Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Their fundamental beliefs on aliens are not the same, their fundamental belief on religion is. A belief is just an acceptance that a statement is true. "There is no God" is the statement they accept as true.

{ Wrong. You do not have to be a member of a particular organized denomination to be Christian. That word is used to describe personal belief. }

You have to be a Christian. There are certain requirements and standards to be a Christian, no matter what denomination you are. You don't become a Christian just by saying THERE'S A GOD, I'M A CHRISTIAN.

{ “Your religion is a myth” is little more than a particularly forceful way of saying “your religion is not true”, which is a rejection of a claim. }

That logic makes "your religion is true" the affirmation of the claim, so what's the claim?

Their fundamental beliefs on aliens are not the same, their fundamental belief on religion is. A belief is just an acceptance that a statement is true. “There is no God” is the statement they accept as true.

You forgot the fundamental part. Its not just a belief in aliens, but a fundamental belief in what governs mankind.

I'm just saying that denying the existence of a deity doesn't fully describe what their beliefs are regarding the universe and mankind. Its like saying what's your favorite colour? and replying "its not blue" That statement doesn't answer the question. Similarly, saying what are your fundamental beliefs?" and saying "we don't believe in a higher power" only begs the question.

Right, you only have to believe certain things to be a Christian- that's what I already said. It has nothing to do with being a member of an organization. If someone were to say "there's a god, I'm a Christian", that would mean that they either don't understand the common meaning of the word or are intentionally rejecting it for whatever personal reason.

"That logic makes “your religion is true” the affirmation of the claim, so what’s the claim?"

Well, if there is such a way to distinguish between an "affirmation of a claim" and a claim, it would be that the former is the shorthand version- fundamentally, it's still a claim. If you were to say "my religion is true" ('your religion is true" is a strange phrase to use, because by saying it the speaker is also inherently implying that it's theirs as well), the words "my religion" are a stand-in for all the truth claims that said religion entails.

And by the way, many agnostic atheists will use the declarative phrase "there is no god"- of course, this is not what they literally mean, as that would be in contradiction with their stated position. It's actually very much a shorthand as well, in this case (though obviously it varies from person to person) for something like "I have no reason to act as if the claims of religions have any validity, as they have not provided evidence, and thus will act under the assumption that they are false".

{ Right, you only have to believe certain things to be a Christian- that’s what I already said. }

uh, no, you have to be baptized, first of all. Denominations argue over whether it has to be a water baptism or not, but you do have to be baptized. A convert's baptism is a specially big deal to Christians. There are physical requirements.

{ Well, if there is such a way to distinguish between an “affirmation of a claim” and a claim, }

If there is a rejection of a claim, there is an affirmation of a claim. "Your/my religion is/not true" is not a rejection/affirmation of a claim, but a claim itself, that's why you can't logically find a specific claim within it.

{ of course, this is not what they literally mean }

Right, because than they'd be an atheist, but no part of their opinion is atheist, that's why they're agnostic, which is separate from atheist and not a sub-category to anyone who understands religion. ¯\(ツ)/¯

"uh, no, you have to be baptized, first of all. Denominations argue over whether it has to be a water baptism or not, but you do have to be baptized. A convert’s baptism is a specially big deal to Christians. There are physical requirements."

Uh, no (this is fun whee), that is the requirement to join many (but not all by any stretch) structured groups of Christians who typically share a much more specific set of beliefs, along with particular meeting places and rituals. This is what's known as a denomination. Non-denominational Christianity is very much a thing, and you denying it does not change that fact.

{ Well, if there is such a way to distinguish between an “affirmation of a claim” and a claim, }

If there is a rejection of a claim, there is an affirmation of a claim. “Your/my religion is/not true” is not a rejection/affirmation of a claim, but a claim itself, that’s why you can’t logically find a specific claim within it.

Since you refuse to actually acknowledge what I said on this subject, considering that you cut my sentence off and pretended like the rest of it didn't exist, I'll go ahead and explain it in a different, shorter, easier to understand way:
The phrase "affirmation of a claim" is, by all practical measures, redundant. You're still making a claim, it just happens to be an identical claim to what someone in the vicinity/someone you brought up/a particular organization made, meaning you don't have to go into detail about it. And none of this changes the nature of the phrase "your religion is not true" to anything but the rejection of a claim. The only way it could be a claim is if the issue was strictly binary, which it isn't: "everything other than your religion" is obviously not a position.

"Right, because than they’d be an atheist, but no part of their opinion is atheist, that’s why they’re agnostic, which is separate from atheist and not a sub-category to anyone who understands religion."

And here we have another example of you restating an assertion while completely ignoring the things people have previously pointed out about it, all the while very transparently communicating the message that "I'm right because I'm always right". Fantastic.

{ Non-denominational Christianity is very much a thing, and you denying it does not change that fact. }

Just because a few fringe denominations (out of thousands) with extremely few followers declare something does not make that the official opinion. You have to be baptized to be a Christian, this is not the opinion of the Pope, this is the opinion of God and Jesus spelled out very clearly in the Bible. Listening to fringe wackjobs who in no way represent an official or even relevant opinion is how we got Mormonism.

{ The phrase “affirmation of a claim” is, by all practical measures, redundant. You’re still making a claim, it just happens to be an identical claim to what someone in the vicinity/someone you brought up/a particular organization made, meaning you don’t have to go into detail about it. }

The grass is blue.
The sky is red.
The apple is on fucking fire.

Your religion is a myth.

I pointed out a fact from a theological point of view. There is a very distinct difference between agnosticism and atheism in theology, I do not care what your six seconds Googling says.

I think the landscape makes it pretty damn clear that there isn't a consensus on hardly any specifics of the Bible's message, especially since their are so many apparent contradictions. With that being said, there is no "official opinion" of Christianity- not even the nature of Jesus himself is agreed upon by the various denominations. And to give you some perspective, I'd just like to point out that a lot of Jews past and present would very much describe Jesus of Nazareth himself as a "fringe wackjob who in no way represents an official or even relevant opinion". Many Catholics, certainly in the past but still today, would call Protestants not "real" Christians. This is why the categorization of religions has to be done impartially. When you're doing a census and a responder writes under the religion inquiry "I believe in the one true God and Jesus Christ his son who died for our sins… but I don't believe baptism is necessary and haven't done it", you can't say "well, he can't be a Christian, because these certain denominations assert so", because you don't have anywhere else to put him that makes any sense. Not to mention there many Protestant denominations who will not baptize someone until they are a full grown adult- what do you call the person before then.

The grass is blue.
The sky is red.
The apple is on fucking fire.

Your religion is a myth.

I've already very clearly demonstrated why this should not be considered a claim. You have not rebutted any of my points, and this doesn't even qualify as an argument.

"I pointed out a fact from a theological point of view."

A "fact" that you have in no way proven to be so.

There is a very distinct difference between agnosticism and atheism in theology, I do not care what your six seconds Googling says."

Literally nobody here said that there wasn't a distinct difference. Rather, we've been trying to explain to you that they are not mutually exclusive. Was one chart not enough? Here then, have some more. (Oh no, Google, the horror.)

Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
Here is the problem that constantly prevails when discussing this subject: THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFINITIONS FOR THE WORD RELIGION AND MANY OF THEM ARE VAGUE AND LEFT OPEN FOR INTERPRETATION.
You cannot say one way or the other, religion is not a concrete, single-meaning word.

I fail to see how the poster is acting as if atheism is a religion. From what I've read, the poster is merely advocating for separation of church and state.

Anyway, to answer your question, no, atheism is not a religion or a belief system for that matter. It is the disbelief in deities, nothing more, nothing less.