Current Events > Do you consider atheism to be a kind of religion?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Theres a difference between someone making a claim and the other person simply saying okay I wont believe that until you prove it, and someone making a claim and the other person saying youre incorrect, in fact the opposite is actually true.

By definition, it cannot be.

Burden of proof still remains on the person who made the initial claim. Not the person responding.

Agreed but this isnt about burden of proof. Its about whether definitively stating as a fact that gods do not exist is a belief system in and of itself.

Its the difference between saying I dont believe what youre saying versus saying that and then also going further to state This is how it actually is.

Yes, there are people doing this.

The burden of proof is on the ones making a claim; whether you make a claim X exists or Y doesn't exist, you prove it in science. Case in point, E&M theory says it's possible for monopoles to exist. Does it exist? We haven't observed it in reality yet. But we don't know so we can't say it doesn't or does exist altogether.

I never said it was a religion, only some people do treat it as such. You need to work on your reading comprehension if you want attempt to slander people with forbidden topics.

No, but some people practically treat it like one.

It is about burden of proof.

I understand burden of proof, thats not what Im talking about. If someone says to me that there is other intelligent life in the universe and I say no there isnt, I realize that they made the claim first and if were in an active debate its up to them to provide proof of that claim before I have to do anything.

That doesnt mean that my statement of no there isnt is not a belief. I wouldnt ever call atheism a religion, there would have to be way more to it than simply stating that there are no deities but I would argue that it is a belief.

Atheists dont say I have no proof so I wont believe it until I do they These things definitely dont exist. Theres some level of belief there due to that conviction.

How come we can say with 100% certainty that flying unicorns don't exist, but we can't say with 100% certainty that God doesnt?

Both things are made up fairy tales.

But I'd wager the majority of atheists actually would believe in a God if they were given evidence of it's existence.... We absolutely do say we won't believe in such nonsense unless we were shown otherwise. The problem is... No one has come up with a single piece of evidence.

There's evidence for God in many scientific fields.

But I'd wager the majority of atheists actually would believe in a God if they were given evidence of it's existence.... We absolutely do say we won't believe in such nonsense unless we were shown otherwise. The problem is... No one has come up with a single piece of evidence.

There isn't a single one. You are welcome to show me anything you believe to be evidence, and I will tell you why it's not.

If thats their position I would argue theyre agnostic then. They dont believe it due to lack of evidence but if sufficient proof was provided they would shift their thinking.

Theyre very close but that is a key difference IMO. Its the conviction to say I definitely know this doesnt exist, thats where the line is.

Full disclosure, I dont believe in an invisible higher power myself. But I also know that theres no way for me to definitively prove that there isnt something of that nature out there either. So my position is I believe what can be proven to me and I live my life based on those things, and the rest of it Im just okay with not knowing for sure.

Why? Do you have an answer to my post or not?

Because theres no way to prove it either way.

Lol the fine tuning argument and the teleological argument have been strengthened in recent years.

I'm willing to bet you have no single piece of evidence.

I'm willing to go even further it's going to be some God of the Gaps fallacy to call it evidence.

Those two are basically the same argument. And not a very good one.

The more gaps we will in science, the more your arguments weaken.

I have plenty of evidence. Specified complexity is one of the evidences. Irreducible complexity is another.

You actually don't, but it's always amusing when theists claimed they actually have evidence.

The evidence is always never actually evidence.

How are they not good? I never said they were different. Also, I never use the gaps in science to argue with. I use current knowledge of science.

I do. Try to refute my post. How is it not evidence?

You don't believe in evolution?

There's nothing to refute. You haven't produced actual evidence.

I believe evolution is a myth, yes.

I believe evolution is a myth, yes.

I gave you specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Try to focus on my posts.

I gave you specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Try to focus on my posts.

I've heard a lot of people dismiss that as an argument from ignorance

Again, that is not actual evidence.

I believe evolution is a myth, yes.

I gave you specified complexity and irreducible complexity. Try to focus on my posts.

The only way to believe that is to ignore evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_fact_and_theory

Both of which are nonsensical creationist arguments that even a cursory reading into destroys.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specified_complexity
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity