As for me atheism is not a religion. But it is a faith. Atheists believe that there is no creator (god) but they can not prove it. People like me believe that there is a creator (god) but we can not prove it. --> F A I T H So faith and religion are two different things. Do not mix it up. Religion is the way of living that faith. I believe in god (creator). That is my faith. But which way do I follow? What is my religion? My religion could be judaism. Or christianity. Or Islam. All have the same faith but with different ways of living it. But atheists have not a way of living their faith. They just believe and that is all. Maybe some atheists created a religion, like they have rules or guidelines. And when a atheist would follow them, then it would become a religion for that person. But I have never met an atheist with a religion so far.
I believe on Allah 110% Allah is everywhere he know everything everything comes from Allah no an other
Warrichpk, someone has been raised wrong. Humming Soul, People like you believe that there is a creator (god) without proof, FAITH. Atheists don't believe that there is no creator (god), because there is no proof (NO FAITH REQUIRED TO NOT BELIVE). If GOD GETS PROOVED we will believe that and then it's no longer faith cause it has been proved. ATHEISM ISN'T FAITH. EXPLAIN LOGICALLY HOW CAN IT BE???
Let us say that I assume that in our universe stones do not exist. Yes stones. I believe in that. Then you can show me a stone and it would mean you proved it. My faith can not exist anymore because I was wrong. Now I say I assume that there is a god. I can not prove it. Now it is your turn to show me that I am wrong with showing a proof. But you can not do it. That means you just believe that there is not a god. Else just show me a proof. This is science. If you can not prove what you are thinking, it will last as a faith. And this is atheism in our example. As a atheist you believe theat there is no god. I ask you to prove it. You can not answer --> faith.
Not beliving does'nt require faith. You don't believe that there is toothfairy so you think that it requires faith to not belive that there is toothfairy. I guess you just don't know what faith is. Faith is beliving in something without evidence. So you don't belive in toothfairy or god, isn't faith just because you are not beliving in it without evidence. It's not faith it's lack of faith.
Why should we believe in your claimed non-belief? Your alleged "lack of faith" is in fact self deifying. Such a claim presumes, without evidence, that you "know" the universe enough to conclude there is no God as traditionally understood (almighty, infinite, etc). But that would require infinite knowledge of the world in order to declare, thus making you God. So you just believe in a different God, namely yourself. That alleged "lack of faith" would also require you to conclude, without evidence, that the entire material universe produced itself. But if there is nothing (no UNcaused first cause) outside that universe which produced that effect, there is nothing to prevent the conclusion that the universe itself is infinite or eternal, since there was no first cause. But those are attributes of God (infinity and eternity), meaning you must believe that the universe is God. So you just believe in a different God, namely the universe of infinite, eternal matter. Either way, you are a believer.
I believe, but that is not based on faith. I haven't said that I know where the universe comes from, nobody knows. Also you are not making much sense any more. I am not claiming that universe made itself. I say that I don't know. I don't believe in different god called the universe, universe is the universe not god. Speak in clear terms! Also I don't belive that universe is infinite. Or that matter is infinite, evidence dissaproves that. So this is the part where you should define god, what is god for you, because you god believers believe completly different things. Also a reason why it seems more irrational. If you can call anything god, (like you said I am my own god) then that term becomes obselete.
Yes, you are talking about faith, because you had just defined it as "believing in something without evidence." You believe you 'know enough' to declare there is no God (or can't be sure), and that the universe was not created by God. Both positions are without evidence, thus they are statements of faith. You can't have your cake and eat it too, or assert something while ignoring what directly follows from it. Not wanting to acknowledge or admit what your position leads to doesn't change the fact that it does. Not believing in a God external to the world, means (as above demonstrated) believing in God AS the world, either by deifying yourself or the material universe. The attributes of God (infinite, eternal et al) must be attached to one or the other. Note that I did not call "anything" God, I called a position that required something to have divine attributes like infinity and eternity, as leading to God. Either the current universe was caused to exist by a First Cause outside of itself and had a Beginning, OR, it was not externally caused to exist and had no beginning. Those are the choices. If the latter, the universe is eternal (as it had no beginning), and infinite (as the train of preceeding causes and effects never terminate at an uncaused First Cause). So the universe must be infinite and eternal, or in other words, God. So the choices both lead to God, either existing outside the universe, or existing as the universe. But there is no escaping God.
No there is not enough evidence to declare that there is god. Thus no belief is required, you don't believe. I lack of belief. Cause there is no evidence. Not believing in fairies isn't belief why not believing in god is ??? We currently can't observe beyond universe so you can't assume there is anything until proven different. It's not like I believe that there is nothing. It's default position, no belief no faith, nothing. Also you speak about universe, matter and energy. You know nothing about any of those.
Your 'position' or 'lack of belief' is based on nothing, thus it IS faith, again, based on your prior definition. You respond with more statements without evidence, meaning more faith and belief, while denying that is what you are doing. You are only reinforcing my point, and digging yourself deeper. I thought you enjoyed logic and reason, but you evaded all the logic of the above. Whatever you want to imagine as a "default" position without facing its consequences, either the world was created by a cause that is infinite and eternal, or the world itself is infinite and eternal. Since you can't escape those attributes either way, you can't escape God. PS: Since you have also admitted "I don't believe that universe is infinite. Or that matter is infinite" it means you have logically conceded the world was created by a cause that is infinite and eternal, i.e., God. Since it's been established that something exists that must have infinite and eternal attributes, if it isn't the universe, and it isn't you, it must be an external God.
Why aren't you opened to new proposals??? Also why you claim that default position is always based on faith. Faith is a pointless thing, as it's believing in things without evidence. I don't do that at all. I believe only things that are real and have evidence to prove it. Other stuff I simply don't believe like you god. Since you are not willing to learn anything new or look anything from different angle I have nothing to talk to you about. I bet you were raised as god believer, if you were raised otherwise you would be someone else. Learn through life and experience, don't be that ignorant.
You very plainly do not want to be held to account for things you assert without evidence, while claiming only the other side practices faith. The entire argument above appears to have swished way over your head. Very well, since you appear to be talking to the mirror at this point (accusing me of what you are guilty of), as well as being unable/unwilling to rebut the logic presented to you, this exchange is hereby adjourned.
I don't assert anything without evidence, that is also the reason I don't assert that there is god. Your logic is circular reasoning.
We already covered this. As I said: "Yes, you are talking about faith, because you had just defined it as "believing in something without evidence." You believe you 'know enough' to declare there is no God (or can't be sure), and that the universe was not created by God. Both positions are without evidence, thus they are statements of faith. You can't have your cake and eat it too, or assert something while ignoring what directly follows from it. Not wanting to acknowledge or admit what your position leads to doesn't change the fact that it does." You also previously flat out asserted "programmers know there is no God," but have since retreated to "I don't know God exists" once you were called on it. Court re-adjourned.
You claim that there is god without evidence. People made up god phenomenon makes so much harm in the world. Programmers are better at logical thinking thus I would assume that they wouldn't accept absurd proposition of existence of god.
Humanism is not a religion. This is from Wikipedia: Humanism is a group of philosophies and ethical perspectives which emphasize the value and agency of human beings, individually and collectively, and generally prefers individual thought and evidence (rationalism, empiricism) over established doctrine or faith (fideism). You cannot base a regime on atheism, because the only thing atheism is is the lack of belief in the existence of God. It is true that all atheists believe in naturalism, because they do not believe in anything supernatural, and therefore must accept that everything is governed by natural forces and laws, but there is nothing about naturalism or humanism that advocates the killing of others. And it seems you missed my point about the leaders of the twentieth century. They were not worse than previous leaders; they were the same brand of psychopathic monsters that humanity has seen again and again. The only reason their death toll was higher than previous leaders is because they had access to more advanced technology with which to commit their crimes.
From case law, as cited in the Wikipedia entry: "Torcaso v. Watkins The phrase "secular humanism" became prominent after it was used in the United States Supreme Court case Torcaso v. Watkins. In the 1961 decision, Justice Hugo Black commented in a footnote, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism, and others." Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda ...The Fellowship of Humanity case itself referred to Humanism but did not mention the term secular humanism. Nonetheless, this case was cited by Justice Black to justify the inclusion of secular humanism in the list of religions in his note. Presumably Justice Black added the word secular to emphasize the non-theistic nature of the Fellowship of Humanity and distinguish their brand of humanism from that associated with, for example, Christian humanism. Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia ...The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption. The Society terms its practice Ethical Culture. Though Ethical Culture is based on a humanist philosophy, it is regarded by some as a type of religious humanism. Hence, it would seem most accurate to say that this case affirmed that a religion need not be theistic to qualify as a religion under the law, rather than asserting that it established generic secular humanism as a religion." You can disagree with the decisions if you like, but the precedents clearly establish it has been considered reasonable to define humanism as a religion.