Religulous

[Neosutra]

I didnt post the definition of atheist/agnostic in previous posts because 8 other posts before mine did it just fine.

And yes, non theism = atheism, in as clearest terms as can be made.

It's not "easy" to disprove the deity of a legend. It's easy to disprove the reason why it was brought, and make the deity itself useless, but you still can't disprove the deity when it's not defined to be directly in our world.

God is one answer to the question "why everything exist?". It's a valid question, and God is one of the postulate people proposed to answer it. There isn't more to it.

Disproving the reasoning for any given diety is sufficient to disproving the diety itself, as we transition back into the argument of any given premis having to have -some- evidence to be held as a valid hypothesis. If you state that Zeus exists because there is lightning, and then later on determine lightning is actually from a charge differential in an excited athmosphere, then the Zeus as you defined it is false. You are then arguing that Zeus can still exist, as disproof of the theology behind the legend isnt sufficient. "Anything is possible" is the stance you are taking, without requiring any evidence for ANY theory.

God is the weakest answer for why everything exists, because of all the theories (expansionism, big bang cosmology, string theory, point theory), god actually has NO evidence/mathematical premises to back it up other than attatchments to old dogma and superstition.

It is the EXACT same circumstances as the Zeus analogy. Ignorant people like you say "well god was used to explain things like rain/thunder back in the day, and now we know what causes it, but that doesnt disprove the existance of god!" Even though the very basis that god was invented on has been disproven throughout history as our knowledge of the universe has increased.

The concept of god has always been pushed further and further into the unknown. As our knowledge of the physical nature of the universe increases, the space where your god exists decreases, and your god is getting smaller and smaller everyday.

And since you struggle so hard to find a definition for god that we wont decimate, let me define your god for you:


God is defined as everything you currently dont know about the universe. It permeates everything that you find mysterious. I say "you" currently dont know, because the concept of god changes from person to person. To one person god may be the reason it rains, to another it may be the reason for the baryon dissapearance. You worship the unknown, and give it form in a vain attempt to convince yourself you arent so insignificant.

And please give that some thought before you quote spam me with retarded rebuttles, there is alot to absorb there before you feel the need to counter the few insults (had to toss a few in there Q.Q).

[Kuya]

non theism = atheism

So you're an animist?

Ignorant people like you say "well god was used to explain things like rain/thunder back in the day, and now we know what causes it, but that doesnt disprove the existance of god!"

This statement makes no sense; are we talking about the same god, or a different god? We should probably switch to using deity, as the word god gets easily confused with judeo-christian dogma.

[Tristam]

Or instead of god, why not just say supernatural?

[Neosutra]

Why not say make believe?

[Kuya]

So Neosutra, you said that non theism = atheism, so are you saying that animists are atheists?

[Eratosthenes]

I would say animism is an atheist belief system. Rejection of all things supernatural is not a requirement of atheism, though it is common. Atheism only requires not asserting that there are gods. Buddhism, for example, can be considered an atheist religion.

[Kuya]

I would agree with your assertion, assuming that atheist means non adherence to deities instead of rejection based on a claim of falsity.

What Neosutra needs to clarify though is if he opposes simply theism or all spirituality, since if his argument is empiricism, and anything that can't be proven is false, then that would also bleed into denying all spirituality, but there's nothing that says he can't be an atheist and also reject everything else; i just don't know the word for it.

A- means without -theos means god or deity, but all definitions seem to say that it means rejection, which has not clarified if non belief due to lack of proof is the same as labeling as false due to lack of proof.

According to this definition in wikipedia, nontheism is an umbrella term, both agnosticism and atheism fall under it:

Non-theism has various types. "Strong atheism" is the positive belief that a god does not exist. Someone who does not think about the existence of a deity may be termed "weakly atheistic", or more specifically implicit atheism). Other, more qualified types of nontheism are often known as agnosticism, or more specifically explicit atheism. "Strong" or "positive" agnosticism is the belief that it is impossible for humans to know whether or not any deities exist. It is a more precise opinion than weak agnosticism, which is the belief that the existence or nonexistence of any deities is unknown but not necessarily unknowable.

Because of variation of the term "god", it is understood that a person could be an atheist in terms of certain portrayals of gods, while remaining agnostic in terms of others.

Invented originally as a synonym for secularism (see below), it has become an umbrella term for summarizing various distinct and even mutually exclusive positions united by a naturalist approach, sometimes in the plural, nontheisms.

People who do not use the broad definition of atheism as "absence of theism", but instead use the most common definition "disbelief in or denial of the existence of God or gods",[4] would not recognize mere absence of belief in deities (implicit atheism) as a type of atheism at all, and would tend to use other terms, such as "skeptic" or "agnostic"

[Neosutra]

No I don't believe in spirituality mostly for the same reasons I don't believe in gods. That is not to say such rejection of spirituality is required of atheist.

[Kuya]

When you say you don't believe, do you mean positively deny that it exists? To believe is to assume something true, to not believe is to not assume it true, but that does not mean you think it is false, hence the problem because i think you actively reject all spirituality as false, yes?

[Neosutra]

When you say you don't believe, do you mean positively deny that it exists? To believe is to assume something true, to not believe is to not assume it true, but that does not mean you think it is false, hence the problem because i think you actively reject all spirituality as false, yes?

Assume it to be false on the same grounds as theism (no evidence or plausible explaination). I reject theism/spirituality on the grounds that they are fiction/false, until such evidence arrises to prove me wrong.

Probably for the same reasons you "dont believe" in the tooth fairy. Do you just not assume the tooth fairy mythos is true, or do you find it to be false? It's a pretty silly question.

[Kuya]

Okay, so now that we got the definition of varies terms cleared; what was your initial position again, Neosutra?

[Neosutra]

Okay, so now that we got the definition of varies terms cleared; what was your initial position again, Neosutra?

I believe I originally stated:

He implies that religion is a mental disease and that society should stop allowing people to think it's ok to socially accept these doctrines that when examined closely are all just as mysticly superstitious as scientology.

And he is right.

In which someone mentioned Bill's statement about atheists being just as foolish. In which I responded with 2 statements. One that stated that Maher says that to prempt theist attacks towards his atheistic view, and the other that:

As a scientist I agree that saying 100% certainty of something is irresponsible. However it is more irresponsible to require someone to apply legitimacy to every possible theory

In which case we went back into the argument of just what a theist/agnostic/atheist is, and even further into what the definition of god is.

We finished up with my final definition of god for Kaylia:

God is defined as everything you currently dont know about the universe. It permeates everything that you find mysterious. I say "you" currently dont know, because the concept of god changes from person to person. To one person god may be the reason it rains, to another it may be the reason for the baryon dissapearance. You worship the unknown, and give it form in a vain attempt to convince yourself you arent so insignificant.

Which reinforced the original post on the current social affiliation with mysticism and superstion as a religion.

What was your position again?

[Kuya]

If that's all your position was then there's nothing much there to argue with or disagree with, except that you make generalizations, but that's a personal flaw. Your statement that religion is a mental disease is inconsequential, it is at best some guy ranting, and not really making a point at all, furthermore i doubt you'd dare to seriously argue that religions are mental diseases. You are saying that society should reject religion, but once again, you do not specify, or really argue why nor add as to what should replace whichever religions you are referring to. In other words, you need to expand on what you really mean; you're not being detailed enough.

Tell me why: religion A, B, C; taking into account that religion is not the only spiritual system, why these religions/spiritual systems need to be eliminated, what you would replace them with, and how they would work to replace the demands that the spiritual systems you eliminated served. You could also continue to argue whether deities or animus exists, though you're going to have a hard time there; while you can contend to it is the job of those proposing that something exists to prove it, the knowledgable ones aren't really proposing that it is fact, perhaps ignorant people would do so, but you're not really arguing against them, and that would be more of an attack on the foolish rather than the system itself; if people aren't telling you its true, but rather that they assume it is true and they do not care whether you like it or not, then you find yourself in a position where they aren't looking to argue, and if that is the case, then attacking them is pointless, that is, when referring to the idea of a god, not the nuisances that people add to it, because they aren't proposing to you that is it true, rather they simply want to believe it is true, so these believers aren't really in the domain of debate. You have to differentiate between having a philosphical argument about a deity, and having an argument with a believer of a specific deity and the dogma that it is associated with.

[Eratosthenes]

because they aren't proposing to you that is it true, rather they simply want to believe it is true,

Religions do, quite often, assert that what they want to be true IS true, with no evidence to back it up. The rules by which I live my life force me to make a distinction between what I want to be true and what is reality. Religion doesn't have that rule, and allows people to cross that line. Is it healthy to allow society to be full of people with distorted views of reality, because it makes them feel good? We might as well let people use all the drugs they want.

[Neosutra]

Didnt we already go waaaaay into why religion was bad and how every good aspect of religion could be taken away from the need for a theist centric dogma that allowed for manipulation of its people in the last religious argument?

This is going to turn into the same exact debate.

"Religion is bad because it causes XXX"

"No those things happen w/o religion"

"Religion is good because of XXX"

"No those things happen w/o religion".

You and some others will inevitablely state that religion does more good than harm, then we will debate for 5 pages about our differing opinions on that. I dont think I have the stamina to repeat everything we did in the last thread, use your search function.

But yes, I generalize, and rightly so that:

All religion is bad. And the benifits from any spiritual/religious sets can be attained via non theistic methods and done so w/o the downsides of having to subscribe to false and ficticious perceptions of reality. This however is not a discussion about wether someone has the right to believe this fiction, as I believe they do.

It is the same for smoking. I believe smoking is harmful to a person, more so than the benefits. I also believe that it is someone's choice wether they smoke, and not my own. Another person might say that the stress relief helps avoid other health problems.

I view religion as mental cancer, it's your right to do it, but that doesnt make it less retarded.

[Kuya]

All religion is bad.

Why?

And the benifits from any spiritual/religious sets can be attained via non theistic methods and done so w/o the downsides of having to subscribe to false and ficticious perceptions of the planet.

I thought you opposed spirituality also; you said non theistic, you need to be more specific, because a lot of spiritual belief falls under non theism.

I view religion as mental cancer

How is it a mental cancer?

Is it healthy to allow society to be full of people with distorted views of reality, because it makes them feel good?

Healthy for whom? Certain religions often are social institutions structured to justify the status quo. I find it funny, because drugs are becoming our new "religions", they are being used to justify the status quo in the certain sense, and they also serve to quell mental unrest, though it doesn't always fix the problem.

[Neosutra]

Dear god use the search function, you asked the same questions in the last debate. Im not going to cut and paste for you.

[Kuya]

Could you point me to the thread then? I don't know where to start looking, and i presume you care enough to argue, unless you just like to make statements without opposition.

[Neosutra]

Could you point me to the thread then? I don't know where to start looking, and i presume you care enough to argue, unless you just like to make statements without opposition.

I make statements to state a point, not to argue. Im sure you can find the thread just as easily as me, as you argued alot in that one too.

[Kuya]

I make statements to state a point, not to argue.

Well you should have said so in the first place! That you just wanted to make your points and not defend them!