Proving all (other) religions wrong.

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 526
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
To tell me that I am nothing more or less than the rest of the universe simply tells me that I am meaningless.
Then you have missed my point. If I am right you get to decide exactly what your life means. Neither atheism nor skepticism necessitates nihilism. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@zedvictor4
Reconciliation with GOD is a very good analogy for being nothing more or less than the rest of the universe.

You give your life meaning because that it what you are programmed to do, and if that includes believing in a specific GOD, then that is absolutely fine.

My life has meaning without the need for belief in a specific GOD.

Nonetheless, should there be a specific GOD, I expect that they would be wise and noble enough to understand.
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
The good news of the Gospel is not about heaven or hell.  That misses the point. It is about reconciliation with God.  I would see no point in heaven unless there was reconciliation with God. 
We will all be reconciled with all god(s).

We are not fundamentally separate from any extant thing.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
I do in fact. You did not exist for billions of years before your birth and were quite unbothered by it so I wager when you don't exist for billions of years after your death you will find it equally untroubling. Also have you heard the good news? No god(s) are waiting to throw you into eternal torment after you die for real or imagined transgressions you can neither avoid nor understand. In fact I find the whole idea of heaven and hell to be very disquieting and I don't think Christians have much to offer that counts as comfort when examined logically whether they are correct or not. 
Well stated.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Christians have no capacity to offer comfort in death. 

They have nothing to offer in hope.

They might think that they have the truth - which I would refute.

Yet even if they were correct-  they reduce life to nothingness with no meaning - and no purpose (worship an egotistical god). 

In Christianity, my "life" only has "meaning" because I'm a servant of an "all powerful" god who doesn't need me for anything except to flatter it constantly.

IT is a cruel worldview.

And i am not trying to be mean - but when you take away hope from people (by calling them servants of a god) - you need to replace it with something of at least equal worth.

Otherwise - it is a spirit of meanness.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
I take the view that absolute [MORAL] right and wrong exists as a matter of logic.   
REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION (GNOSIS/QUALIA).

Hence, if a religion or worldview declares  ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion.
NEARLY ALL RELIGIONS DECLARE ABSOLUTE MORAL RIGHTS AND WRONGS.

ISLAM for example.  HINDUISM for example.  Let's try to eliminate these two with your "logical" methodology.

This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world.
Please name ONE.

Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. 
Please name ONE.

This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity.
WHICH IS ALMOST ALL OF THEM.

You have yet to refute this logically. 
You have yet to demonstrate this logically.
ludofl3x
ludofl3x's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 2,006
3
2
2
ludofl3x's avatar
ludofl3x
3
2
2
-->
@3RU7AL
Christians have no capacity to offer comfort in death. 

They have nothing to offer in hope.

They might think that they have the truth - which I would refute.

Yet even if they were correct-  they reduce life to nothingness with no meaning - and no purpose (worship an egotistical god). 

In Christianity, my "life" only has "meaning" because I'm a servant of an "all powerful" god who doesn't need me for anything except to flatter it constantly.

IT is a cruel worldview.

And i am not trying to be mean - but when you take away hope from people (by calling them servants of a god) - you need to replace it with something of at least equal worth.

Otherwise - it is a spirit of meanness.
Concise and cuttingly  put. Difficult to refute, too: the meaning of a Christian life is apparently to be a perfect servant to a god who created you so poorly you're born with the sentence of eternal torture, and if you kiss his ass enough he'll allow you to enter eternity to be with him...where your reward is now an eternity of ass kissing. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
I take the view that absolute [MORAL] right and wrong exists as a matter of logic.   
REAL-TRUE-FACTS must be empirically demonstrable and or logically necessary.

EVERYTHING ELSE IS INDISTINGUISHABLE FROM OPINION (GNOSIS/QUALIA).
The statement of logic is - "There are no absolutes". Or "there is one absolute".  Both are statements of a certain logic - but both are self-contradictory. Both prove logically that absolutes must exist.  It does not tell us which absolutes exist or even how we can find them. And to be honest it does not really matter that they don't. What matters is that it implies logically that absolute truth and principles and laws exist. 

Hence, if a religion or worldview declares  ipso facto that no such things exist then logically I am able to deduce that as a matter of reason, they are not the correct religion.
NEARLY ALL RELIGIONS DECLARE ABSOLUTE MORAL RIGHTS AND WRONGS.

ISLAM for example.  HINDUISM for example.  Let's try to eliminate these two with your "logical" methodology.
I would not have put Islam into the category of relativism.  Hindu of course is a religion which clearly does not believe in absolute right and wrong. It is a religion based on the notion of polytheism - many gods - many rights and wrongs - all relative depending upon which god you are serving. the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.  

Islam on the other hand, although it believes in reincarnation - also believes in ONE God. It does hold to absolute truth. I would not reject it per se on the basis of the above logic. I would need to continue my reasoning.  Please remember that this topic is asked at least I thought on the good faith position of explaining why one comes to their particular position and why one rejects other religions. It was not I believed to be a cross examination of my beliefs. I accept that the opening poster probably had an ulterior motive of demonstrating that people just accept the religion they grow up with and reject others because of the same reasoning. I accept that for part of our society this is true. But not all of it. 


This rules out most of the religions and worldviews in the world.
Please name ONE.
New Age philosophy, wicca, Hinduism, Buddhism, All the liberal forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism. Cults of Christianity like the Mormons. Atheism. Most forms of animalism, the Asian forms of religion based on worship of ancestors, etc etc. 
Not all obviously, but it certainly clears the deck somewhat. 
Please name ONE.
The ones which remain after the deck clearing - are Christianity, Islam, Ancient Hebrew (Modern Hebrew possibly - but it tends towards relativism in its Noah principles) Perhaps the JWs.  Any religion which holds to the view of ONE GOD or ONE primary Law or Principle. 
This leaves only religions and worldviews which declare absolute right and wrong and also exclusivity.
WHICH IS ALMOST ALL OF THEM.
Agreed.  It is a good way of clearing the decks. 

You have yet to refute this logically. 
You have yet to demonstrate this logically.
The logicality is consistency.  the rule of self-contradiction. You need to demonstrate that the rule of self-contradiction does not apply in the above statements. And nor that the law of self contradiction is not a helpful tool in the matters we are discussing. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
It is a religion based on the notion of polytheism - many gods - many rights and wrongs
Multiple gods =/= multiple moral standards 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.  
According to many proponents of the concept of nirvana 

Nirvana = truth

Just as  according many proponents of the Yahweh 

Yahweh's word = truth
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
The statement of logic is - "There are no absolutes". Or "there is one absolute".  Both are statements of a certain logic - but both are self-contradictory. Both prove logically that absolutes must exist.  It does not tell us which absolutes exist or even how we can find them. And to be honest it does not really matter that they don't. What matters is that it implies logically that absolute truth and principles and laws exist. 
What do you make of this statement?

Whether or not absolutes exist human beings may be incapable of recognizing them from their subjective prospective. 

How about this one?

(IF) we cannot recognize any absolute (THEN) it is functionally identical from our perspective to there being none.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Islam on the other hand, (...) believes in reincarnation 
Citation needed. I do not think you are correct.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
The statement of logic is - "There are no absolutes". Or "there is one absolute".  Both are statements of a certain logic - but both are self-contradictory.
The claim "There are no (detectable) moral absolutes, only intersubjective consensus" is not incoherent.

The claim "Science is not objective (unbiased, impervious to opinion and interpretation)" is not incoherent.

Both prove logically that absolutes must exist. 
Please demonstrate (and provide your personally preferred EXPLICIT definition of "objective" and or "absolute" and or "exist").

It does not tell us which absolutes exist or even how we can find them.
Finding them is the tricky bit.

And to be honest it does not really matter that they don't. What matters is that it implies logically that absolute truth and principles and laws exist. 
Please provide a detectable sample of a truth-claim that you believe qualifies as "absolute truth and principles and laws".
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@EtrnlVw
You have noted a couple of assumptions that need bridling:

If you understand that religions are just interpreting the nature what they observe, and there is no culture or religion that the Creator favors over another and rejects everything else
Understand? As if that is the only correct view? How does one "understand" that which is not true? Now, if you "accept" one thing over another thing, fine, but to accept all, or nothing, is to admit understanding escapes because "all" cannot, yet, be understood.

One can examine this body of knowledge
What body of knowledge. Religion does not have a  complete "body of knowledge" any more than science does.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
Any religion which holds to the view of ONE GOD or ONE primary Law or Principle.
You must be a fan of Ahura Mazda. [LINK]
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
New Age philosophy,
PHILOSOPHY =/= RELIGION

wicca,
Unincorporated eclectic rituals and traditions with no formal DOGMA.

Hinduism,
Certainly has rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.

Buddhism,
Certainly has rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.

All the liberal forms of Christianity, such as Unitarianism.
Certainly has rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.

Cults of Christianity like the Mormons.
Certainly has (even more) rules and specific punishments in the afterlife.

Atheism.
ATHEISM =/= RELIGION

Most forms of animalism, the Asian forms of religion based on worship of ancestors, etc etc. 
Most primal spiritual traditions (like SHINTO) have rituals and traditions for morality and a strong belief in specific punishments in the afterlife.
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 13,282
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Tradesecret
...the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth. 
NIRVANA = ONENESS WITH THE ESSENCE OF THE COSMOS

Christians say they believe in UNIFICATION WITH GOD after death.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME GOAL.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
...the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth. 
NIRVANA = ONENESS WITH THE ESSENCE OF THE COSMOS

Christians say they believe in UNIFICATION WITH GOD after death.

IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY HAVE EXACTLY THE SAME GOAL.
Sounding like and is the same are quite different. In The Christian position the individual remains individual. Christians never become GOD or part of God. God remains distinct from his creation. In Nirvana, the individual becomes the whole. There is no distinction.  Christian thinking is based in covenant - the one and the many. Hinduism is based in the corporate. There are no individuals in Nirvana. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Any religion which holds to the view of ONE GOD or ONE primary Law or Principle.
You must be a fan of Ahura Mazda. [LINK]
No I am not.  By the way I have not indicated that believing in ONE GOD is the only test of truth. It is but part of a journey. I have never got into Zorastianism. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Islam on the other hand, (...) believes in reincarnation 
Citation needed. I do not think you are correct.

I was referring to the knowledge I have picked up over the years. It is something  I heard along the paths. It surprised me at the time.  Since they talk about heaven and Hell. Yet, there are variants which do believe it. The citation I will get to in due course. A quick look on the internet says Muslims don't believe in reincarnation and yet some sites say they do. https://www.god-muslims.com/islam-and-reincarnation/


Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
the point of their religion is to get back to Nirvana, into the nothingness of life - It resists absolute truth.  
According to many proponents of the concept of nirvana 

Nirvana = truth

Just as  according many proponents of the Yahweh 

Yahweh's word = truth

Truth yes, but not absolute truth. 
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
Then you have missed my point. If I am right you get to decide exactly what your life means. Neither atheism nor skepticism necessitates nihilism. 
That is not true though is it? You cannot decide to be an animal. You cannot decide to be the opposite sex.  You cannot decide to be taller or shorter. you cannot decide to be smarter or not. You cannot decide which country you were born into or when you will die. 

You can only subjectively for the moment you live decide whether or not you want to make it meaningful or not. And this does not make it meaningful - not really. After all, in 100 years no one is going to know who you are and what you have done - unless you are a super important person.  And no one will care either.  Unless there is meaning to history - there is no point in attempting to improve it - or try and not repeat mistakes.  What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations? Some altruistic meaning for you is not going to hit it with others. And why should people not just do whatever they want - not regarding laws if they can get away with it? 

If there is no God and we are all but specks in a moment - then I have nothing to live for but myself.  My children - I might love - but to be honest - if I have no purpose other than what I decide myself - then morality is a nonsense.  This would mean being a narcissist, a pycho-path, a pedophile is ok so far as I don't get caught and end up in prison. 

There would be no need to help others or to restrain myself.  And no one could say otherwise - if I decide for myself what my purpose is.  The restraints of society would have no holds over me.  I would obey the laws so far as they help me - but I would break them if I could get away with it. I would not need a conscious. Whatever for? If I die and everyone hates me - so what? If I live a life in the way that I want and find enjoyment and pleasure in - then this would be my path. 

To say that my belief in God restrains me - is true.  Yet it also provides purpose and meaning and a pleasure to live, plus hope in an otherwise ordinary world.  And yet, if I were today to throw of the yoke of oppression of religion and belief - I would find no desire to do what others want me to do. I would be for want of a better word - my own god. I would make my own rules and live anyway I please- without any regard for anyone else.  This would be consistent with that position.  After all I would have a few short years - and then I would be gone - blotted out forever - having a name after you are dead is meaningless. Having children is meaningless. Who will care? If I get canceled by this generation or all future generations - who cares?  What about children and their futures? What about them? Do I want them to have a good life? I do now because  of my beliefs -and the fact that I have hope to see them again in the future. But if there is no god - then honestly, they become a burden to stop me from pursuing my own happiness.  

Psycho-path - narcisist - nut job - selfish, greedy, mental - pervert - extremist - yes- and all of the above.  

You see you might think that neither atheism or skepticism necessitates nihilism. But it certainly does not prevent it - and it certainly encourages the thinking - of "there is no wrong - there is no right - and so far as I don't get caught - who cares? It does not provide a basis for looking after a world.  OR for the future. When it says it does - it has to borrow from other worldviews because atheism is DEVOID of beliefs. Isn't? You keep saying "Atheism is a non-system of non-beliefs".  But what you never go on to address is the implications of it.  But if you have no- beliefs - you have nothing.  An eclectic mix of every other worldviews' beliefs and doctrines is a fraudulent way of living life.   
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Truth yes, but not absolute truth. 
I'm not sure I recognize a distinction. Something is either true or untrue. It is a dichotomous proposition there would not seem to be a spectrum regarding truth.

secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
That is not true though is it? You cannot decide to be an animal. You cannot decide to be the opposite sex.  You cannot decide to be taller or shorter. you cannot decide to be smarter or not. You cannot decide which country you were born into or when you will die. 

You can only subjectively for the moment you live decide whether or not you want to make it meaningful or not. And this does not make it meaningful - not really. After all, in 100 years no one is going to know who you are and what you have done - unless you are a super important person.  And no one will care either.  Unless there is meaning to history - there is no point in attempting to improve it - or try and not repeat mistakes.  What would be the point of saving the planet for future generations? Some altruistic meaning for you is not going to hit it with others. And why should people not just do whatever they want - not regarding laws if they can get away with it? 

If there is no God and we are all but specks in a moment - then I have nothing to live for but myself.  My children - I might love - but to be honest - if I have no purpose other than what I decide myself - then morality is a nonsense.  This would mean being a narcissist, a pycho-path, a pedophile is ok so far as I don't get caught and end up in prison. 

There would be no need to help others or to restrain myself.  And no one could say otherwise - if I decide for myself what my purpose is.  The restraints of society would have no holds over me.  I would obey the laws so far as they help me - but I would break them if I could get away with it. I would not need a conscious. Whatever for? If I die and everyone hates me - so what? If I live a life in the way that I want and find enjoyment and pleasure in - then this would be my path. 

To say that my belief in God restrains me - is true.  Yet it also provides purpose and meaning and a pleasure to live, plus hope in an otherwise ordinary world.  And yet, if I were today to throw of the yoke of oppression of religion and belief - I would find no desire to do what others want me to do. I would be for want of a better word - my own god. I would make my own rules and live anyway I please- without any regard for anyone else.  This would be consistent with that position.  After all I would have a few short years - and then I would be gone - blotted out forever - having a name after you are dead is meaningless. Having children is meaningless. Who will care? If I get canceled by this generation or all future generations - who cares?  What about children and their futures? What about them? Do I want them to have a good life? I do now because  of my beliefs -and the fact that I have hope to see them again in the future. But if there is no god - then honestly, they become a burden to stop me from pursuing my own happiness.  

Psycho-path - narcisist - nut job - selfish, greedy, mental - pervert - extremist - yes- and all of the above.  

You see you might think that neither atheism or skepticism necessitates nihilism. But it certainly does not prevent it - and it certainly encourages the thinking - of "there is no wrong - there is no right - and so far as I don't get caught - who cares? It does not provide a basis for looking after a world.  OR for the future. When it says it does - it has to borrow from other worldviews because atheism is DEVOID of beliefs. Isn't? You keep saying "Atheism is a non-system of non-beliefs".  But what you never go on to address is the implications of it.  But if you have no- beliefs - you have nothing.  An eclectic mix of every other worldviews' beliefs and doctrines is a fraudulent way of living life.   
None of this prevents me from attempting to make the world a better place, improve myself according to my own standards or finding meaning in my life and in my relationships with others. I don't need a god to have a meaningful life so clearly no god is necessary to have a meaningful life. 

Also so what? Let's say everything is meaningless and everyone is just going through the motions is there is no god(s)? Well that in no way tells us if there is a god or not. After all you can't demonstrate any meaning any more than I can. Meaning cannot be objectively measured unless we agree to some common standard. Ideally it should be something we both agree exists.
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I was referring to the knowledge I have picked up over the years. It is something  I heard along the paths. It surprised me at the time.  Since they talk about heaven and Hell. Yet, there are variants which do believe it. The citation I will get to in due course. A quick look on the internet says Muslims don't believe in reincarnation and yet some sites say they do. https://www.god-muslims.com/islam-and-reincarnation/
Interesting link. Of course it neither disproves any god(s) including Allah the Yahweh or the "abrahamic god" if you wish to employ a middle ground fallacy.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not trying to prove God exists or does not exist. My point was simply to convey why I have dismissed most of the religions of this world as not being capable of establishing that they are the one and true religion with the ultimate truth.  I fully accept that the ones which remain on the table - may or may not have the truth as well. But the fact is that me dismissing some or most religions has a rational basis for it. 

And it is the same reason why I am able to dismiss atheism.  
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
I don't know what you mean when you say dismiss atheism. Atheism itself is not a positive claim. It us just a failure to believe something. I don't believe in a lot of other things we agree do not exist but you don't define me by those. I would also I would like to point out that I have not equated theism with one single worldview instead acknowledging over and over that even within christianity itself there are serious differences in the belief of any given denomination or even individual. Indeed many Christians also believe in gravity and germs and evolution and the event colloquially known as the big bang. They simply propose god as the originator of all these observably existent things perhaps some that believe in none of them. My atheism doesn't define me it is just a short hand to let you know where I stand on one issue. I am in fact a skeptic first.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
I am not dismissing you - just Atheism. 

You see rather reasonable. I enjoy corresponding with you. 

Yet, on the basis of my reasoning - I am able to dismiss atheism as a worldview or something I would engage in myself. Although I am happy to engage in discussions of it. 

I don't think it is right to dismiss people just on the basis of what they do or do not believe. However I do think that what people believe or don't believe inevitably has implications in the way they live and lead their lives.  And there is nothing wrong with that. It is after all quite a consistent and normal way to live a life. 

Not all people are consistent - in fact very few people are consistent in the way they believe or not believe and they way they live their lives.  

I consider myself a skeptic as well.  Skepticism has its uses and shortfalls. 
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Tradesecret
Atheism is not a world view. 

There are agnostic and gnostic atheists. 

There are spiritual and religious and materialist atheists.

The there are skeptical atheists and those that believe in conspiracy theories. 

You can say literally nothing about an atheist's world view except that they do not believe in one particular classification of claim.
Tradesecret
Tradesecret's avatar
Debates: 2
Posts: 3,325
3
2
6
Tradesecret's avatar
Tradesecret
3
2
6
-->
@secularmerlin
If an atheist does not believe in god,  then certain implications flow. Would you disagree with that?