Religion is Silly Fairy Tales

whoops, guess ur wrong
Sunday Assembly - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Sunday_Assembly
Sunday Assembly is a non-religious gathering co-founded by Sanderson Jones and Pippa Evans ... 2013 as they "both wanted to do something like church but without God".

Its also a system of faith denial and no, or self worship.

https://www.dummies.com/religion/atheism/religious-atheism/

 

thats less than a 1/2 truth wilbur.

Secular religion - Wikipedia
nonreligious beliefs that reflect an emphasis on living in the here and now. ... Secularists use scepticism and rationalism to question traditional religious beliefs; they may be humanists, atheists, deists (believing in a creative force, or first cause), or agnostics.

secular beliefs | Encyclopedia.com
https://www.encyclopedia.com › caregiving › sec

The legend of Santa Claus can be traced back hundreds of years to a monk named St. Nicholas. It is believed that Nicholas was born sometime around 280 A.D. in Patara, near Myra in modern-day Turkey. Much admired for his piety and kindness, St.

Santa Claus: Real Origins & Legend - HISTORY
Why would we believe what we know for a fact is a myth?

Legend has it that Europeans in the Middle Ages believed a witch could curse someone by using their teeth, so it was important to dispose of baby teeth correctly. Teeth were swallowed, buried, or burned. Sometimes baby teeth were even left for rodents to eat.Jul 25, 2018

The History and Mythology of the Tooth Fairy - Twohig Dentistry

 

That sort of makes me feel even more strongly that atheism is not a religion.

When you describe Buddhism as atheist it’s not the same as atheism itself as being a religion. I can say a fish is red but that doesn’t mean red is a fish.

some atheists are religious =/= atheism is a religion.

 

anyone/everyone that is conscious is religious.

I guess you are another one that does not bother to keep tings in context, lot of that around here

 

Depends on how loosely you define "evidence". Are comic books evidence that Spiderman is real? These comics mention real places (ie, New York) and real events. Is that further evidence Spiderman is real?

In the same way that you have faith in the Church of No Spiderman?

 

This does make you more sensible than Koko. You understand that there are multiple meanings of the word atheist and you clarify with your language who you are referring to.

Also well said. Words mean whatever the speaker and listener understand or decide the word to mean. That is how language is formed and how it evolves.

What are the other tenets of this Church of No God you are observing? Is it anything other than the refusal to believe, or the tendency to believe not so, things that are claimed by others on faith?

What if the God is described in such a way to be a self-contradiction? Does that not falsify the proposed God?

 

Absolutely. That is probably the biggest problem for "atheists". It will vary if you are "atheist" from theist to theist, depending on what is meant by God.

Some proposed "Gods" are self contradictory, so easy to dismiss. Others, such as deist Gods are not and are much harder to take any position on. And then some people, as you wrote, just say God is love or God is nature. These people would be "atheists" to many other "theists".

Depending on what definitions are used, you can have cases where nearly everyone is theist, nearly everyone is atheist, and indeed cases where nearly everyone is agnostic.

Again, true. There COULD be an invisible weightless space alien sitting on your shoulder, taking notes on what you eat. I don't think we have good reason to believe that to be so though.

 

It looks like you are another one who thinks his opinion is fact, lot of that around here.

 

So my cat is religious?

you made me talk about my cat so you have to watch this video of him chasing the shadow of his tail.

 

You simply stated the substance which of course they did no research therefore do not understand.

They are authorative only to the point of reporting usages, and they often get that wrong.

People coin usages for words, the dictionary reports them. Its easy to make new words that are 100% legit, once linguistics ar understood, and as you can see neoatheists dont even understand grammar much less word construction.

Thats because the way people use words is all ****ed up, philosophy sorts out the nonsense.

No he does not, neither do his cheerleaders. They will forever misrepresent the subject because they substitute their political agenda for philosophy.

That is the only version that can properly be used with regard to theist. Atheists are out here evangelizing their religion.

Yep!

They are politically motivate atheist evangelists.

They dont understand that, mark my words!

HAHA, admission of defeat, WTG Gfm!

He not only answered he explained his answers, posting falsisms is prrof of defeat, congratulations.

Then its hypocritical for atheists which base their whole premise on logic and reason to use faith for their belief that no God exists. They dont care if atheism is a contradiction in terms. March on atheist soldier!

False, all religions have methodology, including hypocritical religions like neoatheism.

Bingo!
and if you explain using logical analysis they would sink even deeper into depravity and claim the logic isnt in the definition in their pocket dictionary. First time I heard that in my thread I burst out laughing so hard I nearly had coffee coming out of my nose!

Dishonesty is part of the atheist religion.

case in point!

False! Subterfuge, typical atheist MO, conflating usage as usual with definition.

Thats too complicated for neoatheist, like disjunctions and conjunctions, they dont bother to think, they need to be led around by the nose by people who politicize and misrepresent the facts.

Right!
...and if you expand on actual meaning and it does not follow their political agenda you are immediately accused of spamming, last words of a loser.

Interesting way to put it

They dont want to know how to properly use words.

Yes and I understand that most neoatheists are severely handicapped in their understanding of grammar and usage

No they do not. Its how language is destroyed, not formed. Language us mathematically formal, neoatheists refuse to educate themselves because correct interpretation and usage runs contrary to their politics, in fact proves their religion is a religion of hypocrites claiming theists need proof by scientific method only to base their beliefs on religious method, FAITH!

neoatheists think their destruction of the language by hypocritical atheist evangelizing is a fact.

This is 100% true.
Neoatheist hypocrites piss and moan they cant prove a negative (That God does not exist) all while FAITHfully with NO EVIDENCE BELIEVING that God does not exist.

Atheism is a hypocrite religion.

They apply and demand theists use the scientific method to prove God exists all while covertly using the religious method of FAITH for themselves!

 

The evidence presented is legitimately evidence, whether you like it or not. You can rationally choose to deny the conclusions drawn from such evidence, but you cannot rationally deny the existence of the evidence itself.

You seem to not even realize what evidence is. Evidence is not a proof.

I did not invent the term, and it holds meaning to anyone who can read and comprehend the English language. Clarification of the term used can also be requested.

There is no such person. Everybody holds at least one religious belief about one thing or another. Mankind is inherently a religious animal. You seem to be confused about what religion is, in addition to what evidence is.

Plenty of people believe in the non-existence of "mystical beings" (or "gods"). They tend to be called atheists.

Atheism and "Church of No God" are synonyms. I call it "Church of No God" to bypass the weasel-wording of atheists who only tell people what they DON'T believe in rather than sharing what they DO believe in.

No it isn't.

None of those things are requirements of religion.

IOW, you are a Church of No God member. You hold the religious untestable unfalsifiable belief that gods do not exist. All of your argumentation regarding the existence of gods stems from your initial circular argument that "gods do not exist".

I happen to be a Christian. I hold the religious untestable unfalsifiable belief that Jesus Christ exists and is precisely who he says he is, namely the Son of God. All of my argumentation regarding the existence of gods stems from my initial circular argument that "Jesus Christ exists and is precisely who he says he is, namely the Son of God".

Yes there is. I have shown you how your line of reasoning is precisely the same as mine, save for making use of a different (and opposing) initial circular argument. See above.

That's all it needs to be. No obsession is required.

Some are, some aren't. No obsession is required.

Sometimes, sometimes not. No obsession is required.

Please don't tell me that you think that all circular arguments are fallacious......... please don't tell me that your school system failed you.......

Yes, and it's no different. Those are also religious beliefs. There is no way to prove or disprove that those things exist somewhere as personal beings.

It is not an exercise in futility to prove a negative. As I already told you, if you have 10 red marbles, 8 blue marbles, and 2 yellow marbles inside of a bag, then I can prove the non-existence of white marbles inside of the bag. How so, you ask? I can simply pull out all 20 marbles from that bag and show you that none of them are white. Simple as that.

Where is the "exercise in futility" in that? It was very quick and simple. If you wish to cross your arms and stomp away, then that's your prerogative. That doesn't change the fact that proving negatives is quite simple (in closed sets).

 

Yes, I asserted that everybody holds some sort of religious belief about one thing or another.

Holy strawman, dude... I don't appreciate your dishonesty and wish that you would address what I actually say.

I have clearly and unambiguously defined a 'religion', logically speaking, as: "an initial circular argument with other arguments stemming from it".

Whenever you refer to how I have defined religion, please make reference to those words and address those words rather than falsely acting as if I am defining 'religion' as "some sort of belief about one thing or another". That's just plain dishonesty on your part.

No I'm not. I am telling you what religion is (in a logical sense) and how it works (logically speaking).

Religion does not require worship of anything. The faith part is correct though, as that's what a circular argument is (an "argument of faith").

Elaborate.

Elaborate.

Certain life decisions, yes. Such principles also permeate certain aspects of how one views and interprets the world around them.

 

Yes (at least within the comics, if not somewhere in the universe).

Yes.

 

1. I hope you watched the video of my cat.
2. I am an atheist by some definitions but I wouldn’t ask anyone to use scientific method to prove or disprove that gods exists.
3. I hope you watched the video of my cat. His name is Abbie and he is a transgender cat. He is comfortable with he/him pronouns.
4. You criticize atheists for their lack of understanding of grammar but you don’t demonstrate a strong mastery either.
5. I hope you watched the video of my cat.

 

Even this purely social use of the word doesn't help you.

ALL these uses point to a strong motivating factor that people become glued to.

Atheism is NOT a motivating factor, thus it doesn't even qualify as "religion" under the stupid social definition you want to promote.

I am not (nor could I be) motivated by the fact that there are various things that don't exist.

I've pointed this out MANY TIMES. And, you have NEVER addressed that.

 

I've seen some people define atheism in a manner equivalent to how many people would define agnosticism, and I'm fine with people defining atheism that way (so long as they can clearly define what they mean by atheism and clearly distinguish it from what I've been calling the Church of No God).

A while back, I've switched over to purposely using the term 'Church of No God' so that it is unambiguous at to what people I am talking about --- (specifically the people who believe that gods do not exist... and that I'm not talking about people who say "idk" and don't hold a particular belief either way).

Yup, and this requires clear/unambiguous definitions of words, and I also like to be aware of the precise reasoning behind any offered definition.

One could take any Church of No God position and it would ultimately come back to the belief that gods do not exist. One such position might be that the Holy Bible is a collection of fairy tales written solely by human men (IOW, it is not "God breathed"). This argument stems from the initial circular argument that gods do not exist.

One could also take any Church of Christianity position and it would ultimately come back to the belief that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is, namely the Son of God. One such position might be that Jesus Christ rose from the dead three days after being crucified. This argument stems from the initial circular argument that Jesus Christ exists and is who he says he is, namely the Son of God.

Church of No God members will reject that Christian argument, instead arguing that Jesus didn't actually rise from the dead. Some will argue that Jesus didn't actually exist, while others will argue that he was just another human like you and I, and humans don't rise from the dead, so Jesus didn't do so either. -- Those arguments all stem back to the initial circular argument that gods do not exist.

What you are getting into here is what is called an "internal consistency check" (or a check against logic, to make sure that a theory is free of logical fallacies, such as self-contradictions). For instance, there can be no such thing as a "married bachelor", since a bachelor by definition is NOT married.

To plainly answer your question: Yes. If the proposed God is self-contradictory, then the theory is falsified and either an internally consistent theory needs to be formed in its place or a logical explanation needs to be given to explain how the supposed self-contradiction is actually a misunderstanding (and not a self-contradiction) rather than a self-contradiction.

 

LOL!

Ever read The Clouds by Aristophanes? It's the one where he makes fun of sophists and their students.

I've got a sneaking suspicion that's the play where Koalemos makes his appearance.

 

Well, I didn't have invisible weightless space aliens in mind, but there are all kinds of things that our perceptual faculties have not been able to detect that we now know exist. People became aware of our limitations a long, long time ago which is why some took to using psychoactive drugs/chemicals during 'religious rituals' to break down the filtering mechanisms in their perceptual faculties - or to put in a Huxleyan manner, open the 'doors of perception' - in order to achieve an extra-sensory state that would enable them to perceive and perhaps connect with "God". It's also interesting to note that scientists have scanned the brains of people using those drugs/chemicals to reach that extra-sensory state and those that did not and the level of brain activity in the former far exceeded that of the latter. It raises a lot of interesting questions that we have been unable to answer yet, and ultimately I think it raises the question of there being more to us than meets the eye.

That being said, I do find it amusing to think that people deny the existence of something - "God" - that might be staring them right in the face, but in our infinite ability to overcomplicate things to the utmost extreme (where are you and your razor William of Ockham?) we can't see past our own noses.

 

Certainly "Gods" (whatever we mean by that) COULD exist, but so could the invisible weightless space aliens I spoke of. Lots of things we can't perceive could exist. But of course that isn't good reason to believe that they do.

 

And down the garden path of anthropomorphism we go...

Of course, my point was things we can't perceive do exist.

I will also submit that we can and should approach these things without relying entirely on belief, because they can and should be approached with Reason.

 

Faith , good !

 

Ah, the Moses story was captured on YouTube. That definitely makes it true. I did watch some of it and 2 words caught my ear "if true".

No thanks, there's no point.

Yeah there's a saying in my family "For every chair there's an azz to sit in it". I stand corrected (assuming that's where GFM got it from and did not invent it himself). It's still utter nonsense regardless and it has zero application to me personally.

Thanks for the history lesson that I learned about as a child Koko but it has nothing to do with what I posted other than validating it.

 

It may legitimately be evidence (anything can be) but it's not legitimate evidence. In other words, it doesn't support anything except to those engaged in wishful thinking.

You seem to not even realize that you keep insulting my intelligence. I never said evidence is necessarily proof, although it can be or be the exact opposite.

Yeah Koko corrected me (assuming that's where you got it from). It's still utter garbage. I find I have to keep repeating myself in this thread. When I created it, the religion(s) the thread refers to are the ones generally accepted as religions by the vast majority and followed by billions of people, not the obscure nonsense you and others are trying to overshadow the religions that are actually the topics of THIS discussion. So I'll skip the parts of your post that send the discussion down your rabbit hole.

Once again, it is for ME (and most people including YOU) to try to prove every friggin negative for every friggin fairy tale or anything else that I have no interest in trying to prove the negative of. Get it yet?

 

Now you are contradicting yourself.

It supports an argument, which is what supporting evidence does.

I'm correcting your mistakes.

I didn't get the term from Koko.

No, it's not.

When you repeat the same nonsense instead of addressing people's counter arguments, then you will get the same responses back.

IOW, you are unwilling to learn. Got it.

See above.

 

I am going to go off topic just like your post so this post might be removed by the mods. The following quotes are not only off topic but are also insulting as well as delusional (you are not actually educating anyone about anything, never mind me) and this crap has no business on this thread:

As such this is no longer an intelligent adult discussion on your part and any further discourse with you is a waste of time and space on my part. So unless and until you start posting something adult and intelligent, I might respond as I see fit. Until then any posts on your part of the above nature will be ignored and/or reported.