Atheism is an oxymoron.

I can only assume she views atheism as a religion.  Any other conclusions?  Arguments?

 

Views: 210

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Betcha dollars to donuts she says "Hm... I'll have to ask my pastor that one."  I got a mom who just parrots everything her pastor says and doesn't usually think it through.

That's how I found out that god was a narcissistic psychopath.  I asked a fundy about god sending bears to rip 42 children limb from limb because they made fun of Elisha's baldness.  He went to his pastor and came back with this gem:

 

"It just shows you don't mess with god's messenger."

hahaha my mom doesnt attend church!
not only your mum find atheism as religion I suppose, but we atheists treat atheism as a new religion. I hate that such attitudes... It is hard to stand apart from stereotype.

So, I have 2 people telling me atheism is a religion.  So I broke it down for them, but they still disagree.  Here's how it went.

Mom: Atheism is an oxymoron.

Me: Theism= belief in a god or gods, especially in a personal god as a creator and ruler of the world.
Atheism= rejection of that belief.
Deism= belief in a god or gods who set the universe in motion, then ceased t o interact with it
Agnosticism= you can neither prove nor disprove the existence of a god or gods; it is unknown and unknowable

Atheism is clearly not an oxymoron, or even a simple contradiction.  It is a rejection of the theist beliefs.

I don't know how everyone else views things, but here is what I think:

I hold the position of agnostic atheist.... I think that proving or disproving a god or gods is impossible, but I do not believe in a personal god AT ALL.  I especially reject the gods of organized religions.  If there is a god, the deists have it right, imo, however I do not believe in that sort of creator either.  Just acknowledge it is a possibility.  Which I have to assume is why she finds a contradiction.

Here's what person #2 says about atheism being a religion....

Him: In order for something to qualify as science it must be observable, testable, demonstrable and falsifiable. The textbooks our children are learning from are teaching that evolution is a fact. Nothing could be further from the truth. Evolution does not really even qualify as a theory. It cannot be shown (observed) to happen. It is a belief and therefore a religion. 

(We have argued over evolution for 3 days, so I wont go there.)

Me: A belief does not make a religion, however a religion is made up of several beliefs.

Him: The first definition of religion according to the Random House dictionary is: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe

Me: I don't have a specific belief in the cause or purpose of the universe. I live by the laws of nature. This is not a religion.

Him: but you believe in big bang, evolution which we have argued and you believe to be true (note the word believe) i believe to not be true therefore you still believe. it is a belief that you have, you just dont like the term religion but you know its right. religion does not always have to have God in it.

Me: Religions carry some sort of unchanging (for the most part) spirituality, supernaturalism, or mysticism even if there is no god. Religions have ideologies on how you should live your life and treat other people. It has mythologies and it has rituals.

Him: the main definition of religion was and started out as a belief. atheism is a belief, christianity is a belief both are religions

My buddy jumps in while I am gone, to try and clear up the confusion between "think" and "believe" and now the conversation has turned to the easter bunny and santa...

I quit.

Re: evolution and this guy

He acknowledges microevolution, but denies macroevolution.  He also denies it taking a very long time to happen... because the world is 6-10 thousand years old. 

                                         Facepalm

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__

Creationists love to point out that carbon dating can only go back 50,000 to 70,000 years and thus doesn't support the idea that the Earth is billions of years old.  Get him to say that, then ask him how it could go back more than 50,000 years if the Earth is less than 10,000 years old.

 

Also, as others have pointed out, his definition of "belief" makes everything a belief because it doesn't distinguish between belief based on evidence and belief based on no evidence.  See:

 

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/11/do-atheists-have-f...

 

Seriously, though, if a person is a young earth creationist, then there is no point in speaking with him at all.  He is insane.

 

http://goodatheistarguments.blogspot.com/2010/11/creationism.html

He is insane.  There is no doubt about it.  I even pointed out that his definition makes everything a religion.  He did not grasp that concept as far as I can tell.  He doesnt just say that carbon dating is only good for the last 50,000 years, he rejects it completely.  All evidence of an old earth have been falsified or improperly dated.  There is no dating technique in science that can stand the scrutiny found in the bible!!  Or something....

I have been thinking about this Lewis Black quotation since Keely posted it a few days ago.  It tells you all you need to know:

 

"What this is, purely and simply, is a clinical psychotic reaction. They are crazy. They are stone cold, f*k, nuts. I can't be kind about this because these people are watching the Flintstones as if it were a documentary."~Lewis Black, Red, White & Screwed

hahaha
Just as a side note, that carbon dating crap he's saying is bunk. Dawkins explains it very well in the greatest show on earth. There are many ways to estimate the age of an item, and usually several methods are used and a final estimate is concluded by factoring in each result. He's completely wrong to say that carbon dating is only valid to fifty thousand years. If he's such an expert, have him explain how carbon dating works. He'll have no idea, which stongly suggests he's of course talking out of his ass.
Yes, they do.  It is one of the many lies they tell.  This lie, like so many others, is subtle.  It is a lie of omission.  Religious arguments, and creationist arguments in particular, are often based on lies of omission.  Such as omitting the fact that belief and faith have more than one definition.

RSS

Events

Blog Posts

It's all Greek to me

Posted by Simon Mathews on April 15, 2015 at 4:14am 18 Comments

Free at last

Posted by Belle Rose on April 15, 2015 at 1:00am 3 Comments

Services we love!

Advertise with ThinkAtheist.com

© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service