concept of a God, so as to harden themselves to the worlds treason. So they abide in the provisions of conscience and love, while the fierce storm of religions shriek and beckon above like an old myth made real. But have Atheists truly no close advocate in the intimacy of conscience and love under the storm.

 

Do you believe the supreme court is going to give tax breaks and hand out free rights contrary to state interests to people that are not religious? If your definition of religion is based in deity worship 'instead' that to which one is bound fast in its correct context, sure atheists are not theists. Sort of shifts the premise out of context to a 180 though.

anything you accept as true is a belief, both the affirmation and negation, you 'believe' one or the toher.

You also believe 2+2=4 is true. The fact thats its a mathemetical certainty not withstanding

religion has 'actions' attached to whatever your philosophy is. imagine it as the verb usage of the nouns you 'believe'

What is the Latin word for religion?

Religion. It is from the Latin word religare, which means "to tie" or "to bind fast".
UCSP religion Flashcards | Quizlet

 

RE: Is Atheism a logical belief?
SUBTOPIC: Societal Mainstream 'vs' Thoughts and Research Outside the Mainstream
※→ Kokomojojo, Buri, injeun, et al,

BLUF: Acceptance of a belief without any major questions • and • the alternative to the belief based on Inquiry with serious reservations about the Accepted view. As the general population and their society move into the 21st Century, this is where we are as thinkers.

(STRAINING)
.
This discussion gets bogged down in the definitional understanding of categories and labeling (believer, non-believer, theist versus atheist, agnostic and noetic, etc). Let's not get entangled over these labels and spear the root question. Let us filter out these arguments and just use the descriptions - not the labels.

(COMMENT)

Generally speaking (broad brush), there are six primary groups around a central theme (there are more, much smaller groups I will pass by for the moment).

​

I must admit that even using theme simple descriptions, any serious scholarly discussion can be rife with controversy. There are many that are all tangled up in the terminology of theist and atheist when there is no need for it. The Supernatural entities (if there are such), the Supreme Being (if there is one), and the one true religion (if there is such a thing) will not care what you call it. The Supreme Being is not going to care if you build temples to honor it. It will only care that you acknowledge it respectfully. And if there is no such thing as a Supreme Being, it will not matter.

Keep in mind, that once you open the door to the supernatural, you enter an entire universe of alternatives in thinking. When you go to a church honoring the God of Abraham, you begin to participate in a ritual -- sometimes much more complex than covens of magic. When you drink the wine and eat the bread, you are participating in Alchemy. So, if we want to discuss the true nature of the perceptions in the supernatural, we cannot bother with the distractions of the nomenclature of a specific view as if we are panning for gold. Maybe it would be more enlightening and productive if we just hit the theme, avoiding these controversial labels.

Just My Two Denars Worth,

Most Respectfully,
R

 

Everyone has 'one true religion' and that comprises what they believe to be true and govern their lives by.

Bingo, hence religion is a precious commodity to counter the guvs hard line oppression, (enslavement by positive law), a right (freedom) worth fighting for that includes atheists and agnostics to believe and exercise their religions respectively.

I think that ritual is somewhat limited to the church of Rome

labels are not avoidable, they are part of communicating not only generalizations but also precision. The problem is people misuse words, or use certain applications and all to often a given application is sought by some to be the only possible usage, especially if they built their religion on a specific usage.

One of the most misunderstood words on the planet is agnostic because people conflate the criteria used for a very specific decision as the decision itself winding up with usage conflation.

 

Yes, the one true god argument.

One argument I've never seen advanced by theists is that of interpretation. So, they would say that there is a god, but it's a bit shy, so each religion is searching for it in their own way, which is why there are different interpretations. A bit like string theory in physics.

I suppose the downside of that would be that they would have admit that all interpretations are possible until one is proved correct, which kind of dilutes their message. Religion is like a virus, propagating and mutating in order to survive and infect as many people as possible. We need a vaccine against religion.

 

you just stated the foundation for your religion. what do you suggest we use for a vaccine?

Stalin simply murdered everyone that disagreed with his religion. (atheist Marxism) We know it failed, so what do you suggest?

Oh and can we include a vaccine again orwellian 'doublespeak'?

Atheism is not a belief system nor is it a religion.

While there are some religions that are atheistic (certain sects of Buddhism, for example), that does not mean that atheism is a religion. ... Similarly, many “interfaith” groups will include atheists. This, again, does not mean that atheism is a religious belief.
What is Atheism? - American Atheists

Orwell's finest!

 

I don't have a religion, did you read and understand what I said?
Truth, facts, logic, proof - but there are many anti-vaxxers....
I put you on ignore, and I should have kept you there: utter nonsense.

 

Secular humanism combines the humanist ethic with the metaphysical doctrine that God does not exist (or the epistemological doctrine that knowledge of God is moot).
The United States Supreme Court has held that secular humanism is a religion. Belief in evolution is a central tenet of that religion. Thus, by censoring creation science and instructing students that evolution is fact, public school teachers are now advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.

The "Religion" of Secular Humanism

 

Of course I understood what you said, and I respect your right to be wrong.
ah yes the 'religion' of painful failure!

 

It seems no one should be proud of the bigotry of atheism, for example.

 

Sure, we can prove racism exists in the dem party and among fascists from both sides of the political aisles.

Thing is: racisms doesn't appear to be a nemesis to certain (or all skin colors). It seems, the accusers of racism are more inclined to be racist than the accused racists.

 

Are you justifying the beliefs of theists, now?

 

Atheism isn't inherently bigoted. There are bigoted atheists, just as there are bigoted theists. "You're wrong" isn't bigoted. Frankly, every theist who believes in the doctrine of hell for non-believers is 99.999999% more bigoted than any atheist I've ever met.