Christ Centered Gamer

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2014 ... eism/31345" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesting article, although I disagree with #7. For many, Atheism IS a religion. That tends to be the anti-theist segment, but it's not the logical absurdity this author casts it as.

This isn't the article I was planning to link, but I'll search for it later when I have more time. In the meantime, it seems a decent overview of how atheism can be looked at as a religion.

EDIT: Here's the article I had in mind originally. I don't agree with all of it, but it does go through a systematic analysis that's worth thinking about.

Now I'm just waiting for Arch to go to battlestations

Nope nope nope nope nope.
No.
No No No.
NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoBotmon.
No.
Nao.
Nope.

You first article redefines religion to match it's point and even gives a nice little box all to ourselves... "double-negative religion".
Across the board, religion is defined as a belief in the divine and the organized structure of it's worship and adherrance.
You can't just redefine it because it makes it convenient for how you think words work. Atheism simply does not work as a religion. There is no set of beliefs. There is no dogma. No worship. No adherence of moral principles. Religion is not just a position on the supernatural. A fear of ghosts is a position on the supernatural and the afterlife, but it does not constitute a religion. If you warp the definition so much to meet whatever point you care to make, you loose the efficacy of the word itself.

The second one's even worse that the first. Using the legal imperative where non-religion gets religious protections under the first amendment? Wat.
Darwinism as the "creation myth" of atheism? Are you kidding me?
Atheists have religious experiences because we enjoy a freedom from religion? Do you mean to sell their "spiritual experiences" short?
I can't even go further. I'm getting furiously mad at the absolute crap that Daniel Smartt is putting out. Standard creationist swill: intellectual dishonesty to promote their own ends. Is there no shame? It seems like sort of dishonesty is justified as long as it promotes their worldview.
God, and they want to pretend they have the moral high ground. People like Smartt disgust me.

What is it with picking on the atheists lately? Can't we all just get along?

ArchAngel wrote:Religion is not just a position on the supernatural. A fear of ghosts is a position on the supernatural and the afterlife, but it does not constitute a religion.

I wouldn't mind exploring this a bit more Broamir, if you wouldn't mind. Is it possible to believe in the supernatural or the unexplained (meaning ghosts, angels and/or demons, not "is there's life on other planets" unexplained) and still be an atheist?

Sstavix wrote:Is it possible to believe in the supernatural or the unexplained (meaning ghosts, angels and/or demons, not "is there's life on other planets" unexplained) and still be an atheist?

Yes.

ArchAngel wrote:

Whee!

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Is it possible to believe in the supernatural or the unexplained (meaning ghosts, angels and/or demons, not "is there's life on other planets" unexplained) and still be an atheist?

Yes.

So are ghosts souls without a body? Or if not disembodied souls, what are they?

Sstavix wrote:

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:Is it possible to believe in the supernatural or the unexplained (meaning ghosts, angels and/or demons, not "is there's life on other planets" unexplained) and still be an atheist?

Yes.

So are ghosts souls without a body? Or if not disembodied souls, what are they?

I recall reading about a theory called Quantum Immortality, which posits that our energy carries some essence of us after death or some such. Maybe that's one way.

/admittedly doesn't know jack about Quantum Mechanics

Sstavix wrote:So are ghosts souls without a body? Or if not disembodied souls, what are they?

I guess. I mean, I don't believe so, and it seems illogical to me, but it's possible to believe that and I think some do.

Deepfreeze32 wrote:[I recall reading about a theory called Quantum Immortality, which posits that our energy carries some essence of us after death or some such. Maybe that's one way.

/admittedly doesn't know jack about Quantum Mechanics

Never heard of quantum immortality. Sounds like it has nothing actually to do with Quantum Mechanics, and more like Deepak Chopra bs. But, it's a potential belief for atheists.

Actually, I mis-remembered. I confused it with a Star Trek episode I recently watched. XD

I was thinking of this, which is more involved with the many-worlds interpretation.

From wikipedia, emphasis mine:

Unlike the Schrödinger's cat thought experiment which used poison gas and a radioactive decay trigger, this version involves a life-terminating device and a device that measures the spin value of protons. Every 10 seconds, the spin value of a fresh proton is measured. Conditioned upon that quantum bit, the weapon is either deployed, killing the experimenter, or it makes an audible "click" and the experimenter survives.

The theories are distinctive from the point of view of the experimenter only; their predictions are otherwise identical.

The probability of surviving the first iteration of the experiment is 50%, under both interpretations, as given by the squared norm of the wave function. At the start of the second iteration, if the Copenhagen interpretation is true, the wave function has already collapsed, so if the experimenter is already dead, there's a 0% chance of survival. However, if the many-worlds interpretation is true, a superposition of the live experimenter necessarily exists, regardless of how many iterations or how improbable the outcome. Barring life after death, it is not possible for the experimenter to experience having been killed, thus the only possible experience is one of having survived every iteration.

Deepfreeze32 wrote:Actually, I mis-remembered. I confused it with a Star Trek episode I recently watched. XD

Oddly enough, I was going to ask if it was possible if ghosts were merely really strong memories tied to a place due to extreme emotional reactions... but I think that may have been in a "Doctor Who" episode!

ArchAngel wrote:

Sstavix wrote:So are ghosts souls without a body? Or if not disembodied souls, what are they?

I guess. I mean, I don't believe so, and it seems illogical to me, but it's possible to believe that and I think some do.

Let's take a step backwards - do you believe that people have souls? Or that a soul even exists?

No, why would I?

ArchAngel wrote:No, why would I?

Just in case you happen to be of the mindset that there was some sort of existence of souls, or angels, or demons, without any direct central leadership. I've heard that approach before (generally not from people who describe themselves as atheists, but they do believe that there is no God - or he's so removed from the situation as to be rendered irrelevant). I didn't think you'd be one of those, but I had to check.

So, do you believe in ghosts? And if they aren't disembodied souls, what do you think they are?

No, definitely not ghosts.

But I LOVE ghost stories.

ArchAngel wrote:No, definitely not ghosts.

But I LOVE ghost stories.

It's a timely discussion right now, isn't it?

So, if not ghosts, what explanation do you have for supernatural sightings? After all, many people have experienced things that they just can't explain, and seems to stump science.

This is a fun thread.