It's official: atheistic fundamentalism exists.

[Nubclear]

If someone is aware that the nature of their moral system is the way you say it is I think they would generally not claim to have a moral system.

Perhaps, but it would still be a moral system.

If we have principles we believe that they are universally true. That doesn't necessarily mean that we don't accept that others wont believe in them, but we believe that there is something about those principles that are more important than ourselves or any other individuals. This is similar to the belief in God.

It is similar in the sense that you are believing something, yes.

There is still be moral belief that laws should be rational. This seems to be independent of satisfying personal desires. Isn't it a moral principle?

A) A person must desire for laws to be rational in order to have a moral system that prescribes such.
B) Atheism itself does not say that laws should be rationally based. While a rationalist may also be an atheist (due to his rational way of thinking), one shouldn't conflate his rationalism and his atheism

But they may, and sometimes do, and if so they have that similar characteristic with religionists.

Sure.

Again, that's not what I call morality,

It is a belief that talks about the goodness or badness of human action...what would you call it?

Wow, our discussion is nearing its end

[Heresson]

hopefully

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Heresson
hopefully

QFT

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Heresson
hopefully

QFT

[Perfection]

Originally posted by CyberShy
I gave a few definitions of atheists, and I've already stated 1000 times that there are different kinds of atheists. Can you guys actually read?

Definitions should be universal to all things that the term applies to. It's like your putting "has airbags" into the definition of cars.

Originally posted by CyberShy I didn't give a definition of atheism, I placed an argument within a context, you pull it out of the context and reply to it.

You just flippin' said you gave a few different definitions! Come on, at least keep your lies consistants!

Originally posted by CyberShy
You should read my posts in the context of all my posts in this thread. I tried to write down how an atheist has a very clear opinion, which is totally different then an agnost, who has not such a clear opinion on this issue. I was giving examples of how atheists differ from agnosts and how they, by different examples, were typical religious people.

Except that it sucks, because numerous agnostics have clear opinions on the God issue.

Originally posted by CyberShy
Buddhism as defined by the 1st buddha had no supernatural beliefs, as in extra universal. It of course believed that there was more then we knew, but it's all a part of the reality we live in.
Original buddhism knew no creator or dualism. It just said that desiring leads to suffering and if you can get rid of all your desires you'll be rid of all your suffering and end up in the Nirvana, which is everything and nothing at the same time. And no, you can't desire to reach the nirvana.

Later on parts of buddhism have merged with hinduism.

Some varients of Buddhism may not be religion, but most of it is. I don't care to split hairs.

Originally posted by CyberShy
We're not talking about differences but about the things they share. Of course do I know the differences. I also know the differences between Thomists from India and Wahabists from SA. You think that atheism is no religion because there are differences between atheism and other forms of religion.

Atheism dosn't share anything with religion. It has no central teachings, no supernatural stuffs, no venerated figures, no rituals (the youtube thing ain't a ritual).

Originally posted by CyberShy
Religions aren't like football teams in the league, they're all the same but wear another shirt. Religions differ very very very much from each other. There are the old germanic religions, the egyptian religions, all those religions didn't believe in extra-universal gods but just described the stuff they didn't understand to a god. That's totally different from the monotheistic religions that believe in a God outside our reality.

Religions have the above stuff I mentioned, atheism don't.

Originally posted by CyberShy
I'm studying theology on a secular university. I have professors who are atheists, who are muslim, or are liberal christians and who are orthodox christians. ALL of them agree that atheism is really not the same as agnosticism. They come from The Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, all of the EU. They have visited africa, america, asia, etc. etc.
They have more knowledge in the left toe nail then you and me combined in everything we ever learned.

And all of them agree that atheism isn't the same as agnosticism.

Agnosticism isn't the same as atheism, however they are closely related and some people can be described as both.

Originally posted by CyberShy
It's not as if me, CyberShy, the lunatic, is claming this. It's well known among all experts of religion, theology, gods, ideals and cultures that atheism != agnosticism.
hence, that's why there are two terms to describe these things.

Noone is saying they are the same thing, they're just highly interelated and difficult to easily class people as exclsusively one or the other.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Tacc

But they may, and sometimes do, and if so they have that similar characteristic with religionists.

Sure.

I think that was my point.

Again, that's not what I call morality,

It is a belief that talks about the goodness or badness of human action...what would you call it?

Wow, our discussion is nearing its end

Well I just call it actions that result from biological impulses.

I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by CyberShy
"The extreme lack of validity of God in your epistimology" is not an atheistic argument. It's a agnostic argument. Atheists are SURE that there is no god. They even have arguments for that.

I am sure! I don't allow the piddly little logical possibility to make me unsure about things. I confidently step outside without fear that the ground will suddenly dissappear even though the logical possibility exists. As you can see, my agnostic and atheist concepts are linked here and clear classification is difficult.

[Nubclear]

I think that was my point.

Sure.
There are many atheists that have similar characteristics with religionists.

That does not, however, mean atheism is a religion or that the atheist cannot have a moral system independent and dissimilar to religion.

[Perfection]

Hell, there are many atheists who are religionists.

[Robert]

@Provost Harrison

CyberShy: Nobody has ever given arguments for the existence of the PU or the SMC either.

Provost: Same with God, apart from some old book says he does. Well I say they do, I've just scribbled it down on a piece of paper, so they must be real!

Don't be silly, there are many arguments for the existence of God. That you don't consider those arguments to be valid or you value other arguments against the existence of God of a greater importance, doesn't mean that those arguments do not exist.

Those are arguments like:
- the first cause argument
- ID argument
- moral argument
- arguments from visions or prophecies
- arguments from miracles and supernatural experiences

The PU or SMC do not have any arguments to support their existence. There's not even a single person on earth who believes in their existence. Therefor comparing the two is ridiculous.

Relatively fresh compared to your 2000 year old arguments then!

There are arguments for the existence of God from 3000, 2000, 1000 and even <1 years ago.
Once again, you may not consider those to be valid, but that doesn't change the fact that billions of people do consider them to be valid.
There aren't even 2000 year old or 1000000 billion year old arguments in favor of the PU, and even if there were, nobody would consider them to be valid.

[Perfection]

Originally posted by CyberShy
The PU or SMC do not have any arguments to support their existence. There's not even a single person on earth who believes in their existence. Therefor comparing the two is ridiculous.

The point of parody religions is to demonstrate that you should have a set of valid reasons to believe something and to show how certain religious arguments fail. If we take the arguments you cited and dismiss them as invalid (admittedly a extremely nontrivial statement) reasonless then these parody religions demonstrate the folly of one's reasonless belief in religion (aka faith).

[Robert]

One can better compare religions to children's faith in Santa Clause in that case. Even that comparison fails, but comes much closer then the total invalid comparison with the PU.

there are at least arguments in favor of santa. He has been seen. He at least has lived in the past. People have found stuff that supposebly came from Santa.

I could argue then of course that only children who lack information believe in Santa, their parents, who have all information know that the neighbour dressed up as Santa and they bought the presents themselves. They know that Santa (Sint Nicolaas) had died about 1500 years ago. I would say that nobody knows all information about the existence of God. There are no "parents" who know the real truth about God. There's no one who claims to have dressed up as God. There's no one who claims to have supplied the miracles and the visions some have experienced.
And there are many 'parents' who still believe in God.

But once again, it's a much better analogy then the PU one. I would even say that the PU analogy only shows the complete lack of knowledge about the issue, it's a little bit an "I don't believe in Santa because the fairies gave me my gifts" argument.

[Nubclear]

I am God.
Disprove it, CyberShy, or bow down in worship.

[Robert]

I can't prove that you're not God, I don't believe you are God though, and I have good reasons for that. The best reason is that there are no reasons at all to prove that you are God.

Can you give any argument that support your claim that you're God?

[Nubclear]

I need no such evidence.

You have no basis to reject me as being your God ("oh, but I know you almost personally!"...thats kind of the point of being religious, CyberShy) and I have ample support for the position.

For instance, nobody has really known about my existence (up until now, of course). To use your example, there are no "parents" that knew about the real truth of my existence. No one has claimed to dress up as me, nor has anyone claimed the miracles that I have dispensed. Indeed, there are some 'parents' who believe in me.

Plus, there are numerous other arguments in my favour. Let us look at the universe: Everything has a cause. You can't just have something from nothing - that would be exceedingly silly. So what of the universe? The universe began to exist at some point, so how do you explain its existence? I will reveal the truth: I created the universe, hence fulfilling the requirement. Perfectly logical!

But let us take a closer look at that universe. Have you ever noticed that everything seems just right for human life? Even just the Earth itself is proof - were there not a moon there would be no life. Were earth somewhat closer, or somewhat further away, there would be no life. The chances of all this happening are very very small. There must be a designer to all this, and I am that designer.

Morality, too. Have you ever wondered where your sense of right and wrong comes from? Contrary to what other heathens and disbelievers may spread, your moral system is strong in its basic truth, and you know this in your heart. The best explanation is that it all comes from me.

Others have had visions, and others still have been blessed by my touch. Indeed, many often tell me that their mental illnesses such as depression and sadness are cured when I am in the room, and this is all due to my divine intervention.

Your rejection of me simply shows your complete lack of knowledge about the issue. I encourage you to repent It will be healthy for your immortal SOUL!