Could Atheism be technically considered a religion?

page: 5
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProfessorChaos
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Hmm, that's an interesting question. While I have no reason to believe that it has ever happened, I couldn't honestly say that it could never happen. That would require me to have knowledge that is FAR beyond me.


I thought this was the most truthful answer you could have given.




posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:16 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Actually, the only "clear" thing about the platypus is that it is a platypus.

and I think that my answer was pretty clear. I said I couldn't honestly say that one species turning into another could never happen.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:18 PM
link   
Atheism imho, in and of itself, is not a religion. However, some atheists can indeed be religious. A lack of belief in god does not preclude one from being religious about what they actively DO believe.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

Yes, you sidestepped the hard part beautifully.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:22 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Nope. No sidestepping necessary. A platypus is a platypus. What was it before it was a platypus?



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PrplHrt
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

Yes, you sidestepped the hard part beautifully.


Maybe so, but I won't. The platypus as you even said is definitely a mammal, one of the five species of monotremes.
Egg laying mammals.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

Either a bird/reptile or a mammal. If you're afraid to go there that's okay.

The path is treacherous, isn't it? God might get pissed. Don't tiptoe onto the plank. You might not make it back.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:28 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


No reason to be rude about it. My disagreement is in no way an indictment of your beliefs.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:30 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


Also, saying that it was either this, this or this doesn't offer any proof, it offers conjecture as to what the platypus may have been if it had evolved into what it currently is.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

I'm sorry. I despise cowardice, especially on the part of those who claim God as their champion.

You are so afraid of offending (insert party here) that you will not even commit yourself to a definitive answer using the planet's most ambiguous species.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:36 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


I gave a very definitive answer to your question. You on the other hand haven't specified what the platypus was before it was a platypus. You responded with conjecture and followed up with insults.

I am not afraid of offending people, what I am doing is what in civilized places is referred to as being "polite". It may be a foreign idea to you, and I apologize if it confuses you.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:46 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

I asked you a yes or no question and you came back with crap. You don't even think for yourself.

This is what atheists have to work with. Obfuscation. You are like eels, slithering around every hard question that comes your way.

I don't know where the platypus came from and I don't know where it's going to end up, but I do know one of us had the balls to speculate and one of us didn't.

Could have been a bird. Could have been a reptile. Could have been a mammal we know nothing about.

Christ, that was hard. May I burn in hell for thinking for myself.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:50 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 

Look at the fossil record of fish. Heck, even we modern humans are still cursed with having a tail bone. And some people have even been born with tails. Now to most people this is good enough to come to the conclusion that we once had tails. Especially when you can trace our lineage back to when we were apes through the fossil record. I'm sorry that the course of this sort of thing happening doesn't happen fast enough for you to accept it. This sorta thing takes thousands of years to happen. I still maintain that the denial of this is willful ignorance. No offense.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:53 PM
link   
reply to post by PrplHrt
 


If reading comprehension was your strong-suit, you would have seen that I clearly said I could NOT say that a species could NEVER become another one. translation: No.

If you can't tell me which one it was, how do you KNOW it ever was ANY of them? You don't know, you BELIEVE it was one of those, therefore, your answer is conjecture. It isn't an insult, it's a fact.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 06:55 PM
link   
reply to post by JayinAR
 


None taken. Discussions like these (particularly on the internet) should have no cause to offend anyone.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Technically ? No
Do some professed atheists become fundamentalists in the "cause"? Yes,. Almost religious indeed.

At that point they can be more clearly defined as anti-theist.

Atheism in its base form is not coherent philosophy or religion, it is simply an observation that no evidence for the (actual) existence of deities can be shown.

Apply rational thinking and logic to that statement and you have an atheist. Any other outcome requires faith and/or belief.

Yes, incidentally, deities all of them since the beginning. I don't play favorites based on which deity is currently popular.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


an observation that no evidence for the (actual) existence of deities can be shown.

That sounds more like the observation of an agnostic than that of an atheist. I feel that many atheists actually, and actively, reject the belief that God exists.

Other than that, I feel your post was "spot on".

See ya,
Milt



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by BenReclused
reply to post by Noncompatible
 


an observation that no evidence for the (actual) existence of deities can be shown.

That sounds more like the observation of an agnostic than that of an atheist. I feel that many atheists actually, and actively, reject the belief that God exists.


In reality there is only agnosticism - - - which basically means "you can not prove god nor dis-prove god".

Atheist only indicates which direction you lean.

Same for theist.



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:38 PM
link   
Apologetics

wiki.ironchariots.org...




If you truly believe that there is no god, how is that different from believing that there is a god?

Both are positions on a fundamentally religious question that must ultimately rest on faith. Therefore, atheism is just another form of religion.




Religion


As an uncountable noun, religion is a "way of living" or the set of customs or rituals that follows from such beliefs.


I believe it is a form of religion or at least a philosophy. My question to Atheist would be, where did we come from?
edit on 12/2/2012 by BrokenAngelWings33 because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2012 @ 10:57 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfessorChaos
 


As long as the atheist holds the label atheism and fights under the ideal "God does not exist" by always keeping his foot in the proverbial religious ring, yes he is acting religious. If there are atheist or humanist billboards telling people what they should dong concerning matters of thought, yes it is being religious.

A real atheist would banish all ideals in favour of his own, not in the plight of another group-think.



edit on 2-12-2012 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
15
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join