How many moons does earth have?

[True_Blue]

Except I didn't go in with a preconceived notion when I read it. You seam to want to reinforce your religious beliefs where evolution is considered, something I gave up after my second high school biology class.

As for the globule warming thread, while I still have questions about it, it is still happening and it looks like we are contributing to it. There are some big changes to the Earth coming because of it and we would be foolish to say it is not happening.

Atheism is a religion as well, ya know.

 

[TeddyKGB]

Atheism is a religion as well, ya know.

I hope the smiley is a joke-indicator.

 

[Paulos23]

Atheism is a religion as well, ya know.

Depends on the Atheist.

But if your indicating that my Atheism is tainting my judgment, I found the evidence for an old earth, and evolution acceptable years before I ditched my belief in God.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Atheism is a religion as well, ya know.

And 2 + 2 = 5.

Semantics is fun .

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

Atheism is a religion as well, ya know.

a·the·ism

/ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ [ey-thee-iz-uh

m]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Odd, nothing in there about it being a religion.

 

[True_Blue]

a·the·ism

/ˈeɪ

θiˌɪz

əm/ [ey-thee-iz-uh

m]
–noun
1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings.

Odd, nothing in there about it being a religion.

I had a huge debate with my Constitutional Law professor in class over the definition of religion. A religion is a belief system grounded on faith. This is the proper definition of a religion. Belief in the non-existence of God requires more faith than any other belief a human being could hold. And from my view on the reality of science, atheism requires far more faith than Christianity.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

I had a huge debate with my Constitutional Law professor in class over the definition of religion. A religion is a belief system grounded on faith. This is the proper definition of a religion. Belief in the non-existence of God requires more faith than any other belief a human being could hold. And from my view on the reality of science, atheism requires far more faith than Christianity.

So was my belief that Croatia would win the European football tournament a religion then? It was a belief and it was based on faith.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That's no moon... It's a space station.

Laugh? I nearly ****!

 

[Pwnzerfaust]

I had a huge debate with my Constitutional Law professor in class over the definition of religion. A religion is a belief system grounded on faith.

I suppose, though it usually has a bunch of mythologies and rituals and other things like that tacked on.

This is the proper definition of a religion. Belief in the non-existence of God requires more faith than any other belief a human being could hold. And from my view on the reality of science, atheism requires far more faith than Christianity.

Care to demonstrate your reasoning? As I see it, atheism does not require substantial amounts of faith, if any at all, owing to the fact that a) there is no evidence of a deity outside of self-serving bronze-age mythology books and b) reality does not demonstrate any sort of interventionist god that you insist is real, and indeed is required by Christianity.

The most I can see as being possibly reasonable would be an architect god who basically set up the laws of nature, set off the Big Bang and went away. However, even that seems unlikely due to the fact that said god would have had to come into existence somehow, and it would have had to be at least as complicated as the universe.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I had a huge debate with my Constitutional Law professor in class over the definition of religion. A religion is a belief system grounded on faith. This is the proper definition of a religion.

There is no 'proper' definition of anything. That said, faith (i.e., thinking something is true without any reason to (no evidence, no rationale, etc)) is certainly a requirement for a belief system to be a religion.

You appear to be conflating weak atheism with strong atheism:

• Theism is the belief that deities exist
• Strong Atheism is the belief that deities don't exist
• Weak Atheism is where one holds neither of these beliefs

Weak Atheism is the logical stance to take, since there is neither evidence for or against the existence of deities. However, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if deities don't exist. On those grounds alone, one could dismiss deities until evidence presents itself; after all, one is not deemed an irrational zealot for disbelieving in pink unicorns and the like.

Now, atheism itself is simply the logical conjugate to theism: theists say "I believe gods exist", atheists say "I don't believe gods exist". Strong atheists simply go one further than their 'weak' counterparts and say "I believe gods don't exist".

So atheism isn't a religion, since it isn't even a belief system: it is the rejection of a belief system (namely, theism).

Belief in the non-existence of God requires more faith than any other belief a human being could hold.

Don't be silly. Faith isn't some physical quantity that can exceed containers. It is simply a status of belief: you either have faith or your don't.

And from my view on the reality of science, atheism requires far more faith than Christianity.

Not really, since Christianity makes far more claims than even Strong Atheism. And what does "the reality of science" have to do with anything?

 

[True_Blue]

There is no 'proper' definition of anything. That said, faith (i.e., thinking something is true without any reason to (no evidence, no rationale, etc)) is certainly a requirement for a belief system to be a religion.

You appear to be conflating weak atheism with strong atheism:

• Theism is the belief that deities exist
• Strong Atheism is the belief that deities don't exist
• Weak Atheism is where one holds neither of these beliefs

Weak Atheism is the logical stance to take, since there is neither evidence for or against the existence of deities. However, the universe looks exactly as we would expect it to look if deities don't exist. On those grounds alone, one could dismiss deities until evidence presents itself; after all, one is not deemed an irrational zealot for disbelieving in pink unicorns and the like.

Now, atheism itself is simply the logical conjugate to theism: theists say "I believe gods exist", atheists say "I don't believe gods exist". Strong atheists simply go one further than their 'weak' counterparts and say "I believe gods don't exist".

So atheism isn't a religion, since it isn't even a belief system: it is the rejection of a belief system (namely, theism).

Don't be silly. Faith isn't some physical quantity that can exceed containers. It is simply a status of belief: you either have faith or your don't.

Not really, since Christianity makes far more claims than even Strong Atheism. And what does "the reality of science" have to do with anything?

Wiccan, do you want to be a strong person or a weak person? Revelation 3:16: "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth." If you're going to adopt a viewpoint, it should either be theism or strong atheism. Weak atheism isn't even a cogent philosophy--it describes a person who spends his life wringing his hands. I recommend theism to strong atheism, and I recommend strong atheism to weak atheism.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Wiccan, do you want to be a strong person or a weak person? Revelation 3:16: "So, because you are lukewarm—neither hot nor cold—I am about to spit you out of my mouth."

Equivocation. The words 'strong' and 'weak' affixed to 'atheism' are to distinguish between the two brands of atheism. The words themselves should not be attributed their colloquial definitions.

That is, 'weak atheism' is not so-called because it is the weaker, or the less well defended, or the logically indefensible, or the underdog, of theological positions. 'Weak' only refers to the fact that it makes no statement either which way. It is mostly used in contrast with the other form of atheism: STRONG atheism.

Please, I do hope the words aren't biasing your position to them. If they were, you would be the quintessential example of prejudice.

If you're going to adopt a viewpoint, it should either be theism or strong atheism.

No. There are three stances to take: affirming A, affirming ¬A, and affirming neither. Please do not conflate the three, nor dismiss one arbitrarily.

Weak atheism isn't even a cogent philosophy--it describes a person who spends his life wringing his hands.

No. Despite what prejudice you hold against Weak Atheists (and I quite believe this prejudice is because of 'Weak Atheism's name), it is a logically valid position to take. Despite your claims, it is the most logical stance to take.

I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise.

I recommend theism to strong atheism, and I recommend strong atheism to weak atheism.

Why? Both Theism and Strong Atheism make faith statements, which by their nature are unevidenced and unsupported.

Again, I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise (in this case, by presenting supporting evidence and/or rationale for theism).